You only love it because you have some perverted dream of 100% enforcement of whatever your rules are. In reality automated enforcement would cause an uproar and the rules would be changed to accommodate the status quo.
I would much, much rather have the rules changed to reflect what we actually want them to be than to have bad rules that we only tolerate because we don't enforce them.
But on that note, I absolutely do think that people should pay to store their private property on public land, and that they shouldn't block bus lanes, bike lanes or cross walks, or run red lights, so I fully support those rules and automated enforcement of them.
Of course, but bad rules enforced imperfectly and good rules enforced perfectly are both categorically and morally superior to bad rules enforced perfectly because some extremist has fantasies of everyone goose stepping in perfect line.
That doesn't change the fact that the laws/rules/etc across all sorts of issues are all written half baked with the assumption that enforcers will be reasonable and all sorts of edge cases don't need to be supported.
The reason illegally parked vehicles are illegal is not because they are illegal, that's circular and the peddlers of that sort of logic should be derided if not marginalized. We care about illegally parked vehicles, littering, and all manner of public nuisances because of the downside to the public of said nuisance. Absent the downside there is no reason to care. And if you automate perfect enforcement you will be inundated with tickets for situations that lack downsides that the enforcers were mostly ignoring.
> think you’ll find this leads to infinite fine revenue and higher congestion in pretty much all cities
How? Laffer curve will max out as behaviour adjusts. And that adjustment means folks parking legally or forgoing a car or the area in question, not driving around in circles for fun.
I believe you are being downvoted because your comment violates the guidelines ("Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously... Edit out swipes."); anyway, that's why I downvoted.
Your later comment that enforcement might benefit from latitude to be reasonable and accommodate nuance is not invalid, and you could have just said that rather than call the gp's aspiration "perverted." The expressed norm of guidelines is that your belief that the gp's logic is circular does not justify your derision.
Anyway, you will probably be more convincing to others by being less insulting.
If you don't want to contribute in adherence to the guidelines, what is the point of posting here at all?
I'm being downvoted by being anything less then apologetically polite while expressing a viewpoint that isn't pro whatever the lowest common denominator wants.
That's just how comment sections that keep "rightthink score" are.
I couldn't downvote your direct reply to me, but if I could have I would have because you're being an ass. Calling me "perverted" because I don't think people should block bike lanes says way more about you than me.
Not wanting the bike lanes blocked is fine. The problem is that you want, as a means to this end, 100% enforcement of laws that were never written nor were their punishments apportioned with the expectation of such with zero regard for the consequences. That is a bad thing to be advocating for over such a mundane issue and I think it's belies a lack of moral character you often see in this subject of discussion (though you do see it in others and it's bad there too) wherein people want their preferred class of traffic prioritized using state force to the determent of all the others.
On the contrary, it is not a mundane issue. Traffic infractions and parking violations such as blocking bike lanes or crosswalks directly contribute to a less safe environment for everyone on the street. Traffic fatality is the third leading cause of preventable death in the United States. It is the cavalier attitudes of people who think they should be able to whatever they want, whenever they want with their cars that belies a lack of moral character.
There is no social contract in scored internet comment sections. The herd will do what makes the number go up. If a large number of people showed up and upvoted every racist comment to the moon the verbiage in here would pivot almost overnight. Mobs don't have self awareness or free will.
I think you can't directly acknowledge the guidelines because you know you are willfully violating them.
The guidelines are the rules of the road for the community. The moral obligation to follow the guidelines is not conditional on whether you think the community is a mob. Even if you thought you have no obligation to the community, your behavior is still disrespectful to the intentions of the moderators.
The way you write makes it seem like you hold both the community and the guidelines in contempt. What is the purpose for you in participating in this community? Would it not be better for you and the community both if you stop posting like this?
