What's wrong with this idea?

Ace Pilot wrote:

I assumed the pilot was IFR rated and understood how the system works,
but was not necessarily proficient at flying in IMC conditions, but
was perfectly capable of flying safely in VMC.

One consideration is (discussed in prev. threads), if you are flying
IFR, you can not expect to necessarily be able to maintain clear of
clouds. If you are flying above a broken layer, you can not, on an
IFR flight plan, maneuver to descend through a hole as you could
VFR. You can request ATC to accomodate altitude and routing prefs
which will keep you VMC, but they may not be able to accomodate you.

Basically, I don't think it's a good idea to file IFR if you're
not prepared to fly in clouds, unless the wx is truly "bluebird"
all the way. CAVU below 12,000 or something.

The big question is whether
there are any "costs" associated with this proposal, and do those
costs outweigh the benefit. Just being illegal is not a cost.

I would disagree. I think being illegal is a cost. I think there is
a slippery slope in setting out to deliberately break one regulation.
Even if you disagree, don't discount the cost of being discovered
and facing punative action.

As for being a danger to other pilots in the air, I see no difference
between a non-current IFR-rated pilot on an IFR flight plan and a
VFR-only pilot, as long as it is on a VMC day.

Does the VFR pilot understand IFR procedures, or is he going to
clog up the system if directed to fly a STAR or given a crossing
restriction on altitude?

A non-current IFR pilot can be a problem, too, if he's forgotten
his basics.

I'm now starting to wonder if there are some things that the Feds deem
illegal, but are actually safer.

There's no question that there are illegal things which are arguably
safer. The problem is, who is doing the arguing? Once you set out
to break one regulation, you are saying your judgement is superior to
the regulations. Maybe it is in this instance. But I see a slippery
slope, where it becomes easier to justify breaking another reg in the
next instance. And maybe your judgement is not always superior to the
regulations, but once you remove "it's illegal" as a restraining factor,
how will you second-guess or sanity check your judgement?

Cheers,
Sydney