The "Unfriendly Behavior" Rule: A Daily Lesson in Legal Flaws

Below is  a very simple, non-legal, daily example to illustrate the flaws in the little fishing village, so obvious even a child could spot them.

Imagine a student, let's call him Alex, who is tasked with drafting a new school rule for his class. Alex comes up with the following:

Alex's Proposed Rule:

"There will be no 'Unfriendly Behavior' in class. 'Unfriendly Behavior' is not officially defined in the school handbook, but it's like a bad vibe. You can tell it's 'Unfriendly Behavior' if someone is looking at you weirdly, or talking about you behind your back, or just generally making others feel uncomfortable. Even if it's not strictly against an existing rule, it can still be harmful to the classroom environment, and it won't be ignored."

---

Now, let's break down the flaws using this example, in a way anyone can understand:

The Flaws Explained with Alex's Rule:

1. "Unfriendly Behavior is not officially defined, but it's like a bad vibe."

   • The Problem: This is the Nulla Poena Sine Lege flaw. If "Unfriendly Behavior" isn't defined, how does anyone know what it is? Is tapping your pencil "unfriendly"? Is yawning "unfriendly"? Without a clear definition, every student is left guessing, and the teacher can decide it means whatever they want, whenever they want. It's impossible to follow a rule if you don't know what the rule is.

2. "You can tell it's 'Unfriendly Behavior' if someone is looking at you weirdly, or talking about you behind your back, or just generally making others feel uncomfortable."

   • The Problem: This is the Vagueness Doctrine flaw. What's "looking at you weirdly"? One person's "weird" is another's normal expression. How do you prove someone was talking "behind your back" or what their "intention" was? And "making others feel uncomfortable" is totally subjective – one joke might make one person laugh and another uncomfortable. These criteria are so unclear that they can be applied to almost anything, or nothing at all, based purely on opinion.

3. "Even if it's not strictly against an existing rule, it can still be harmful to the classroom environment, and it won't be ignored."

   • The Problem: This is the "Harmful but not Illegal" paradox. So, if there's no rule against it, why are you going to "not ignore" it? This means the teacher can punish you, or give you a bad mark, or give you detention, even though you haven't broken any actual rule. It's like saying, "You didn't break a rule, but I just don't like what you did, so you're still in trouble." This destroys fairness and predictability. If there's no rule, there shouldn't be punishment.

4. Imagine Alex also said: "My new rule about 'Unfriendly Behavior' has nothing to do with whether the classroom is actually messy or boring. The problems are purely from outside the class!"

   • The Problem: This is the Res Ipsa Loquitur fallacy in reverse, or avoiding accountability. If the classroom environment is "bad," but the teacher claims it's never because of their own teaching or how they organize things, only because of "outside forces" (like a noisy corridor), then they're refusing to admit their own potential role in the problem. It's easier to blame an undefined "bad vibe" than to fix the actual issues.

---

Why these flaws are obvious to anyone:

• Kids get it: Any child would immediately say, "That's not fair! How am I supposed to know what 'Unfriendly Behavior' is if you don't tell me?"

• Lack of Fairness: Everyone instinctively understands that rules need to be clear so everyone knows what they can and cannot do.

• Arbitrary Power: If the "rule" is so vague, it gives the teacher unlimited power to decide, on a whim, who is "unfriendly" and who isn't, leading to favoritism or unfair targeting.

• No Safety: You can't feel safe or secure if you can be penalized for something that isn't even a defined offense.

This "Unfriendly Behavior" example perfectly mirrors the logical and legal flaws in the fishing village argument, demonstrating how a lack of clarity, subjective criteria, and intervention without legal basis undermine fairness and predictability in any system, be it a classroom or a society.

