Hacker News Reader

Benjamin Franklin's quote comes to mind here:

They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

Everyone realizes perfect enforcement of crimes related to rape or murder would be "great" in the sense no one wants that. However, the risks of those crimes happening to you are very minimal today and dropping every year in the U.S. Most victims of those crimes are placed or place themselves in situations that bad things can occur, think drug violence.

In order to combat the stuff you mentioned we would essentially lose the liberty to make mistakes as a society. For example, if I want to smoke weed, and do. I'll go to prison. Today, I get a ticket.

Or let's take an even more exterem case, say I am a 16 year old male and my 16 year old girlfriend texts me a picture of her breasts. We both would be labeled paedophiles for life, and got to prison.

There are literally millions of laws, to the point no one can keep track. If we made "Perfect Enforcement" we would all be jailed, for crossing the street without a sidewalk, for texting a friend a picture of a statue (copy right violation), potentially for being gay, etc.

We don't live in a society where people want to protect your freedom to not be physically hurt. We live in a society which tries to ensure people don't get physically, economically, socially, emotionally, hurt. This leads to many contradicting laws, and makes it impossible to both be free and secure at the same time. If we enforced "Perfect Enforcement" there would only be a totalitarian Enforcement force that doesn't follow laws, and the imprisoned populace who at least tries to follow the laws.

That's why the founding fathers added the bill of rights. They understood this, and sadly 200+ years later it appears our society is still incapable of understanding it.

What Benjamin Franklin said, and what you (and many people) believe he meant, are complete opposites[0]. The "essential liberty" he was referring to was the right of the government to form a collective defense against Native Americans, and the purchase of "temporary safety" refers to state assemblies and private landowners refusing to fund that defense.

What was intended to be a pro-statist argument has been turned into an anti-statist warning, which it was never intended to be. I'm not saying the "revised" interpretation isn't valuable - it just shouldn't be argued from the authority of Benjamin Franklin (or, by extent, the intent of the founding fathers) when he was complaining that people weren't sufficiently funding the military industrial complex of the time.

[0]https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said

You don't deserve the downvotes, this is quite interesting. Reminds me of "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theatre", in that its historical context in misinterpreted in light of modern sensibilities.

I vote we do this instead:

"Those who give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety will deserve neither and lose both." -Unknown

That version of the quote is one Franklin never actually said, so it can't accurately be attributed to him and we can avoid having to care about what he actually meant. Because the thing in the linked post clearly isn't what anybody else means when they use that quote.

Benjamin Franklin's world is so utterly different from ours because of where they were on the technology curve then, he may as well be talking about a different universe.

Maybe if you live in a suburb in the Netherlands and are part of a privileged socioeconomic class, these risks are low to non-existent. How about the billion plus people who don't even have electricity today? How about those who have nothing to give to the global economy because they're unemployable, cast aside, and lack technology, do they not live in risky environments and engage in risky behaviors as a matter of course through no fault of their own? Are there not entire countries of people getting pwned in every sense of the word by more powerful entities, right now, as we speak? Used up and then left to perish? No matter what the statistics, these poor victims are somebody. They're real people. "Oh, but that crime is so rare (for someone like me)"

What about slave trade? Our "low crime" existence in first world countries isn't made possible by rampant crime and resource domination on the other side of borders? From where I'm standing, it looks to me like a lot of assholes are not only getting away with murder and ecological destruction, they're getting rich off of it, despite any and all laws to the contrary.

How does making law less enforceable by embracing shadows (lack of transparency) in our age of accelerating technological change make life better for the majority (all living things)? Unfortunately the American Bill of Rights doesn't mean shit unless it applies to everyone. American business and government as a matter of course commit atrocities that are against it and nothing happens merely because those atrocities aren't (directly / provably) against Americans.

