upvote
But to object to the statement made you need to think most laws are substantially wrong, not simply that some laws are problematic.
reply
What you're missing is that it is enough for one single law to be problematic.

If we had a complete, utopian set of amazing laws that provide happiness to all, and I add just one law : "All citizens have to agree with every edict, statement or choice of SiempreViernes. Expressing disagreement or doubt is a crime, punishable by exile, lynching or lifetime imprisonment."

All of a sudden this society just became a nightmare. Yes the majority of people can probably still live an OK life, but that single law has a gigantic downstream effect on happiness, stress levels of all, and life expectancy of free thinkers.

Now add the idea that you're able to perfectly prevent crime, and you now have a totalitarian surveillance panopticon in place to prevent me from even writing any doubts into my personal journal.

reply
Not most, maybe just one.

Consider a Schindler's List type scenario. It's a crime to help a Jew escape. Now mostly I believe in the rule of law and if I broke a law because I thought it was justified in that particular circumstance I would accept my punishment.

But in that scenario, accepting my punishment would mean I couldn't help others.

reply
Sure, which is why there is no such magic without surveillance. Which is why the hypothetical is silly.
reply