[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.