As a response to all the other children posts of this thread, I'm not saying let's maintain the status quo, plus perfect enforcement of the law. I'm saying we're entering a new age and shit needs to get revamped badly. Transparency in all things public would be a big step towards ridding our world of many evils that happen right now because powerful actors always have and will continue to act in the shadows while humanity, as a group, agrees to put up with it, er because e.g. preteens are sexting each other and as a result, the current utterly draconian and provably corrupt & massively inefficient law system has destroyed their first world lives. That really, really sucks. You know what sucks even worse? Being born or sold into sex slavery.

Simplify the law, make a universal bill of rights for all living things. Make it global. Automate and enforce it. For everyone. Obsolete the time when you could kill disenfranchised people and get away with it 'because high-priced lawyers'. It's hard for me to see how that could possibly be worse than what we have today, where the few get a nice life and all the rest are grist for the mill, to be used up.

>How does making law less enforceable by embracing shadows (lack of transparency) in our age of accelerating technological change make life better for the majority (all living things)?

The people you mention (the billions of global poor) get by, and live somewhat free, because of the law being less enforceable.

All of them break this or that law in order to make ends meet and survive. And those laws are compiled and passed by people who'd rather get rid of those poor altogether.

Again, to quote Anatole France: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread".

More enforceability of the law will mean more people at the mercy of the law -- and more people in jail, undeservingly so.

Not to mention that this whole discussion presumes "ethical laws" -- which is far from the truth in most of the world, include the BS us "three strikes laws" (which can put a man, usually a poor and/or black one, in jail for life for stealing a loaf of bread if they've done 2 equally BS offences in the past), marijuana laws, sodomy laws (until recently), etc.

> it looks to me like a lot of assholes are not only getting away with murder and ecological destruction, they're getting rich off of it, despite any and all laws to the contrary

(1) You are comparing murder to ecological destruction. To me that seems like you're ethical code compares the two, which I have to question. Ethically, to me, creating a dam to give water and food to millions is better than murder....

I realize that's probably not the case, you were thinking of, but you should consider what you think of as right or wrong, then imagine the exact opposite. Do you want those perfectly enforced?

(2) Usually, the people you don't like are using laws to get away with ecological destruction. Perfect enforcement would only make it worse.

>I think the peace of mind that you and everyone you'll ever know will never get disappeared into someone's rape dungeon doesn't seem so bad. Or that you can go into business and actually win because you're doing it better, because your competitors aren't in bed with government, corruptly and systematically destroying the possibility of competition.

A society in which law enforcement will be perfect (from a technical perspective) is not the same as a society in which the law is perfect.

Nor is a police having "100% capability of catching thieves, etc" the same as a police catching "100% of thieves".

The police could have all the tools on their disposal to catch anyone, but the political leaders of the police, and those influencing policy, law and enforcement, will still be the same higher-ups with self interests.

And of course any bevelonce in the use of such powers is just a regime change away from being lost -- not to mention that such powers would make it more tempting for the elite get dictatorial powers, and more difficult for the people to get rid of them.

Among other things, to quote Anatole France: "In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread".

Without much turbulent political history to draw upon (compared to a place like Germany or Italy) Americans are quite naive on such matters, especially white ones (even though McCarthyism, or J.E Hoover, or Nixon are there as examples, along with many others, like the recent SWATization of police forces, ridiculous 3-strikes laws etc). Black Americans on the other hand, of who people between 60 - 80 still lived in legal segregation, and who still get show for "walking while black" among tons of similar injustices, know better.

Too true. 100% enforcement of the law is only as good or as bad as the law itself.

I am absolutely not trying to espouse 100% given the current state of law / government in most countries, where the expression of the few, the powerful, expression which is contrary to the interest of the many, and quite frankly, contrary to the law as most people know it (e.g. current blatant human rights violations in America), somehow is always permitted by law and any counter-measures are preemptively disabled.

In other words, any government susceptible to corruption plus 100% law enforcement is a dead end.

In The Culture series, the achieved a paradise by virtue of infinite resources, but still respected the right of the individual to privacy, even though they easily had the ability to spy very invasively. Plus, it relies on perfectly benevolent supercomputers.

In the real world though, power corrupts, and those with power have much more ability to harm then those without.

