Act without consequences?

Claudia Niemanns is an extremely interesting person. Not only is she very beautiful, but she has a very personal style with lots of cool tattoos, runs a kindergarten outdoor group and writes awesome short texts with her instagram posts (you'll find her at @claudia_niemanns).
This week, she posted a question to her story, asking what you would do if there were no consequences.
My first reaction was writing "get in the car, drive to where you live and try to get to know you better". Because there are some people I know from social media but have never met and would really like to get to know in person, to talk about their looks on life, happiness and what they would do if they could change the world. And Claudia definitely is one of those people.

I never answered her question, but it did make me think about it.
At first, I was wondering if there was anything I would do if there were no consequences (apart from driving to Claudia). But then it dawned on me that the question is rather tricky. Because it somehow implies that "consequences" are always a bad thing. And you could see it in many of the answers Claudia posted. "Rob a bank", "print money and live on a topical island", "kiss you". All answers of which the writer has to fear that in every day life, the consequences are not nice, to say the least. Being prosecuted and sentenced to jail, being slapped in the face by Claudia (or worse, being attacked by a husband or boyfriend if she has any). 
But when you think of it, consequences are merely the result of an action, aren't they? Yes, especially in the plural form, it is mostly a result that is bad or not convenient. But it can also be something positive. Like for example "The projects had positive economic externalities, as a consequence of the positive environmental 
effects" (found this as a sample sentence on linguee.com).
So if there were no consequences to our acting, there would be no bad things happening to us as a result, but there would also be no good coming from our acting, would there. Stopping the budget-cuts for fire brigades would not have the consequence of increase in personnel and quality of material, leading to fires not being extinguished as efficiently or not at all. The good act of hiring young women from neighbouring villages as rangers in a natural park would not have the consequence that poaching in the area goes down.
But then, on the other side of the medal, the clumsiness of human beings (stupidity if you like) would not have the consequence of fires starting and poaching would not have the consequence of wildlife populations being endangered.
So would the world be better off without consequences?
I don't know, really. But it sure is a nice philosophical question for when you're sitting at a campfire with nothing but the sounds of crackling wood and animals in the night to distract your thoughts.
In that sense: have a good weekend and give yourself a bit of time every now and again to think about such theoretical topics. It's relaxing.