[xnorswap]

> Preventing crimes before the happen is in general just unquestionably good

Is that satire?

In a world where as if by magic all crimes are prevented, then there is total power in the hands of those who define what a crime is, including being able to label protest as a criminal act.

Complete crime prevention is a totalitarian police state.

[JumpCrisscross]

> if by magic

The problem is the means not the ends. This magic doesn’t exist. In practice is authoritarian surveillance.

If we could kiss a mushroom and bias the universe’s dice such that crime just…wouldn’t happen, yes, that would be good, though it would also open up a plot hole of consequences we, in the real world, don’t need to worry about in general.

[shaky-carrousel]

It won't be good, as the definition of what's a crime and what is not changes due to political reasons (read corruption).

[SiempreViernes]

But to object to the statement made you need to think most laws are substantially wrong, not simply that some laws are problematic.

[sebastiennight]

What you're missing is that it is enough for one single law to be problematic.

If we had a complete, utopian set of amazing laws that provide happiness to all, and I add just one law : "All citizens have to agree with every edict, statement or choice of SiempreViernes. Expressing disagreement or doubt is a crime, punishable by exile, lynching or lifetime imprisonment."

All of a sudden this society just became a nightmare. Yes the majority of people can probably still live an OK life, but that single law has a gigantic downstream effect on happiness, stress levels of all, and life expectancy of free thinkers.

Now add the idea that you're able to perfectly prevent crime, and you now have a totalitarian surveillance panopticon in place to prevent me from even writing any doubts into my personal journal.

[onraglanroad]

Not most, maybe just one.

Consider a Schindler's List type scenario. It's a crime to help a Jew escape. Now mostly I believe in the rule of law and if I broke a law because I thought it was justified in that particular circumstance I would accept my punishment.

But in that scenario, accepting my punishment would mean I couldn't help others.

[JumpCrisscross]

Sure, which is why there is no such magic without surveillance. Which is why the hypothetical is silly.

[KaiserPro]

> Is that satire?

are you projecting your fears?

The general point of society is that there is a collective agreement that people should live by a set of rules, and if you step outside of those rules, you will be punished.

It could be simple as someone telling you off for being rude, all the way up to prison for a huge transgression.

As ever with all things human, life exists on a spectrum. on the one had you have complete anarchy, where you are on your own with no redress from others, to complete cult like rigidity, where you have no agency.

However putting barriers up in the way to stop people easily committing crime (ie locks, drink driving bans, drivers license, restrictions on what items you can call miracle cures) are noble and mostly uncontroversial. It only really becomes a controversy when it either causes hardship, or more likely it means that people who are currently profiting from a morally grey action will lose money.

[inigyou]

The agreement must not be perfectly enforced. Human judgement is necessary, which means not only the judges and prosecutors, but also the low chance that the system becomes aware of non-problematic violations in the first place.

[KaiserPro]

Yes, I think we agree on this.

Infact I would go so far to say that it requires a constant introspection to evolve society to adapt to its current environment. This would be impossible in a "perfectly" enforced system, or even a vaguely rigid one.

[butlike]

Have you considered that putting locks on things reminds people crime is possible, thus reintroducing the low-hanging fruit of opportunistic petty theft and creating a situation where the cure (locks) is exacerbating the disease (theft)?

The locks, the speed limits, the restrictions all remind one of how they're being limited; not by their own ability but rather an extrinsic force. I'm sure that this can breed subconscious resentment. I'd question if this is ultimately a good thing at all, but it IS hard to imagine a world without locks