11 ms·

The real WTF here? Municipal executives who sign contracts with distant third party tech companies containing revenue quotas for those companies. Perverse ince

The real WTF here? Municipal executives who sign contracts with distant third party tech companies containing revenue quotas for those companies. Perverse incentives! the original purpose of laws against driving too fast or jumping red lights is promoting public safety. When the municipality has an obligation to issue a certain number of violations, the original purpose is subverted. Now, of course another public policy purpose of these laws is to raise revenue. When the revenue is made possible by a tech company, the municipality probably has a contractual obligation undermining its public safety mission. Municipal officials, if they were willing, could raise revenue by asking the people to pay more taxes, even excise taxes on vehicles. But there's no incentive for municipal executives to be honest any more: for over a generation the US citizenry has been trained to vote against anyone who asks for more taxes. So dinging violators of regulations is an easier way for towns to get money. Create regulations that turn ordinary people in to "bad" people, then grab some of their money to make them "good" again. What a system! Hacker News friends, let's remember that we are, or easily could be, the creators of those distant third party tech companies whose contracts perpetuate the perverse incentives.

jstanley 10y ago
> Create regulations that turn ordinary people in to "bad" people, then grab some of their money to make them "good" again. What a system! Rather reminiscent of the way religion worked in the middle ages.
- fergbrain 10y ago
  Until Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses
  - OliverJones 10y ago
    Good catch! I'm a Lutheran minister, and my comment about making good people bad and good again is, precisely, informed by Dr. Luther's rant about selling indulgences.
- OliverJones 10y ago
  > of the way religion worked in the middle ages. Still does. The local Catholic Church diocese here in eastern MA campaigned, from their PULPITS!!, against decriminalizing cannabis here in MA. The only explanation I can think of: the less ways people have to be "bad," the less leverage the bishops have over the people.
  - sanderjd 10y ago
    That's different. Your parent was referring to indulgences, a pay for sin scheme. There's nothing wrong with religions choosing morals to preach - that's their raison d'etre - if you don't like what they choose, you can leave the church or attempt to change their choice (this is why we have freedom of religion).
  - paulddraper 10y ago
    > campaigned, from their PULPITS!! Gosh, they're only supposed talk about abstract notions and lots of feel-goodies for everyone there. Taking a stand in church on decriminalizing drugs...that's too far!
    - sandworm101 10y ago
      If i remember correctly, there is a never-enforced federal statute forbading preachers from advocating for/against paticular politicians. It made sence back when written, but it's hard to imagine it ever enforced today. Not the best citation but i am on a mobile. http://www.christian-attorney.net/church_political_campaign_activity.html http://www.christian-attorney.net/church_political_campaign_...
      - stellar678 10y ago
        It doesn't target churches specifically. But churches like to operate under 501c3 nonprofit charity status so they can avoid paying taxes, and part of the 501c3 tax regulation forbids supporting candidates. I was curious though and apparently they are allowed to spend some undefined small portion of their time and resources lobbying or talking about legislation.
yequalsx 10y ago
Taxes are theft. Lower taxes at all costs. Of course don't cut police, road maintainence, schools, etc. so what's a politician to do? Be honest? Edit: The first 2 sentences are sarcasm. Though there are people who think this way.
- Pxtl 10y ago
  Be very happy that HN has an undownvote button.
- cderwin 10y ago
  For what its worth, I think most people who agree with your first to sentences would have no problem with cutting the things you list in the third.
  - yequalsx 10y ago
    Probably not police but certainly schools.
  - zo1 10y ago
    I am one of those people. Though what you forget to add is that we'd rather pay to have such services in our communities by ourselves, of our own volition, rather than it being taken from us without our explicit consent. This discussion always boils down to consent.
    - Forbo 10y ago
      I'm genuinely curious, how do you go about executing this? Not everyone will consent, so how do you selectively apply those services? In the winter, I pay for snow plows and salting the roads, but my neighbor doesn't, so...? I am really having a difficult time seeing how to actually make this happen.
      - zo1 10y ago
        Roads would be plowed by the companies that owe them. I.e. as a service to the people that are renting usage of the road. And yeah, we envision a society where all land can be owned, including roads. Of course, transitioning to such a system where currently all roads are owned by everyone else and simultaneously by no-one, would be a tricky thing to solve. Though it has been "solved" in certain parts. E.g. If you consider large gated communities. It's not a perfect example, but it does hint at the possibility of people coming together to solve a communal problem using communal funding, and individuals having the option to leave if they don't like it and don't want to consent. It took me the longest time to reconcile a bunch of these things when it came to Libertarianism (or further). Eventually I did "get it" when I started thinking about how I would solve these problems in the absence of a state and only having access to the concepts of "private property" and "contracts". Having a state there, ready and ever-present to fix all our problems is a cushion/crutch when it comes to solving the problems that a community would have to deal with.
Cerium 10y ago
We should put safety related ticket revenue 100 percent into an insurance policy for those hurt by the offense. We should set ticket prices based on the needed premium to insure the victims. That would remove the incentive to increase tickets, while preserving the purpose! For example, if you get hurt by a red light runner, you should get paid by all the accident free red light tickets.
- bmelton 10y ago
  > For example, if you get hurt by a red light runner, you should get paid by all the accident free red light tickets. This is referenced in the article, but if there is an accident-free red light running incident, then there are no plaintiffs with standing to claim injury ergo there are no tickets issued (as there would be no one to issue them) ergo there would be no revenues. The idea that you can make a facial wrong into something just by putting the ill-gotten gains to better use than they currently are is undoubtedly somewhat more noble an act than what is currently done, but still ignoble as it is predicated on ignobility. Past that, your idea has pragmatic challenges. If the funds are placed into a trust or insurance policy, then they are not being used to fund the police and court systems that generate those funds, so the system cannot perpetuate itself without significantly raising the cost of the tickets to cover both the insurance policy funds and the regular maintenance fees, which makes a ticket expensive enough to be worth hiring an attorney to fight, meaning fewer fees collected, meaning fees would need be raised again to cover the cost of avoidance.
  - JoBrad 10y ago
    > if there is an accident-free red light running incident, then there are no plaintiffs with standing to claim injury ergo there are no tickets issued (as there would be no one to issue them) ergo there would be no revenues. That's not what the article was about. Injury does not have to occur for you to get a ticket (and have to pay it) for running a red light. You have violated a regulation, and the city has standing. The article was about a different situation where there was no actual proof that Adam broke the law, yet he was being accused of exactly that.
zeamaize 10y ago
Wait, political corruption from an elected official is your WTF here? Have you been paying attention?
joering2 10y ago
> Create regulations that turn ordinary people in to "bad" people, then grab some of their money to make them "good" again. What a system! Darn!! You just basically described what racketeering is, no??
megablast 10y ago
Except that it does good. To go out and catch idiots driving is a good thing.
steamer25 10y ago
Right--the regular drivers who are never found in violation are the ones who are claimed to benefit from enforcement. If there are budget shortfalls that can be fixed by enforcement-related revenues, let those who benefit be the ones who pay (via taxation).
steamer25 10y ago
> for over a generation the US citizenry has been trained to vote against anyone who asks for more taxes. My understanding is that in the Reagan era, it was assumed that if tax payers could get tax cuts passed, then common-sense budgetary-discipline would force the legislature to follow through with spending cuts. The motto was to "starve the beast". The problem is that transfer payments (from tax payers to voter blocks) are so compelling for most politicians that they refuse to swerve in the game of political chicken. Nowadays, some libertarian-minded voters call for spending cuts directly, hoping that the tax cuts will follow. Either way, there needs to be some way of signaling for errant government to do more with less as we do via market signals in the private sector.
- empthought 10y ago
  > Either way, there needs to be some way of signaling for errant government to do more with less as we do via market signals in the private sector. I don't understand what you mean by this. The whole concept of a "market signal" is that it's not a deliberate communication.

