Is a society where it is impossible to do anything at all illegal without being caught a good thing?

[Fumesucker]

Because eventually that's where society in America and on Earth may well be headed, do anything to break any law and the evidence to arrest, arraign and convict you will be on a computer somewhere and it will be meta analyzed by sophisticated algorithms so that any lawbreaking will be detected and acted upon.

In my mind the desirability of such a tightly controlled society is highly dependent on the rules that society has.

Are you convinced enough of the rationality and sheer sanity of our rules and those who make and enforce those rules that you would be comfortable living in a world similar to that of Minority Report where every crime was instantly detected?

Sometimes I think about Smirk and Sneer having that sort of power and it really chills my soul.

[graham4anything]

1. BushPaulfamilyinc would love that. Anarchy is what they desire isn't it?

that is what republicanconseravativeliberatarianteaparties want- Smaller governemtn=NO government=anarchy

[Fumesucker]

3. So we have one argle bargle blargh n/t

[SamKnause]

2. Good Thing

NO !!!

Everything is against the law in the land of the Free and the home of the Brave.

I don't think it would change our two tier justice system either.

Money and Power have their privileges.

[Hydra]

4. Who would determine what's legal in a world like that?

The President? Congress? A group of Wall St. CEOs? Even if we mass voted on laws, we'd still get bad ones(tyranny of the majority).

A good example are those people who got in trouble for feeding the homeless. Off with their heads, dammit!

IMO, it's unworkable unless you are willing to destroy a lot of lives in the name of "order."

[Fumesucker]

6. Isn't that what the drug war is for?

Destroying lives in the name of "order" I mean.

There's always people who are happiest when destroying lives in the name of order.

[Hydra]

8. They always think it's "Those people"

Blacks, Hispanics, Hippies, Welfare Queens, Peacenicks, Atheists, Communists, Socialists...you name it.

People are convinced that if those lives are destroyed, those people jailed and/or killed off, that the world will be a cleaner, more "orderly" place.

They never think it's themselves causing whatever the issue is, so they're safe and the other people will "get what's coming to them."

Nice peeps there...

[napoleon_in_rags]

5. That's not the direction we're headed in.

The NSA could do a sweep now and turn up every pot smoker in America for police investigation, but they don't. Its the paradigm of selective enforcement we need to worry about: The intelligence services know every bad thing you've ever done, its when you speak out in some way they don't like the enforcement comes. So the pattern is the systematic divorce of the American people from the laws made by legislature. A system where pretty much everything is a crime, like sending an MP3 file to a friend is piracy punishable by huge fines, etc. But the enforcement is only selectively applied. Its a system where there is the law which every one breaks, and then there is the law behind the law, of what you can say, who can you say it to, etc. To keep the yourself from getting the law enforced on you. In such a system, money goes a long way toward making things right, so if you say X&Y that your not supposed to, but give a donation over there, enforcement won't come. If you just say X&Y it will. Its a system where people ignore their elected officials, who's job it is to churn out more and more laws people don't follow, and learn by word of mouth the secret laws that actually govern the country.

That's where I fear things heading. I don't fear what you describe why? Because that would be a world where rich get punished for crimes as much as poor! That would buck the trend in a big way, so of course I don't see it.

PEace

[Fumesucker]

9. The wealthy used to buy dispensations from the Pope, they may still do for all I know

What was/is that but buying their way out of justice before an all seeing all knowing judge?

The wealthy buying their way out of trouble is certainly a time honored practice that's firmly in place in the USA.

[NoOneMan]

7. We are on the precipice of dystopia

And damn, I have vertigo.


By the time the massive "goodness machine" is deployed, its carbon footprint will ironically do us in.

[Egalitarian Thug]

10. I think that is called totalitarianism and it doesn't seem to work very well. n/t

[Fumesucker]

11. I disagree, what if there was only one law?

Depending on the particular law in question what I describe could be far closer to anarchy than totalitarianism.

[Egalitarian Thug]

12. OK, I can see that route. In an anarchic system almost all of the motivation to commit

crime is removed since there is no profit. Pretty much all that's left to be considered is personal violence.

Your OP seemed to indicate a society very similar to what we have now, and that's where my reply came from.

[Fumesucker]

13. I just don't think that's the right word

I was coming from where you were thinking but your question got me looking at it at a more basic level.

Such a system could probably range from near utopia to a dystopia that would drive Orwell to seppuku for inadequacy of imagination.

Dystopia is more likely, IMO.

[Egalitarian Thug]

15. I agree. Any system that forces people to conform to it, rather having the openness or

flexibility to conform to people will inevitably go rotten.

[bvar22]

14. When "laws" are passed by bad politicians...

...that seek to bypass the prohibitions placed on OUR government
by OUR Constitution,
it is my Patriotic Duty to protest those laws.
One effective way to protest a BAD law,
and to publicly highlight the BAD Law is by breaking it.

If bad politicians pass bad laws that exceed the limits of my moral compass,
it is my duty to break them.

[lumberjack_jeff]

16. It depends on what is considered illegal.

In theory, maybe. In practice, almost definitely not.

[hughee99]

17. I guess it would largely depend on what's illegal in that society,

and what sort of privacy everyone would have to give up to allow this to be possible.