h a l f b a k e r y
Caution! Contents may be not!
idea:
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, best, random
meta:
news, help, about, links, report a problem
account:
Browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
Login
Create account.
|
|
| Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
| |
There're lots of laws of physics which would be nice to be broken. Perhaps this is why they're there? |
|
| |
Laws are only put in place to make it difficult/risky enough to discourage behaviour that would otherwise provide some material or non-tangible benefit to the behavioree. |
|
| |
So, in weighing up how difficult it might be to steal a Mars bar, or to give the shopkeeper a sum of money, I have to consider whether it's worth risking an embarrasing sprint through the high street, and an even more potentially embarrasing appearance on Crimewatch a few weeks later, vs the monetary burden of 25p or so. |
|
| |
Normally, I just hand over the money. |
|
| |
//Laws are only put in place to make it difficult/risky enough to discourage behaviour that would otherwise provide some material or non-tangible benefit to the behavioree.// |
|
| |
- not true. Laws are there for all sorts of other reasons too - public order offences are good examples of ones where the offender often doesn't gain any benefit in the commission of the offence. But in any event, this is way off the point. |
|
| |
//Normally, I just hand over the money.// |
|
| |
- that's kinda my point. Most people do. Yet *someone* will steal it. So, make something illegal that for once would provide benefit if it was done, and, by the same twisted logic, that someone will come along and do it for you. |
|
| |
It's the old joke that if you have an old bike, washing machine, etc, that you can't be bothered to take to the tip, you leave it in the street for 20 mins, look the other way and it's gone. |
|
| |
Does that work with people, too? |
|
| |
Yes if you can fit them into the washing machine. |
|
| |
//American stubbornness// Yay for American stubbornness. Meanwhile the rest of us will sit in our paddy fields discussing Racine, wearing turbans and playing the bongos until the end of the world.
Sorry everyone. Overly sensitive to parochialism, especially American fucking parochialism. Bun for the idea. |
|
| |
Neat idea. Of course some governments have already put it into practice, albeit in a narrow area. They call it the War on Drugs. |
|
| |
There is already that pesky speed limit. |
|
| |
bun .. because I like these kinds of ideas. But, in practice this would have serious problems. In order to make something illegal there has to be consequences to breaking the law. If you make cold fusion illegal - you will also have to dish out consequences. If you don't the word will spread fast. Furthermore there will be confusion...
"I thought this anti-murder law was one of those upside down laws ... that's the only reason I killed these 26 people ... otherwise I wouldn't have done it - honest" |
|
| |
[moomintroll], if it's any consolation, about 1/2 of us stubborn Americans (~150 million) are stubbornly trying to have regime change start at home. It's just not going too well. You Brits had your king George, with his imperialism. Now we have ours. |
|
| |
As for the idea, [+] for the illlogic. |
|
| |
One little problem I just noticed: If something illegal is made, no matter how good it is, the government will be forced to reject it. They would never intentionally give a double message, it's just bad politics. |
|
| |
Take away the peoples' right to be wrong; what a noble gesture. |
|
| |
[reensure] //right to be wrong// |
|
| |
- nice word play, although surely this idea takes away the 'right to be right'? (or was it not the idea to which you referred?) |
|
| |
[21_Quest] //One little problem// - hell no, look again carefully, it's positively riddled with them. |
|
| |
[coprocephalous] - I have deleted your anno for thread continuity *only* - ("//will deliberately seek out to produce the OPPOSITE effect// But we already have hot fission, so they'd be wasting their time.//"). The preceeding anno that you were rebuffing has gone, along with its author. In light of that, this anno no longer has a context in the thread. If that offends, I'll reinstate it by proxy - just add an anno at the end. |
|
| |
//Take away the peoples' right to be wrong; what a noble gesture.// |
|
| |
reensure, I keep reading this one but I'm not getting it. Can you help us out? |
|
| |
Well you are left with the option of following the law like a good citizen or pandering to the government's agenda. There is no option to be wrong. |
|
| |
A lot of people seem to like this, but it should be pointed out that to legislate against scientific research would necessitate making it punishable. And an example of a use for the Advocacy MFD is "to kill, jail, or tax all people who do X". |
|
| |
Also, the Catholic Church did this for centuries. This isn't a particularly new idea. |
|
| |
Wasn't it Richard Nixon who abolished the position of presidential advisor (PSAC: the President's Science Advisory Committee) ostensibly due to the committee's antiwar stance, but to a lesser acknowledged degree due to some idea that market forces would drive technology better than basic research? |
|
| |
hiddentruths, thanks for the clarification. |
|
| |
