3 ms·

That's one framing. Another framing is that if you think we ought to have roads and socialized healthcare and so on, then it seems like it's a bad thing if peop

That's one framing. Another framing is that if you think we ought to have roads and socialized healthcare and so on, then it seems like it's a bad thing if people are financially incentivized to pay a small platoon of rule-understanders to prevent their money from being spent on those things you think we ought to have.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago
This framing seems like a classic case of "yesterday's compromise is today's loophole". The rules and their various exceptions and special cases were put in to be used. Would you complain that someone takes a right turn on red where allowed or complain that someone builds a structure to the maximum specifications they can before incurring additional permitting or construction compliance requirements?
- anonymoushn 5y ago
  If I was alive when the special cases were put in, I would also have told you that I did not care for them. If the rules create incentives that lead to bad outcomes, it is a problem with the rules. I generally regard people building large buildings as a good outcome, so about the max-without-x-permit-sized buildings, I probably would not be too upset, but I would have to think about what buildings would exist in the absence of the rule. Do you level the same criticism at people who are upset that they are employed for just less than full time? "Well you see, you voted for Barack Obama, and he spent all his political capital to pass a subsidy for the insurance industry, and as part of a compromise internal to the Democratic party that subsidy included incentives to employ people for less than full time, so really this is on you" and so on?
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    >If the rules create incentives that lead to bad outcomes, it is a problem with the rules. So then why complain about the people following the rules? They're just making the best of the situation they're in. >I generally regard people building large buildings as a good outcome, so about the max-without-x-permit-sized buildings, I probably would not be too upset, but I would have to think about what buildings would exist in the absence of the rule. So then it's about whether or not you like the outcome that rule provides? Regardless of how much you care about compliance with the law it is farcical to pick and choose laws that get special treatment (within the same class of laws, we're not talking about dodging sales tax vs murder here). You don't get to pick one area of minor noncompliance to be good guys and one area to be bad guys, equality under law and all that. >Do you level the same criticism at people who are upset that they are employed for just less than full time? I levy the criticism at the people screeching online about how the companies that do it are evil, as if they have a choice and it's not a collective action problem. Sure Home Depot could take a stand and give everyone 40hr and eat the cost of the healthcare requirements but then Lowe's would eat their lunch. The only way to fix these problems is to change the rules for everyone.
    - anonymoushn 5y ago
      > So then why complain about the people following the rules? I did not. The rest of your comment seems to be about the same misunderstanding.
sidlls 5y ago
Here's another framing: I think the government ought to fund infrastructure, healthcare, and so on, and also that it doesn't mainly because it's filled with corrupt lackeys of the wealthy elite, and even where it does fund these things the mechanism of distribution (government contractors) is also corrupt. It's perfectly rational to attempt to minimize funding that.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

This framing seems like a classic case of "yesterday's compromise is today's loophole". The rules and their various exceptions and special cases were put in to be used. Would you complain that someone takes a right turn on red where allowed or complain that someone builds a structure to the maximum specifications they can before incurring additional permitting or construction compliance requirements?

anonymoushn 5y ago
If I was alive when the special cases were put in, I would also have told you that I did not care for them. If the rules create incentives that lead to bad outcomes, it is a problem with the rules. I generally regard people building large buildings as a good outcome, so about the max-without-x-permit-sized buildings, I probably would not be too upset, but I would have to think about what buildings would exist in the absence of the rule. Do you level the same criticism at people who are upset that they are employed for just less than full time? "Well you see, you voted for Barack Obama, and he spent all his political capital to pass a subsidy for the insurance industry, and as part of a compromise internal to the Democratic party that subsidy included incentives to employ people for less than full time, so really this is on you" and so on?
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  >If the rules create incentives that lead to bad outcomes, it is a problem with the rules. So then why complain about the people following the rules? They're just making the best of the situation they're in. >I generally regard people building large buildings as a good outcome, so about the max-without-x-permit-sized buildings, I probably would not be too upset, but I would have to think about what buildings would exist in the absence of the rule. So then it's about whether or not you like the outcome that rule provides? Regardless of how much you care about compliance with the law it is farcical to pick and choose laws that get special treatment (within the same class of laws, we're not talking about dodging sales tax vs murder here). You don't get to pick one area of minor noncompliance to be good guys and one area to be bad guys, equality under law and all that. >Do you level the same criticism at people who are upset that they are employed for just less than full time? I levy the criticism at the people screeching online about how the companies that do it are evil, as if they have a choice and it's not a collective action problem. Sure Home Depot could take a stand and give everyone 40hr and eat the cost of the healthcare requirements but then Lowe's would eat their lunch. The only way to fix these problems is to change the rules for everyone.
  - anonymoushn 5y ago
    > So then why complain about the people following the rules? I did not. The rest of your comment seems to be about the same misunderstanding.

sidlls 5y ago

Here's another framing: I think the government ought to fund infrastructure, healthcare, and so on, and also that it doesn't mainly because it's filled with corrupt lackeys of the wealthy elite, and even where it does fund these things the mechanism of distribution (government contractors) is also corrupt. It's perfectly rational to attempt to minimize funding that.