Here’s one of the main things I’d urge you to think about when setting rules and laws and thinking about which rules and laws you support. Don’t set up rules as ambit claims, aspirations or “catch-all’s” for bad behavior. If we stopped doing this, a good 10 to 20% of social problems, maybe even more, would be avoided.
The section about Twitter-related rule enforcement (or lack thereof) reminded me of a point I’ve seen about the contrast between Rule of Law, and Rule of Power (that nonetheless disguises itself as Rule of Law).
In the former, we actually have rules that act as limits to behavior and are enforced, with that outside the Rules being consistently forbidden, and that within consistently allowed.
In the latter, there are two main modes of manifestation, the lax, and the strict. In the lax mode, there are not really any explicit rules, with the extent of articulation of norms often being on the level of “just don’t do anything bad”. In the strict mode, there are so many, overbroad rules, that pretty much everyone is breaking _some_ rule at a given time.
Both of these modes end up in largely the same place, however: punishment and reward function primarily at the whim of those in power, as (in the lax mode) the lack of restraining structure allows those in power to freely exert their power to punish those they oppose, or (in the strict mode) their power allows them to choose which rule breakers (of which everyone is one) are the okay sort, versus those who deserve having the full might of the Rules brought down upon them.
Ultimately, it requires a care with the rule making of the sort that this post encourages in order to make a set of rules that actually functions as such, rather than just being another avenue for the powerful to exert their will.
1) What do we have in the way of a comparative study of different rule structures? At first blush, it seems like every country follows the same gray area method, just with varying degrees of mercy. However, now that I think about it, Singapore had a hard, public line on chewing gum.
2) In theory, robot enforcement should solve all of us. However, we have a case study staring right at us: traffic-signal cameras. For ten years, they were in vogue. Then my neighbor got divorced because photos sent to his house showed him riding with someone other than his wife. And then similar stories came out, and then people sued cities, and then the conversation evolved into one about privacy. And now, at least in America, I haven't heard of any traffic camera enforcement for at least ten years.
The case study, combined with the fact that Singapore is the only country I can think of with such a hard line, doesn't bode well for a future with ideal rule parameters.
The section about Twitter-related rule enforcement (or lack thereof) reminded me of a point I’ve seen about the contrast between Rule of Law, and Rule of Power (that nonetheless disguises itself as Rule of Law).
In the former, we actually have rules that act as limits to behavior and are enforced, with that outside the Rules being consistently forbidden, and that within consistently allowed.
In the latter, there are two main modes of manifestation, the lax, and the strict. In the lax mode, there are not really any explicit rules, with the extent of articulation of norms often being on the level of “just don’t do anything bad”. In the strict mode, there are so many, overbroad rules, that pretty much everyone is breaking _some_ rule at a given time.
Both of these modes end up in largely the same place, however: punishment and reward function primarily at the whim of those in power, as (in the lax mode) the lack of restraining structure allows those in power to freely exert their power to punish those they oppose, or (in the strict mode) their power allows them to choose which rule breakers (of which everyone is one) are the okay sort, versus those who deserve having the full might of the Rules brought down upon them.
Ultimately, it requires a care with the rule making of the sort that this post encourages in order to make a set of rules that actually functions as such, rather than just being another avenue for the powerful to exert their will.
Interesting.
1) What do we have in the way of a comparative study of different rule structures? At first blush, it seems like every country follows the same gray area method, just with varying degrees of mercy. However, now that I think about it, Singapore had a hard, public line on chewing gum.
2) In theory, robot enforcement should solve all of us. However, we have a case study staring right at us: traffic-signal cameras. For ten years, they were in vogue. Then my neighbor got divorced because photos sent to his house showed him riding with someone other than his wife. And then similar stories came out, and then people sued cities, and then the conversation evolved into one about privacy. And now, at least in America, I haven't heard of any traffic camera enforcement for at least ten years.
The case study, combined with the fact that Singapore is the only country I can think of with such a hard line, doesn't bode well for a future with ideal rule parameters.