mfd for advocacy? But I didn't mention any punishments. In fact, if the (il)logic works then they're not necessary - so long as it's illegal it will still get done. So there's no suggestion whatsoever "to kill, jail, or tax all people who do X". If someone wants to give them a Nobel Prize for it, that's a different matter. |
|
| |
Taking away the right to be wrong? No, all existing law would still remain, so take your pick. |
|
| |
Same idea as the Catholic Church? Hey, since when did they try a sleight of hand whereby one draws a false conclusion from seemingly sound premises? Oh, hang on... |
|
| |
Of course it falls apart if you look too far into it, but that's why I the conclusion I drew was (il)logical. |
|
| |
Admittedly the Church had different motives. |
|
| |
Your illogic runs that making something illegal will inspire someone to rebel and do it. Even if you desire that result, it is still necessary to punish the person who did it (jail, fine, etc.), otherwise the whole charade becomes transparent, and any benefit is lost as the rebellion factor is removed. |
|
| |
Actually, I wasn't looking too far into any possible motivation behind breaking the law (hell, I wasn't looking too far into any of it). Maybe someone will still break the law simply because it's there (regardless of image), to show that it can be done, etc. |
|
| |
Yes, the lack of punishment could spoil the charade, but I think people would probably spot it in advance if we really had laws banning all "the things that would make life better". |
|
| |
The (il)logic I was exploiting was that if the law exists it gets broken *regardless* (if you make it someone will break it), but I'm sure if someone could be bothered they'd find an existing law somewhere that hadn't been broken yet and smash that assertion to smithereens (you know I've always wanted to use that word, first time ever). |
|
| |
I can see why someone might try to break a law of science just to prove they can. I doubt the same would be true of legislative rules. If that is the response you are searching for, you would be better off getting a group of top scientists to decree that these things are physically impossible to accomplish. Then someone might try to do them, to prove that it can be done. Legislating against them would only give the message that you shouldn't do something, not that you can't. |
|
| |
I was presuming that there would be degree of subtlety in this. Staggering it over time perhaps or spinning the Acts to make them look like good things. |
|
| |
I recognise the logic, but I was under the impression that it related to idiot-proofing things, not to punishing people for doing your will. |
|
| |
And if you're looking for some laws that you might be having first crack at, here you go:
part of s28 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 seems pretty novel. It is an offence to be slaughtering or dressing any cattle in any street if it causes obstruction, annoyance, or danger to the residents or passers-by. (What fun bedside reading material I have) At the least you'd probably be the first to do that in a while.
Or you could take a crack at Murphy's. |
|
| |
I'm still not gonna punish them for doing it. |
|
| |
Town Police Clauses Act 1847 - I know a police sergeant who tried to pursue as many of these as possible during his probation. They're not novel, quite the opposite. |
|
| |
There are some weird and wonderful offences in there (some of which still get used today), but I seriously doubt that any were left unbroken at the time the act was worded. |
|
| |
Breaking Murphy's law - nice. |
|
| |
Staggering over time? We want it all and we want it now! |
|
| |
There's little subtlety in this one - just the empirical observation that whenever an instance of A exists, B seems to occur. Let's see how far it stretches. |
|
| |
By the way, can I borrow that copy of Stone's Justices' Manual when you've finished with it? |
|
| |
Although I'm sure I should have read it, I'd never heard of Stones before you mentioned it. Actually it was Blackstone's Statutes on Criminal Law. It took me a little while to find an Act obscure enough. |
|
| |
How about one of the more obscure sections of the Hypnotism Act 1952 then. And it wouldn't necessarily be that section of the 1847 Act that there were cases on, although I'm sure there are. And there would have to be unbroken laws if those "obscure laws" lists are at all legitimate. |
|
| |
Hmmm, you're really determined to kick this to death aren't you? |
|
| |
It's just occurred to me that if I'm right then the laws need only to exist to get broken, *but no one needs to know that they exist*. (Yeah, yeah, I know that screws the title, but 'Mere existence of a law means it will get broken Led Research' somehow isn't as catchy.) |
|
| |
So, the ultimate test (clickety-click, tap, tap, tap, thank you sir, yes just sign there, oh, and there, great). |
|
| |
Right, 'tis done. It's now illegal for ITV to make a comedy that's actually funny. No, don't bother checking the statute, it's all hidden away (reasonably assumes that no itv execs are reading this). |
|
| |
That should do it. If *that* law gets broken, then this idea can achieve absolutely anything. |
|
| |
"Instead of giving money to found colleges to promote learning, why don't they pass a constitutional amendment prohibiting anybody from learning anything? If it works as good as the Prohibition of alchohol did, why, in five years we would have the smartest race of people on Earth."
-Will Rogers |
|
| |