jstanley 10y ago

> Create regulations that turn ordinary people in to "bad" people, then grab some of their money to make them "good" again. What a system! Rather reminiscent of the way religion worked in the middle ages.

fergbrain 10y ago
Until Martin Luther posted his 95 Theses
- OliverJones 10y ago
  Good catch! I'm a Lutheran minister, and my comment about making good people bad and good again is, precisely, informed by Dr. Luther's rant about selling indulgences.
OliverJones 10y ago
> of the way religion worked in the middle ages. Still does. The local Catholic Church diocese here in eastern MA campaigned, from their PULPITS!!, against decriminalizing cannabis here in MA. The only explanation I can think of: the less ways people have to be "bad," the less leverage the bishops have over the people.
- sanderjd 10y ago
  That's different. Your parent was referring to indulgences, a pay for sin scheme. There's nothing wrong with religions choosing morals to preach - that's their raison d'etre - if you don't like what they choose, you can leave the church or attempt to change their choice (this is why we have freedom of religion).
- paulddraper 10y ago
  > campaigned, from their PULPITS!! Gosh, they're only supposed talk about abstract notions and lots of feel-goodies for everyone there. Taking a stand in church on decriminalizing drugs...that's too far!
  - sandworm101 10y ago
    If i remember correctly, there is a never-enforced federal statute forbading preachers from advocating for/against paticular politicians. It made sence back when written, but it's hard to imagine it ever enforced today. Not the best citation but i am on a mobile. http://www.christian-attorney.net/church_political_campaign_activity.html http://www.christian-attorney.net/church_political_campaign_...
    - stellar678 10y ago
      It doesn't target churches specifically. But churches like to operate under 501c3 nonprofit charity status so they can avoid paying taxes, and part of the 501c3 tax regulation forbids supporting candidates. I was curious though and apparently they are allowed to spend some undefined small portion of their time and resources lobbying or talking about legislation.

yequalsx 10y ago

Taxes are theft. Lower taxes at all costs. Of course don't cut police, road maintainence, schools, etc. so what's a politician to do? Be honest? Edit: The first 2 sentences are sarcasm. Though there are people who think this way.