不可避免之震撼：革命與地質災變之比較

 不可避免之震撼：革命與地質災變之比較

人類之經驗常由秩序與混沌、可預見性與突如其來之動盪之相互作用所定義。雖然我輩力求建構穩定社會，歷史卻不斷提醒我們其脆弱。在此脈絡中，社會革命之發端與火山噴發或重大地震之可怕必然性有著驚人而深刻之相似。在兩者之情境中，龐大壓力在看似穩定之表面下積聚，其釋放之時機仍籠罩於不確定之中，人類在偶然之流中，常常寄望於不會在“我們的監視”下或於我們之生涯中發生災變。

此二現象之核心在於無情之壓力積累。在地質領域，此壓力為構造性之。地球之巨大板塊互相摩擦，產生摩擦力，沿著斷層線儲存龐大之能量。熔岩在地殼下翻攪、積聚，施加向上之力量。此非突發之過程，而為緩慢而不可逆轉之積累，或可延續數十年、數百年，甚至數千年。地面或許看似穩定，然其下之力量卻不斷運作。

同樣，社會革命非自發之爆發，而為深層積壓之不滿之巔峰。經濟不平等、政治壓迫、社會不公、代表性缺乏、對治理機構之信任侵蝕，皆為社會之“構造板塊”。每一未滿之要求、每一未解之控訴、每一腐敗之行為，皆為集體壓力增添微小而無法察覺之增量。此可表現為在奢華中之普遍貧困、任意法律、審查制度，或被視為脫節且自利之統治精英。猶如地質力量之無聲磨擦，這些社會壓力日益增長，常被權力者所忽視或淡化。穩定之幻想依然存在，儘管基礎在悄然削弱。

然最可怕之共通點在於破裂點之不可預測性。科學家可識別斷層線，監測火山活動，注意震動、氣體排放或地面變形。然何時儲存之能量將於毀滅性地震或噴發中釋放，仍然大多超出當前預測之能力。雖有警示信號，但確切之破裂時刻乃難以捉摸之謎，對地質時間而言，是一場賭博。

革命亦共享此令人寒心之不確定性。歷史學者與社會科學家可識別不安之前提——經濟危機、魅力領袖、意識形態之變遷、外部衝突。彼等可指出強烈社會動盪之時期、罷工、抗議及暴動，作為明確之“震動”或“氣體排放”。然引發全面革命之具體火花——一看似微不足道之事件、一場暗殺、一場政府對抗議之失誤反應、一場突如其來之經濟崩潰——常為不可預見。社會從潛伏之不滿轉變為公開之暴動之確切時刻，乃深具不可預測性之瞬間，社會政治上相當於地震之變遷。

此共同之不確定性直接導致人類傾向於“與機會共舞”。正如社區建於活動斷層之上或休眠火山之腳下，社會常在顯然積聚壓力之系統中繼續運作。希望常在於“重大事件”不會當前發生。政治人物實施表面之改革、提供暫時之讓步，或訴諸增強之壓制，實際上將問題推延至未來。彼等希望系統在“他們的監視”下保持穩定，將不可避免之清算推遲至後代。公民亦常依附於日常生活之正常性，或許抱怨，但最終仍希望脆弱之平衡能持續，寧願忍受已知之不適，亦不願面對激烈變革之可怕未知。

此“不是在我監視下”的心態，為深植人心之特徵，乃集體心理自我保護之形式。面對地質或社會之災變潛力，常見之反應乃否認、希望與短期思維之混合。忽視積壓壓力之長期成本巨大，然直接處理之即時不便或感知之危險，卻似乎過於高昂。

總之，革命與地質災變之比較，為理解社會變遷動態之強大隱喻。二者皆涉及無形力量之無情積累，最終導致不可預測且常伴隨暴力之龐大能量釋放。不確定時機之共同元素，造成危險之賭博，權力者及整個社會常選擇寄望於美好，而非主動拆解積累壓力之結構。雖然我輩無法真正阻止地球板塊之運動或熔岩之翻攪，然理解與社會動態之平行，或許能提醒我輩在震動成為無法控制之地震，或潛伏之不滿爆發為不可阻擋之革命之前，需正視深層之不滿。問題不在於壓力是否終將釋放，而在於我輩是否選擇為之做好準備，或僅僅希望其不會在我輩之時代發生。

The Inevitable Tremor: Comparing Revolutions to Geological Cataclysms

 

The Inevitable Tremor: Comparing Revolutions to Geological Cataclysms

The human experience is often defined by the interplay between order and chaos, predictability and sudden upheaval. While we strive to build stable societies, history relentlessly reminds us of their fragility. In this vein, the onset of social revolution bears a striking and profound resemblance to the terrifying inevitability of a volcanic eruption or a major earthquake. In both scenarios, immense pressure builds beneath a seemingly stable surface, the timing of its release remains shrouded in uncertainty, and humanity, caught in the currents of chance, often finds itself hoping against hope that the cataclysm will not occur "on our watch" or within our lifetime.

