As proven by the size of the #prison population: prisons are filled with people that broke laws (bar the sparse few innocents that have been wrongly convicted), so laws don’t magically make everything all right and stop people from braking them.
If laws worked, whenever a #law (a #ban) was passed, the amount of prison cells could be reduced. Instead the number has to increase, to house the extra people braking the law.
So why bother with the childishly simple notion of “we’ll force people to behave the way we want them to and it’ll be all right”, why not work with the people, lead by example, etc?
Sounds too wishy-washy? Perhaps, but since the age-old approach of forcing people apparently has never worked anywhere on earth, if one is so presumptouous as to take the job of politician, one had better come up with a approach that might work.
The “Two Stans” offer definite proof that humans are not suited to living in political arrangements. They are two notorious psychological experiments:
- Stanley Milgram’s “Obedience to authority” (the one where subjects were to fake-electrocute other people)
- Philip Zimbardo’s Stanford #Prison experiment.
Milgram’s electrocution experiment:
Tested how far people were willing to go, applying electric shocks (potentially lethal pain), to innocent people, when instructed to do so, by an authority-figure (Milgram himself, in a lab coat), over some flimsy excuse.
It found that disconcertingly many people were willing to administer extreme amounts of pain/danger, so people are not suitable for following orders, due to a tendency to actually do so, without consideration for the results on their fellow human beings.
Zimbardo’s Stanford University prison experiment:
Tested how people behaved when equipped with power over other flesh and blood beings. The results where quite disconcerting. It’s as if a switch got flipped: the students rabdomly assigned the role of prison guard, showed a proclivity for quite sadistic behavior toward their fellow students, randomly assigned the role of prisoner.
So, people shouldn’t be made to have power over others, because Lord Acton was right: absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The popular vernacular equates “#anarchy” to “#chaos” (Now I get why Bob Murphy called his brilliant booklet “Chaos Theory https://mises.org/library/chaos-theory”)
To the contrary, Anarchy means “legitimate law” (if you get what I mean) aka “legitimate order”.
Since the owners merely wish to protect their #investment, they impose some rules/restrictions on their use. This not only prevents them from getting damaged, but als prevents users from chasing away other #customers, and thus damaging the owner’s #financial #interests.