Pxtl 10y ago
Be very happy that HN has an undownvote button.
cderwin 10y ago
For what its worth, I think most people who agree with your first to sentences would have no problem with cutting the things you list in the third.
- yequalsx 10y ago
  Probably not police but certainly schools.
- zo1 10y ago
  I am one of those people. Though what you forget to add is that we'd rather pay to have such services in our communities by ourselves, of our own volition, rather than it being taken from us without our explicit consent. This discussion always boils down to consent.
  - Forbo 10y ago
    I'm genuinely curious, how do you go about executing this? Not everyone will consent, so how do you selectively apply those services? In the winter, I pay for snow plows and salting the roads, but my neighbor doesn't, so...? I am really having a difficult time seeing how to actually make this happen.
    - zo1 10y ago
      Roads would be plowed by the companies that owe them. I.e. as a service to the people that are renting usage of the road. And yeah, we envision a society where all land can be owned, including roads. Of course, transitioning to such a system where currently all roads are owned by everyone else and simultaneously by no-one, would be a tricky thing to solve. Though it has been "solved" in certain parts. E.g. If you consider large gated communities. It's not a perfect example, but it does hint at the possibility of people coming together to solve a communal problem using communal funding, and individuals having the option to leave if they don't like it and don't want to consent. It took me the longest time to reconcile a bunch of these things when it came to Libertarianism (or further). Eventually I did "get it" when I started thinking about how I would solve these problems in the absence of a state and only having access to the concepts of "private property" and "contracts". Having a state there, ready and ever-present to fix all our problems is a cushion/crutch when it comes to solving the problems that a community would have to deal with.

Cerium 10y ago

We should put safety related ticket revenue 100 percent into an insurance policy for those hurt by the offense. We should set ticket prices based on the needed premium to insure the victims. That would remove the incentive to increase tickets, while preserving the purpose! For example, if you get hurt by a red light runner, you should get paid by all the accident free red light tickets.

bmelton 10y ago
> For example, if you get hurt by a red light runner, you should get paid by all the accident free red light tickets. This is referenced in the article, but if there is an accident-free red light running incident, then there are no plaintiffs with standing to claim injury ergo there are no tickets issued (as there would be no one to issue them) ergo there would be no revenues. The idea that you can make a facial wrong into something just by putting the ill-gotten gains to better use than they currently are is undoubtedly somewhat more noble an act than what is currently done, but still ignoble as it is predicated on ignobility. Past that, your idea has pragmatic challenges. If the funds are placed into a trust or insurance policy, then they are not being used to fund the police and court systems that generate those funds, so the system cannot perpetuate itself without significantly raising the cost of the tickets to cover both the insurance policy funds and the regular maintenance fees, which makes a ticket expensive enough to be worth hiring an attorney to fight, meaning fewer fees collected, meaning fees would need be raised again to cover the cost of avoidance.
- JoBrad 10y ago
  > if there is an accident-free red light running incident, then there are no plaintiffs with standing to claim injury ergo there are no tickets issued (as there would be no one to issue them) ergo there would be no revenues. That's not what the article was about. Injury does not have to occur for you to get a ticket (and have to pay it) for running a red light. You have violated a regulation, and the city has standing. The article was about a different situation where there was no actual proof that Adam broke the law, yet he was being accused of exactly that.

zeamaize 10y ago

Wait, political corruption from an elected official is your WTF here? Have you been paying attention?

joering2 10y ago

> Create regulations that turn ordinary people in to "bad" people, then grab some of their money to make them "good" again. What a system! Darn!! You just basically described what racketeering is, no??

megablast 10y ago

Except that it does good. To go out and catch idiots driving is a good thing.

steamer25 10y ago

Right--the regular drivers who are never found in violation are the ones who are claimed to benefit from enforcement. If there are budget shortfalls that can be fixed by enforcement-related revenues, let those who benefit be the ones who pay (via taxation).

steamer25 10y ago

> for over a generation the US citizenry has been trained to vote against anyone who asks for more taxes. My understanding is that in the Reagan era, it was assumed that if tax payers could get tax cuts passed, then common-sense budgetary-discipline would force the legislature to follow through with spending cuts. The motto was to "starve the beast". The problem is that transfer payments (from tax payers to voter blocks) are so compelling for most politicians that they refuse to swerve in the game of political chicken. Nowadays, some libertarian-minded voters call for spending cuts directly, hoping that the tax cuts will follow. Either way, there needs to be some way of signaling for errant government to do more with less as we do via market signals in the private sector.

empthought 10y ago
> Either way, there needs to be some way of signaling for errant government to do more with less as we do via market signals in the private sector. I don't understand what you mean by this. The whole concept of a "market signal" is that it's not a deliberate communication.