[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