The government has laws saying people under 16 can't drive cars, do you think that's part of the slippery slope that has led to all of those happening-in-practice bad things?

▲

madeofpalk 3 days ago | parent | next [-]

Yes but every time you drive on the road you don't need to prove you're over 16.

▲

eimrine 3 days ago | parent [-]

It would be true if the windows are totally black or humans under 16 are looking totally adult.

	▲	vaylian 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		No. It would be true if the car didn't turn on the engine unless you showed your face and ID to some on-board computer of the car.

▲

9rx 3 days ago | parent | prev [-]

> The government has laws saying people under 16 can't drive cars

We did, though. The chances of getting caught were slim to nil. Will kids (and adults for that matter) have the same easy opportunity to evade enforcement here?

▲

komali2 2 days ago | parent [-]

I thought the point of laws was not that enforcement is perfect but rather that the consequence of getting caught created a counter-incentive to doing the thing?

	▲	9rx 2 days ago \| parent [-]
		The point of laws is to document what everyone in a community has come to agree on, assuming a democracy. Or, in a dictatorship, what the dear leader has decided upon. Any punishments encoded into those laws may serve as a counter-incentive, I suppose. But baked into that is the idea that enforcement isn't perfect so you can still disappear into the night when you have that urge to do whatever it is that is technically illegal. This allows acceptance of laws that might be considered too draconian if enforcement was perfect. However, it seems in the case of these digital-centric laws that enforcement will become too close to being perfect as, without the need to hire watchful people, there is strong incentive to make it ever-present. Or maybe not, but that is why the question was asked.