At the core of both phenomena is the unrelenting accumulation of pressure. In the geological realm, this pressure is tectonic. Earth's immense plates grind against each other, creating friction that stores colossal amounts of energy along fault lines. Magma churns and accumulates beneath the earth's crust, exerting upward force.¹ This is not a sudden process but a slow, inexorable buildup that can span decades, centuries, or even millennia. The ground may seem stable, but the forces beneath are constantly at work.

Similarly, social revolutions are not spontaneous outbursts but the culmination of deep-seated, simmering grievances. Economic inequality, political repression, social injustice, lack of representation, and the erosion of trust in governing institutions act as the "tectonic plates" of society. Each unmet demand, each unaddressed complaint, each act of corruption adds a minuscule, imperceptible increment to the collective pressure. This can manifest as widespread poverty amidst opulence, arbitrary laws, censorship, or a ruling elite perceived as out of touch and self-serving.² Like the silent grinding of geological forces, these social pressures build, often ignored or downplayed by those in power. The illusion of stability persists, even as the foundations are quietly weakening.

The most terrifying commonality, however, lies in the unpredictability of the breaking point. Scientists can identify fault lines and monitor volcanic activity, noting tremors, gas emissions, or ground deformation.³ Yet, precisely when the stored energy will be released in a devastating earthquake or eruption remains largely beyond current predictive capabilities. There are warning signs, but the exact moment of rupture is an elusive mystery, a gamble against geological time.

Revolutions share this chilling uncertainty. Historians and social scientists can identify the preconditions for unrest—economic crises, charismatic leaders, ideological shifts, external conflicts. They can point to periods of intense social ferment, strikes, protests, and riots as clear "tremors" or "gas emissions." Yet, the specific spark that ignites a full-blown revolution—a seemingly minor incident, an assassination, a botched government response to a protest, a sudden economic collapse—is often unforeseen. The precise moment a society transitions from simmering discontent to open, violent upheaval is a moment of profound unpredictability, a socio-political equivalent of a seismic shift.

This shared uncertainty leads directly to the human tendency to "play with chance". Just as communities are built on active fault lines or at the foot of dormant volcanoes, societies often continue operating under systems demonstrably accumulating pressure. The hope is always that the "big one" won't happen now. Politicians implement superficial reforms, offer temporary concessions, or resort to increased repression, effectively kicking the can down the road. They hope the system holds together on "their watch," deferring the inevitable reckoning to future generations. Citizens, too, often cling to the normalcy of daily life, perhaps grumbling but ultimately hoping the precarious balance holds, preferring the known discomfort to the terrifying unknown of radical change.

This "not on my watch" mentality is a deeply ingrained human characteristic, a form of collective psychological self-preservation. Facing the potential for cataclysm, be it geological or social, the default response is often a mixture of denial, hope, and short-term thinking. The long-term costs of neglecting the building pressure are immense, but the immediate inconvenience or perceived danger of addressing it directly can seem too high.

In conclusion, the comparison between revolutions and geological disasters serves as a powerful metaphor for understanding the dynamics of societal change. Both involve the relentless buildup of unseen forces, culminating in unpredictable and often violent releases of immense energy. The shared element of uncertain timing creates a dangerous gamble, where those in power, and indeed society as a whole, often choose to hope for the best rather than proactively dismantle the structures accumulating the pressure. While we can never truly stop the earth's plates from moving or magma from churning, understanding the parallels with social dynamics might, perhaps, offer a sobering reminder of the need to address deep-seated grievances before the tremors become an unmanageable earthquake, or the simmering discontent erupts into an unstoppable revolution. The question is not if the pressure will eventually be released, but whether we choose to be prepared for it, or simply hope it won't happen during our time.