![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
More magical thinking.
Well, not "magical". But it's related.
One of the more famous/infamous NRA slogans/bumper stickers gets ignored or made fun of because it's a truism that the other side just *can't* deal with mentally:
"If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"
For some reason, these folks have trouble grasping the concept that "laws only stop the law-abiding from doing things".
*Punishments* dictated by laws will only stop folks who think they'll get caught (another major flaw in the thinking of many people who propose laws to "fix" things).
And even then, you have to really stop and consider mindsets.
Somebody who has decided that they need to kill a bunch of people (which pretty much carries life in prison or the death penalty, depending where you are) is *not* going to *care* that there are penalties for using a gun, having a gun in the area, etc. Ditto for laws about explosives.
But the "sheep" type people can't envision someone thinking that way. So they propose laws, mandatory sentences (which really, *really* mess up the court system) and so on. All because they fail to grasp the essential truth that the folks they want to stop *don't* think the way they do.
This is a major cause of social problems. And the closer to the "majority" view most people are, the more likely that they'll have trouble understanding that "everyone" *doesn't* think like they do.
Likewise, they'll have trouble understanding that thinking differently isn't wrong.
I've got another post somewhere about folks like that assuming that people who think differently *must* be deliberately trying to be obtuse or trying to be "evil".
Writing laws based on how fellow "do-gooders" would act when presented with them always fails. Prohibition is a great example.
To be obeyed, a law needs to make it easier/more beneficial for the person the follow the law. Or else the laws will get gamed to maximize the return for the person gaming. Usually with results that the writer of the law won;t like.
Classic example: smokestack emissions rules that specified the levels of pollutants at the base of the stack.
They results in really *high* stacks, to get the pollution away from the base. Also designs that encouraged the pollution to go higher and stay there for awhile. Which turned local problems into regional ones.
Contrast this with a water pollution law from on of the Scandanavian countries. It simply required that if you discharged waste into a stream (directly or indirectly) your water intake hand to be *downstream* of the discharge point.
Suddenly, you have something easy to check, easy to do, and that means folks suddenly have an incentive *they* will go for to lower the pollution level in the discharge.
One of the more famous/infamous NRA slogans/bumper stickers gets ignored or made fun of because it's a truism that the other side just *can't* deal with mentally:
"If guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns"
For some reason, these folks have trouble grasping the concept that "laws only stop the law-abiding from doing things".
*Punishments* dictated by laws will only stop folks who think they'll get caught (another major flaw in the thinking of many people who propose laws to "fix" things).
And even then, you have to really stop and consider mindsets.
Somebody who has decided that they need to kill a bunch of people (which pretty much carries life in prison or the death penalty, depending where you are) is *not* going to *care* that there are penalties for using a gun, having a gun in the area, etc. Ditto for laws about explosives.
But the "sheep" type people can't envision someone thinking that way. So they propose laws, mandatory sentences (which really, *really* mess up the court system) and so on. All because they fail to grasp the essential truth that the folks they want to stop *don't* think the way they do.
This is a major cause of social problems. And the closer to the "majority" view most people are, the more likely that they'll have trouble understanding that "everyone" *doesn't* think like they do.
Likewise, they'll have trouble understanding that thinking differently isn't wrong.
I've got another post somewhere about folks like that assuming that people who think differently *must* be deliberately trying to be obtuse or trying to be "evil".
Writing laws based on how fellow "do-gooders" would act when presented with them always fails. Prohibition is a great example.
To be obeyed, a law needs to make it easier/more beneficial for the person the follow the law. Or else the laws will get gamed to maximize the return for the person gaming. Usually with results that the writer of the law won;t like.
Classic example: smokestack emissions rules that specified the levels of pollutants at the base of the stack.
They results in really *high* stacks, to get the pollution away from the base. Also designs that encouraged the pollution to go higher and stay there for awhile. Which turned local problems into regional ones.
Contrast this with a water pollution law from on of the Scandanavian countries. It simply required that if you discharged waste into a stream (directly or indirectly) your water intake hand to be *downstream* of the discharge point.
Suddenly, you have something easy to check, easy to do, and that means folks suddenly have an incentive *they* will go for to lower the pollution level in the discharge.
no subject
What stopped the guy in Arizona from killing and harming even more folks was not laws, but courageous individuals.
What reduced drunk driving in the US was not laws but people, many of them in MADD.
What got the fine new main public library built in downtown Lexington, Kentucky several years ago was not the law saying that be done, but the people who forced the government to follow that law.
I know it's not popular these days to portray an individual as important - especially one who's not a politician - but we still are. It's the willingness - or obstruction - of individuals which make laws work. To make society work regardless of laws.
Of course, the better the law - not just fairness but the way it is written, like that discharge law you mention - the more likely people are to work with it.
no subject
Which is why the laws that attempt to make people change have such a history of not merely failure, but actually making things worse.
*Some* such laws are necessary. But the difference between them and the "do-gooder" sort is simple.
*Necessary* laws govern behavior that negatively affects another person.
"Do-gooder" laws try to govern behavior that at worst, harms yourself.
Prohibition took a lot of small-time criminals and groups and fed them huge amounts of money. Money worth fighting over. The result was organized crime.
The war on drugs has extended this. It's actually counter to the interests of politicians and law enforcement to solve the problem, because it'd reduce their power and funding.
Just try to imagine if (somehow) we did the intelligent thing and just legalized everything. It'd chop off the dealers and distributors at the knees.
Who's gonna buy a nickel bag when for the same money they can get a week or a month's supply at the drugstore and know it won't kill them?
That'd end the money that the gangs and druglords fight over. It'd also end the smuggling. Not just of drugs, but of *weapons*.
Taxes on various drugs, just like on booze and cigarettes, would allow funding treatment and education programs. (Not that I imagine for a moment they'd limit the taxes to just that).
Yeah, that'd mean there'd be folks smuggling drugs without tax stamps, just like they do with booze and cigarettes. But ever notice that since Prohibition ended, we haven't had *violence* associated with smuggling booze?
It's not worth it. In terms of money or jail time. Losing a load is bad. But it's not insanely profitable.
Similar arguments can be made about prostitution. I'll note that Nevada is likely a *bad* model to follow. While it does get rid of pimps (one of the major evils of prostitution) the houses replace them and have a number of the same bad aspects.