I feel kind of divided on this... I mostly agree, but we also need to think about the consequences of selective enforcement. Cannabis-related arrests, for example, seem to be disproportionately focused on people of color, which may have softened the perceived damage of cannabis prohibition among whites. In other words: we can get away with it, so it's not really a big deal that it's still illegal.
Again, I'm not saying I want a 100% effective police state, but these are problems we have to grapple with. The salience of an issue will often depend on how much it affects you personally. Selective enforcement may diminish the motivation to protest unfair laws within populations that tend to escape said enforcement. In fact, most of the things you mentioned probably shouldn't be crimes to begin with, but I bet many people don't feel strongly enough to protest them because they assume most people can break those laws without punishment. Some people aren't so lucky though.
>I feel kind of divided on this... I mostly agree, but we also need to think about the consequences of selective enforcement.
Oh, I agree. I wasn't advocating selective enforcement. Just less EFFICIENT enforcement.
That is, that the police/government should not be allowed the means (even if they were available) to suppress crime 100% or even 90%.
Even for crimes we all agree are abhorable, like murder. I wouldn't trade freedom and privacy etc to have some way to prevent murders (from current surveillance to some futuristic chip implant in your head to prevent you from committing it). I'd rather live with some potential danger, than with several leashes.
Of course... I understand that your comment wasn't advocating that we only arrest poor people, etc. I'm just curious about a hypothetical: if we DID live in a dystopia where nobody could get away with anything, would this perhaps lead to more civic engagement in protesting unjust laws?
Laws that are easy to break are easy to ignore. But these laws can still be used by a government entity as a legal weapon against you, and that seems a bit scary.
>if we DID live in a dystopia where nobody could get away with anything, would this perhaps lead to more civic engagement in protesting unjust laws?
Perhaps. But it could also be the other way: that in such a dystopia, protesting and civic engagement would also be more difficult if not impossible.
E.g anything beyond voting between a couple of candidates you are given. A dystopia that would enable the police like that, will in all probability also have laws prohibiting public assembly, rallying, etc.
And on top of that, they could also enforce any BS laws to dissidents -- since, with 100% efficiency, they could always find something to pin on them.
Again, I'm not saying I want a 100% effective police state, but these are problems we have to grapple with. The salience of an issue will often depend on how much it affects you personally. Selective enforcement may diminish the motivation to protest unfair laws within populations that tend to escape said enforcement. In fact, most of the things you mentioned probably shouldn't be crimes to begin with, but I bet many people don't feel strongly enough to protest them because they assume most people can break those laws without punishment. Some people aren't so lucky though.