While riding my bike today, I was contemplating which governance model would be more successful: one where everything is specified down to the comma, and the state negotiates with the people to live by laws considering absolutely everything (fifty hefty volumes), or it negotiates that it will decide “by the rules of the game” but tries to be fair.
And here’s what I thought. When managing a state or a large company, any simple laws or rules are always better than complex ones, no matter how imperfect these simple rules might be. I came across a Churchill quote, “If you have 10,000 regulations, you destroy all respect for law”. Lao Tzu also said that the more legislative restrictions we have, the poorer we are.
Interesting confirmation of this is found in the quarantine. After all, the main goal is not the quarantine, but to reduce social contact. Staying at home contributes to this. But how would it be fair?
For instance, you can go outside if you wear a respirator that 100% protects you and others, or wear a special beacon sensor around your neck that loudly and annoyingly screams if another such sensor is detected within a 2-meter radius. Automatically, in a nearly empty city, people would maintain distance. No respirator or sensor – a fine. Such respirators exist (for example, 3M 6800, costs about 200 bucks). Sensors aren’t there yet, but they could be quickly conceived and cheaply manufactured. But no government will do this because it automatically creates new problems. For example, people with respirators would periodically be beaten by those without, because they also want to go outside but don’t have $200.
But obviously, such measures won’t be introduced because they are complicated and create new problems. Therefore, it’s easier for the government to say that you can’t leave the house at all, otherwise – a fine. And in each specific situation, judge by the circumstances.
This is how it works with the police in the USA. Every officer must have serious reasons for an independent court if it comes to that. But then another problem arises: people will dispute everything. To avoid this and to prevent every minimally questionable case from going to court, court proceedings start to cost more, and then lawyers, legal offices appear on the scene, adding their own interest in case they win the case. But despite all the drawbacks, the system becomes balanced. It becomes too expensive for the police to keep incompetents on staff, leading to a positive selection.
For example, if it’s an 80-year-old granny limping to buy bread, the police should not fine her but offer volunteer assistance – this raises the police’s respect rating. If the police stop a guy who explains nothing, is rude, and cites the constitution and “know your place,” in my view, the officer should press a button, sending the audio or video recording from his wearable recorder somewhere to the cloud, he reviews it at the station, decides to issue a fine, and the guy can then prove he’s not to blame, and shouldn’t pay the fine by mail. If he disagrees – let him pay the lawyers, and together with them, they will listen to the audio or video from the cloud and decide if anything in the police officer’s actions was incorrect. If they prove it – the officer’s “karma” worsens (up to dismissal). If not – the government gets money from him for the upkeep of the courts and police (and lawyers).
Probably a very controversial opinion. Criticize what’s wrong with it.
Hi, I'm Rauf Aliev. 