4 ms·
Why should the burden of these restrictions and policing falls upon a private company? If the government decides to apply additional restrictions under the pret
by m-p-3 7y ago
Why should the burden of these restrictions and policing falls upon a private company? If the government decides to apply additional restrictions under the pretense of national security, then it should foot the bill.
- jiveturkey 7y agoThe government doesn't pay any bills whatsoever! The taxpayer does. In this case, should all taxpayers foot the bill, or should only exporters?
- jkaplowitz 7y agoAll taxpayers. We're the ones indirectly responsible for the government that imposes the unreasonably trade-disrupting regulations, and it's in everyone's interest that we be able to export smoothly (not just that of the exporters themselves).
- magduf 7y agoAll taxpayers should. They chose the government, and they're responsible for it. If you don't like footing the bill for a crappy policy, then do a better job voting.
- morpheuskafka 7y agoAll taxpayers should, because the entire US economy would collapse without cost-effective export shipping. Also, the issue is less of who pays and more of the strict liability. I don't think FedEx would mind implementing commercially reasonable measure to check high-risk packages--like customs does--but the issue is that they are now in the business of interpreting the law, and if the government disagrees they get in trouble.