DF writes about "GDOS", government-denial-of-service. you make some very good points that it is impossible for the government to stamp out activities which it deems illegal but the public disagrees and flouts. but you don't consider the situation of harassment. if something should be legal in a country, it costs the population a lot for it to be illegal. I don't know if there are government regulators in NY handling the "illegal apartment" thing, but this "crime" surely costs the public a lot. what is your argument? that laws against things flouted by the public are meaningless? the laws have a very tangible effect of harassment upon the populace, and in fact the government might assert that enforcement is not necessarily the point. it may still be that there are far fewer of these apartments than there would be if such a thing was legal (actually, this seems pretty obvious). the point is, even laws that are only selectively enforced can be useful to the government. it is true that imposing an absolute situation like censorship may be impossible, but that doesn't mean that lack of absolute enforcement is not useful to the government. as others (TCM etc) have pointed out frequently, selective enforcement is a very useful tool in the government arsenal. in other words, you can't really make the argument that you seem to be making (as I interpret it), that laws that don't have good enforcement potential have no value to the government. they may in fact accomplish exactly what the government wants. I agree with you that they have poor social value. the key is trying to get the government in synch with the population. what you are pointing out in the core, I would say, is that a government out of tune with the population is a society in the midst of a downward spiral.