3 ms·

> The problem that I see with this approach is that we are privatising profits while socializing costs. The costs in question are the costs of achieving a gove

> The problem that I see with this approach is that we are privatising profits while socializing costs. The costs in question are the costs of achieving a government goal. It’s not like FedEx expects the government to pay its shipping bill. But when a government mandate costs FedEx money, it wants to be compensated for complying.

TallGuyShort 7y ago
Let's be clear that this is a "government" goal, and that isn't necessarily a goal of the people whom the government serves. The government doesn't have it's own money to serve it's own goals, so I'd appreciate it if it stopped using my money to ignore my goals for society, so that it can pursue it's own. See also: having to donate basic school supplies to the public school, but the state patrol has state-of-the-art weaponry and technology headquartered in my town that hasn't had a murder in 20 years.
kartan 7y ago
> it wants to be compensated for complying. This will not scale. Next, industries will want to be compensated to add filters to not pollute rivers. Car makers will want to be compensated for doing safe cars. Supermarkets will want to be compensated for having to check customers age before selling alcohol or tobacco. Etc. To follow the law is part of doing business. If the law is unreasonable or it is a problem with the law or it is a problem with the business model.
- dclowd9901 7y ago
  You're glossing right over what's happening here. Customs is expecting FedEx to _enforce_ law. Not comply with it, enforce it. Preventing a package from crossing the border on a legality basis is not the responsibility of any private entity in the United States. We have official agencies who act in that capacity and have authority to do so. So, no, it is nothing like putting seatbelts in cars or not polluting rivers. Equivalent would be forcing car makers to ensure customers wear their seatbelts or companies keep rivers at a certain level of pollution (regardless of their complicity in its pollution).
XMPPwocky 7y ago
And when a government policy makes FedEx money, FedEx is eager to return that to the government.

TallGuyShort 7y ago

Let's be clear that this is a "government" goal, and that isn't necessarily a goal of the people whom the government serves. The government doesn't have it's own money to serve it's own goals, so I'd appreciate it if it stopped using my money to ignore my goals for society, so that it can pursue it's own. See also: having to donate basic school supplies to the public school, but the state patrol has state-of-the-art weaponry and technology headquartered in my town that hasn't had a murder in 20 years.

kartan 7y ago

> it wants to be compensated for complying. This will not scale. Next, industries will want to be compensated to add filters to not pollute rivers. Car makers will want to be compensated for doing safe cars. Supermarkets will want to be compensated for having to check customers age before selling alcohol or tobacco. Etc. To follow the law is part of doing business. If the law is unreasonable or it is a problem with the law or it is a problem with the business model.

dclowd9901 7y ago
You're glossing right over what's happening here. Customs is expecting FedEx to _enforce_ law. Not comply with it, enforce it. Preventing a package from crossing the border on a legality basis is not the responsibility of any private entity in the United States. We have official agencies who act in that capacity and have authority to do so. So, no, it is nothing like putting seatbelts in cars or not polluting rivers. Equivalent would be forcing car makers to ensure customers wear their seatbelts or companies keep rivers at a certain level of pollution (regardless of their complicity in its pollution).

XMPPwocky 7y ago

And when a government policy makes FedEx money, FedEx is eager to return that to the government.