Jeff Kaufman's Writing

Forfeiting Ill-Gotten Gains

2026-01-16 · 13:00 UTC ·1 min read

Brief

Jeff Kaufman's essay (Jan 16, 2026) advocates making rule-breaking unprofitable by ensuring violators forfeit gained benefits, illustrated with parenting tactics and the legal idea of preventing unjust enrichment. He applies this to aviation safety, recommending confiscation/destruction of carry-ons and fines during emergency evacuations to reduce blocked aisles and casualties, citing JAL 516 (379 occupants, zero deaths).

Why it matters

Jeff Kaufman (published 2026-01-16) argues that deterrence must make rule-breaking net-negative by forfeiting the gains—examples include parenting tactics (confiscated candy, lost tablet time) and the legal concept of prohibiting unjust enrichment.

Key details

  • He proposes stricter airline evacuation penalties—confiscate/destroy carry-ons and impose fines—to reduce blocked aisles and deaths, citing JAL 516 (379 occupants, zero deaths) versus incidents like Aeroflot 1492 and Emirates 521.
Source evidence

title: Forfeiting Ill-Gotten Gains
contenttype: article
publication: Jeff Kaufman's Writing
published: 2026-01-16T13:00:00+00:00
sourceurl: https://www.jefftk.com/p/forfeiting-ill-gotten-gains

word_count: 274

It's a holiday. The cousins are over, and the kids are having a great
time. Unfortunately, that includes rampaging through the kitchen.
We're trying to cook, so there's a "no cutting through the kitchen"
rule. Imagine enforcement looks like: Kid: [dashes into kitchen, pursued by cousin] Adult: Out of the kitchen! Kid: Sorry! [Continues their path, leaving through the other door; escapes
pursuit from more rule-abiding cousin] This doesn't work! The kid got what they wanted out of this interaction, and
isn't going to change their behavior. Instead, I need to make it be not worth
their while: Kid: [dashes into kitchen, pursued by cousin] Adult: No cutting through the kitchen! [Physically rebuffs intruder]! Kid: Sorry! [Forced to leave through the door they entered by; caught by cousin.] Other examples: Sneak candy, spit it out and forfeit dessert. Use sibling's tablet time, lose your own. Interrupt, be ignored. The general principle is that if you want to limit behavior the
combination of the gains from rule-breaking and penalty from
punishment need to put the kid in a worse position than if they'd
never broken the rule. This isn't just a parenting thing: it's common to say that "crime
should not pay", and many legal systems prohibit unjust
enrichment . One place I'd like to see this implemented is
airplane evacuation. If the safety announcements included "In the
event of an emergency evacuation, any carry-on luggage you bring will
be confiscated and destroyed. You will also be fined." we would have
more JAL
516 (379 occupants, zero deaths) and less Aeroflot
1492 or Emirates
521 . Comment via: facebook , lesswrong , mastodon , bluesky