In general, I agree that we can mostly get away with many violations of the laws and regulations that we live under. However, if any particular individual becomes annoying to the powers that be, they can inspect our actions, present and past, and nearly always find something with which to charge us. Thus, all these laws and regulations serve to keep the populace compliant with the aims of the people in charge with the constant threat that if we step out of line, even in ways that are totally legal, they will find some way to make us pay, and thus to make us an example to others of what happens to those who don't go along.
I suspect that is the real reason why such selectively enforced rules exist. If they were enforced on everyone, people would demand the rules be repealed. If they don't generally enforce them, however, the powers that be can use them to attack their enemies under the guise of law.
My favorite small punishment for a small crime, from "Goodbye, Eastern Europe" by Jacob Mikanowski, page 101, on the incredibly complex law code of the late Habsburg Empire: "The punishment for stealing an onion was 4 hours in jail."
I think that the actual impact of social desirability bias on enforcements crucially depends on the prevailing moral intuitions among a population.
As for covid laws, you say that "Social Desirability Bias also prevents the merciless enforcement necessary to achieve compliance with these absurd laws". I remember the case of a man sunbathing in an empty beach in Italy followed by police drones and quads: https://statics.cedscdn.it/photos/MED_HIGH/99/47/5179947_1205_thumbnail_2378571.jpg
I found such a strict form of enforcement absurd, but most of my fellow citizens didn't. If the "rules are rules" mentality is dominant at a specific time in a specific place, then social desirability bias will breed strict enforcement as in the rape and murder cases. If most people had found such enforcement absurd (as I hope would have happened in other countries), then they probably wouldn't have enacted it in the first place.
But if the strictness of enforcement depends on social desirability bias (which is universal) plus predominant moral intuitions (which are contextual), then can't we just ignore the former and focus on the latter to explain different degrees of enforcement?
Every time you don’t enforce a law, for whatever reason, you dent into democracy robustness: the message is...hey we have laws but in reality we don’t have them. Then you develop the concept of micro-crimes (the crime is so small, in the eyes of hypocrites, is not worth pursuing...then why is it a crime in the first place? Virtue signaling?) and you further disrupt the social tissue. In Italy there are 110k laws and the message to the citizen is “do whatever you want” maybe will chase you only if you kill someone. In England a ministry for illegal immigration was just set up (shouldn’t it be the ministry of Interior?) Then at least spare us some taxes and bureaucrats.
In general, I agree that we can mostly get away with many violations of the laws and regulations that we live under. However, if any particular individual becomes annoying to the powers that be, they can inspect our actions, present and past, and nearly always find something with which to charge us. Thus, all these laws and regulations serve to keep the populace compliant with the aims of the people in charge with the constant threat that if we step out of line, even in ways that are totally legal, they will find some way to make us pay, and thus to make us an example to others of what happens to those who don't go along.
I suspect that is the real reason why such selectively enforced rules exist. If they were enforced on everyone, people would demand the rules be repealed. If they don't generally enforce them, however, the powers that be can use them to attack their enemies under the guise of law.
That is a powerful insight that solidifies my analysis. Thank you!!
My favorite small punishment for a small crime, from "Goodbye, Eastern Europe" by Jacob Mikanowski, page 101, on the incredibly complex law code of the late Habsburg Empire: "The punishment for stealing an onion was 4 hours in jail."
I think that the actual impact of social desirability bias on enforcements crucially depends on the prevailing moral intuitions among a population.
As for covid laws, you say that "Social Desirability Bias also prevents the merciless enforcement necessary to achieve compliance with these absurd laws". I remember the case of a man sunbathing in an empty beach in Italy followed by police drones and quads: https://statics.cedscdn.it/photos/MED_HIGH/99/47/5179947_1205_thumbnail_2378571.jpg
I found such a strict form of enforcement absurd, but most of my fellow citizens didn't. If the "rules are rules" mentality is dominant at a specific time in a specific place, then social desirability bias will breed strict enforcement as in the rape and murder cases. If most people had found such enforcement absurd (as I hope would have happened in other countries), then they probably wouldn't have enacted it in the first place.
But if the strictness of enforcement depends on social desirability bias (which is universal) plus predominant moral intuitions (which are contextual), then can't we just ignore the former and focus on the latter to explain different degrees of enforcement?
Every time you don’t enforce a law, for whatever reason, you dent into democracy robustness: the message is...hey we have laws but in reality we don’t have them. Then you develop the concept of micro-crimes (the crime is so small, in the eyes of hypocrites, is not worth pursuing...then why is it a crime in the first place? Virtue signaling?) and you further disrupt the social tissue. In Italy there are 110k laws and the message to the citizen is “do whatever you want” maybe will chase you only if you kill someone. In England a ministry for illegal immigration was just set up (shouldn’t it be the ministry of Interior?) Then at least spare us some taxes and bureaucrats.