>Opposing laws that "help criminals" exposes society to shifts in the definition of a crime.
This is not necessarily a good thing and laws can change without requiring them to be broken.
This is not necessarily a good thing and laws can change without requiring them to be broken.
That's kind of the problem, right? Suppose you have a system that actually allows perfect enforcement and then the government passes a law against some religious practice. Espousing atheism is banned, or Islam, or Christianity, depending on who controls the government this time; take your pick. If anybody who does it is instantly brought up on charges with severe penalties then nobody does it. But that's bad. That's the problem. You need to sustain enough friction to prevent things like that from being possible because enforcing laws like that is worse than anything that could come out of making ordinary law enforcement require more resources.
I don't think it's bad. Similar to closed and open source software there is room for closed and open societies. They are different approaches that have different pros and cons.
Sure, but of course it isn't black and white.
>In which case we shouldn't have any such thing in the open countries.
I still think being able to effectively apply the will of We the People would be good to do. Being afraid that the people will be able to want for something you don't like to happen is disrespectful to the will of the people.
Right, I mean, wrong.
before you go trying to do the HN thing of explaining why your open/closed source analogy was super brilliant, and my response was reductive and clueless, please consider that societies are composed of living people and software is composed of 1s and 0s.
If they had access to better data they wouldn't have to do it arbitrarily and could more accurately target problematic people. I believe there isn't room for doing it arbitrarily as from my perspective it is a suboptimal strategy towards accomplishing one's goals.
>please consider that societies are composed of living people and software is composed of 1s and 0s.
I am not interested in making an emotional argument. I would be willing to hold my belief regardless of what a system is made up of.
One’s goals? And if my goal were to enslave a nation of people to enrich myself and maintain power for as long as possible?
> I am not interested in making an emotional argument. I would be willing to hold my belief regardless of what a system is made up of.
You cannot discuss governance and civilization design without emotional arguments - i mean i guess you can you can if you lean psychopathic. I don’t mean to name call so please correct my assumptions here what you mean.
Closed societies are tolerable in theory - but in theory people should be able to opt-in or opt-out. If they aren’t free to opt-out such as with a national closed society it’s not civilization, it’s slavery.