To reduce harm the disenfranchised, we need to raise them from poverty. To reduce harm from the powerful, we need to strictly curtail their ability to enforce their whims.

We say that power corrupts but we don't really know what we mean by that. By this I mean it may be incredibly difficult; perhaps beyond us. The examples we have - the French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution - lead us to Burke.

Not only is the Culture series post-scarcity, it is post-singularity as well. It is so different from our current world that I'm surprised someone brought it up seriously in a policy debate.

In creating such a society we are placing ourselves in chains and handing the key to some trusted third party. Maybe we wont be abused at first but given a hundred year time scale the probability of abuse approaches 1. How many of the US presidents over the last 100 years would you be comfortable giving this power to?

>"Perfect enforcement" sounds only as horrible as the culture behind it is, to me.

But we know how terrible the culture behind it is. We have thousands of years of history. "The strong do as they please and the weak suffer as they must."

>And does perfect enforcement really mean minds can't changed, that the law can't be changed after it's created if it's understood that actions X, Y, or Z actually aren't against the universal bill of rights for living entities?

Whoever holds the reins of power can make of the law as they see fit. At this level of power imbalance laws don't really exist, "L'etat c'est moi".

What the hell?

> "Perfect enforcement" sounds only as horrible as the culture behind it is

Historically, the "culture behind it" has looked pretty damn awful once time or distance give us some perspective.

> Turning away from that is to embrace and make a home for the devil we know---corruption, physical and sexual domination of the weak by the powerful, environmental devastation, rampant species genocide, etc etc etc.

Culture frequently and reliably endorses these things and worse. Corruption, cheating, and coercion are fetishized in today's business environment -- just look at the arguments over Ben Affleck's boiler room speech on youtube -- and historically it has been worse. It's not uncommon for entire countries to get behind genocide or slavery.

If you assume, in direct contrast to extensive historical and contemporary evidence, that culture is easy to get right, to fix, or to keep fixed, then your conclusion about perfect enforcement might follow. But that assumption is so utterly absurd that I don't think even the dullest lawyer Satan could get his hands on would make it the core of their argument.

Classical slavery was an answer to "what do we do with the people left over after conquest?"Of course, the transition to kings from judges in the Old Testament ( which I use because it's one of the few written artifacts left from then ) led to various prophets decrying the hubris of conquest. This hubris led to things like the Temple falling

American Peculiar Institution slavery was a widening of the scope of Iron Triangle trade in the Carribean by rapacious Mercantilists.

And to your last point, there's the line from "A Man For All Seasons" - "It'd give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake."

How do you decide what is right and what is wrong? I don't think a world where you can only act with 'permission' from a certain group pf people is sustainable or enviable. It's surprising how little people agree on with regards to the fundamentals of virtue.

That is such a rare situation. But we have so much evidence the other way. E.g. automated toll collection systems could have been designed as cash but instead are tied to a vehicle and user. And thus their collected data are subpoenaed for other uses from speed tickets to divorce evidence.

It's not even a slippery slope: as the systems are deployed those use cases are built in.

Its not culture, its the human nature. Rape will exist, Theft will exist in any culture. They have existed in pre-monetary world.

In a world of Fiat currency, Cashless Society is the Orwellian end game.

I think that you are vastly overestimating the risk of crime. My guess is that your risk perception, like that of many people, has been warped by watching too many tv shows where dramatic things are always happening.

>I think the peace of mind that you and everyone you'll ever know will never get disappeared into someone's rape dungeon doesn't seem so bad.

Unfortunately total government control means that you'd always be at the risk of being disappeared into the government's rape dungeon.

>universal bill of rights for living entities?

Who decides what's in that universal bill of rights? What happens to those who inevitably disagree with whats in that bill?

>Just also don't do stupid shit like control the expression of two consenting persons just because what they're doing is not your cup of tea. Is this really so hard to differentiate between?

Yes, unfortunately it is. Many, if not most people (and virtually every government), on the planet earth not only have no problem controlling the expression of two consenting persons, they are happy to do so with the threat of force. Who decides what a government with absolute power should or shouldn't do. Is it you? Is it the mullah in Pakistan? Is it the point heads in Washington DC?

