Murder, rape, assault, theft, coercion...5 is a nice number.
There’s no crime in you running the red light...the crime would be if you had hurt someone or damaged something in doing so.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
Murder, rape, assault, theft, coercion...5 is a nice number.
There’s no crime in you running the red light...the crime would be if you had hurt someone or damaged something in doing so.
... but I would argue there should be a fine. Otherwise there is no incentive (in general, some may, some won't) to obey the red light ever, as long as you could get away with it. By the time I hurt someone, it would be too late? Surely the prevention of the threat of fine (to coerce people to stop) is better the application of a crime after the fact of serious damage/injury to an innocent party?
In fact, if you drove a truck , you could force others to stop. I would rather be alive than have the "right" of the law behind me!
Why should there be a fine for something that could have (but didn’t) happen?
The incentive to stop 🛑 is clear...to avoid hurting anyone and the severe consequences that would bring...I honestly don’t believe that if there were traffic lights but no fines people would just ignore them...too dangerous.
Or we could just do roundabouts and life would be easier...joking, but seriously there’s usually better ways to solve a problem/make something safer without invoking armed government thugs to take our money.
Well, technically I would say that the fine was for the red-light running, which did happen! (but I see your point!)... but what would stop a road arms race. I would be much happier running an intersection in a huge FWD (SUV, I think you call them), rather than a little hatchback? In which case, it is an issue of vehicle protection vs risk of injury (with no fine), wouldn't that become an issue of might makes right? I think most people would be careful, but there would be enough people who wouldn't to eventually bring the system down.
I would like to believe that people are more altruistic (as a whole, I know that people tend to be altruistic if they can!), but I fear that even two well-intentioned ideas can butt heads hard, leading to a potentially disastrous contest to decide which side backs down. In that case, I would prefer a third party arbiter, preferably one that had mechanisms built in to be accountable and it's power leashed. I would argue that the democratic form (that is by no means perfect!) is currently the best attempt to have that (given that it is under constant scrutiny). Or perhaps, I would better say (given that the leashing doesn't seem to have totally worked always) that other forms are in the long term potentially more disasterous...
In small societies, I do agree that people can structure themselves. I would argue the limit of this would be the size where everyone is able to know the other members.... but on a larger scale, I'm a bit dubious. We see this in public situations (even here on Steemit!), where people are more than happy to screw over someone else to gain a small advantage, essentially socialising risk whilst capitalising benefit. I wish it wasn't the case... and you can't stop people forming bigger societies either, which would have more power than smaller ones.
So, to cut a long story short! I want and wish it were possible to have what you describe, but I'm afraid my faith in the collective individual actions (none of which need to be bad intentioned) is not so strong! On the other hand, I'm happy that there are people like you who also advocate for a different view than mine!
I was just thinking a bit further!
For you and I (and possibly a good chunk of the populations) the incentive to stop is clear. But I would hesitate to project the notion (or any notion), that because we would, then most or all of the population would. In that case, it would only need a few people to cause problems, and in those cases, the people most needlessly affected would be the other party in an accident.
Man, that’s a tough argument...”one bad apple spoils the bunch” is very true. Still, I never viewed it as fair that I should be punished for what someone else did (or even worse, might do).
I think in a free society that reputation is paramount (like here on SteemIT)...bad actors could well be punished without the need for specific laws (that is, for breaking rules).
Let’s stick with the stop light...had you missed it and no cop there who would have been harmed, who would even have known the difference? I mean, you wouldn’t just fine yourself because you broke a “law” would you?
Lol...we’re getting pretty deep for a “newbie game” 🤓
Yes, I think reputation helps alot for small societies to avoid having too many laws. Unfortunately, there is no way in real life to see the reputation of a stranger, it only works in groups that are small enough for everyone to know each other already (and that has it's own problems!). But even on Steemit, the reputation is only a measure of interaction with other accounts, it isn't a measure of how "noble" someone is. Indeed, for a relatively small investment, it is possible to boost your REP to 50 (or maybe above to 60), so the REP on Steemit is a bit misleading....
No, I wouldn't fine myself (I'm not that altruistic!), but I would expect to have the consequence if I was found and noticed.