This idea came out as a way to answer the people who, similarly to me, could complain about the radicality under which law is treating time. As will see, we could wander “How could someone justify the start of a regulation to be March 14th versus March 13th 16:38?- There is no rational in the timeline of a law application but the one justify by its own system.” We should always pursue the fight against an arbitrariness.
To prevent any misunderstanding on my proposal, I will begin with an example.
Let’s say that a law stops to be applied of March 14th. (I took this example from Columbia University that is levying its mask mandate starting the 14th.) The fact is that on 00:01am on the 14th, nobody would have to wear a mask. However, until the last second of this last minute living between the first tick of 11:59pm and midnight, the mask with still be as much obligatory than if it was 2 months ago- without any consideration of the fact that it won’t be in one minute. It seems necessary to consider the absurdity of this phenomenon, one whose form could not be found anywhere but in the arbitrariness of a law implementation.
The proposition is the following, and I hope that others might emerge out of it. Please suggests alternatives if ideas come your way.
If the law retirement is to be fully applied on the 14th, as it was originally planned, its retirement should be progressive. Within our example, the process of this retirement would last a day and it would be happening throughout March 13th.
Going from a system in which 100% of the population would be expected to wear the mask indoor, this expected percentage would decrease as the day progresses- to finally reach 0% on the first minute of March 14th.
Neither the percentage, nor the person – chosen on random variables- would be alerted. However, if someone would be willing to challenge the system, they could ask whether or not they are part of the current batch that is “beneficiating” from the curvature of the law retirement process.
Pragmatically, everyone would presuppose that they have to wear a mask, but those who feel an impetus could -within the legality of the progressiveness- inaugurate the enthusiasm of this change imposed by the law, within the regularity provided by such format of legal change - to impose to the character of power an answer towards reguarding the state of their status- without assuming the obviouness of a negation that would be necessarily the case.
Creating a structural form of unpredictacle destibilisation is a healthy process for any form of settled system.
Moreover, it is cooherent - and within the legacy- of my previous conceptualization around the need of Communication to be recenter to be the core of the government duty towards its citizens (ie. article February 8st, 2022). Indeed, it is so in the way that the people willing to provoke communication will have to encounter the system of power in place to demand them whether or not they are part of the current batch that will be free within the progressiveness of the law retirement.
We can note that this system would only work in a beneficial way for the citizens as it would offer individuals randomly picked the possibility to inaugurate the new system. Indeed, it wouldn’t work in the opposite way -assigning more days to randomly assigned people. The most important factor, as discussed previously, being to engage people within their space, the implementation of such system would offer another opportunity for people to use enthusiasm to engage with power, ultimately training citizens to be part of a community in which communication is the tool by which the social is insured.
Furthermore, we can argue that such a system will popularize the curiosity towards legislation, which in itself might engage citizens to communicate and exchange (ideas, emotions, goods, services, etc.)