>Sure, freedom is about being able to do what you want with your life, but it also means being able to do it safely, without the fear of getting pwned.

No, that's the opposite of freedom. In a free society, you have a risk of getting pwned. In a Totalintarian society (like the one you describe), your lack of freedom makes you pwned by definition. In a free society, people are free to make bad choices. Any sort of society that is oppressive enough to preemptively prevent behavior must have total control over all behavior - the very antithesis of freedom.

A world where crime is not possible might be psychologically devastating for a large amount of people.

Assuming a somewhat symmetrical distribution of competence, about 50% of people will be less competent than average. Many of these people will need someone to blame for their failure, and usually it's "these guys over there don't play fair!!!". Imagine a world where these people are faced with conclusive proof that they just suck at what they're doing.

Generally I agree with the (mountain of) historical evidence people are putting forth for why transparency in public interactions is a bad idea, won't be a positive net change. Personally, I'm pretty cynical about the possibility of new systems of government via technology-enabled change / new methods of control & automation. It's very concerning though when a group like HN is predominated by the cynical "it can't be helped", "it's just the way it's always been, always will be" notion.

I also have healthy respect for the idea that with new technology, new highs / quality levels are attainable. Obviously mankind needs a new system of government (or correctly implement an instance of "capitalism"). Why can't complete transparency in public communications be a feature? (that includes anything with a $ sign attached to it.)

Imagine you're cleaning / renovating your house and there's this black box in the corner of a room, you can't get inside it by any of your normal means, and the black box is dumping shit onto the floor. It doesn't care about house rules or respond to any communications you try to make. Now imagine you could, through technology, enable a way of looking inside the black box, being able to find the proof you need to be able to say with complete ethical certainty that it needs to fuck right off, and evict it. What do you do? Do you turn away from that technology, hold onto the dream that maybe the black box should be allowed to dump shit onto the floor for perfectly valid reasons that we don't know about inside? Only because that technology means other things in the house that are allowable would have to get that same lens?

I can't help but think that all this utter shit we're now getting proof of via the Panama Papers, human nature at work, selfish actions that are demonstrably "evil", it's going to continue, and worse is happening merely concealed by darker shadows. And it'll get worse as the powerful's influence expands as they get more and more tech savvy and more and more rich.

Humanity (and most life on Earth) is in a ridiculously challenging long-term pickle concerning the sustainability of life as we know it, and there's a rampant group of wealthy, powerful people that are making it harder and harder for us to get to the other side due to their selfish behavior. That shit needs to stop because humanity needs to get it together if we're even to stand a chance.

As you mention "perfect enforcement" I think The culture novels are a poor example, yes the AI's had near-perfect information which made crime a thing of the past but they also had a massively broad idea of what was legal (pretty much "do no harm to anyone else").

The people running society are far less likely to benign than the culture AI's (I think I have just about all of recorded history to back that one up).

It's the parable of the scorpion and the frog and we (meaning the general electorate) would be the frog.

Instead you get disappeared into the government's rape dungeon.

>Imagine a world in which theft, rape, slavery, and child abuse are impossible

If you think this is possible through any technical means, you're not reading the right science fiction. I suggest you give Watchbird by Robert Sheckley a read.[0] It will disabuse you of any notion that we can improve society through any system of "perfect enforcement."

[0] https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/29579

> Is this really so hard to differentiate between?

Yes it is. Otherwise why haven't we done it already?

Even if we could clearly distinguish just and unjust laws in a way that everyone agreed, how would that make a system capable of perfect enforcement any less dangerous when it's used to enforce unjust laws regardless?

Perfect enforcement is just a synonym for absolute power.

Ah yes, the old "lets give up freedom for safety!" argument. Finally someone in the US steps up to make this one.

Some forms of safety - the industrial kind - can be "science" based. Others cannot. Safety and control are illusions unless you're prepared to do a great deal of work to understand the risks. And control can easily be too expensive.

You've just read Dave Eggers The Circle?