A few weeks back, in a different forum, a member brought up an interesting idea of using a 100%, absolutely no exceptions, Eye for an Eye legal system as the core for a story. There would still be due process, representation, everything you think of as part of a modern legal system, but punishments, when one is found guilty, are always an eye for an eye. The majority of forum members argued the grave problems of such a legal system as a reason for not using it as the core of her story. I thought this was ridiculous on two counts. First, all legal systems suffer from inherent and often grave flaws, and second, the flaws would be the source of conflict for her story, so of course it would be flawed, why argue against that just because it seems an improbable legal system. Then the other day I was watching the little retro/future flick In Time. Not an Oscar nodder, but an intriguing little piece of clean science fiction. It reminded me in many ways of sci-fi from the golden age in its focus on a single concept. The economic system in this movie, where time is literally money and that time is the time you have left to live, is also an utterly improbable system to come into being, and yet there it is, on screen, making for a thought provoking flick. This got me to wondering how often I may have said no, in my own head, to an idea just because it seemed too improbable to be worth fleshing out. Have you ever had an idea that you thought, "Nah, that could never come to pass," or bounced an idea off of a friend only to get a, "Dude, that's retarded. Shit like that would never happen," and then held back from writing it?