5 ms·

All these comments seem to live in a fantastical world where money doesn't corrupt or influence behavior. Police were paid to do a job and did it to the benefit

All these comments seem to live in a fantastical world where money doesn't corrupt or influence behavior. Police were paid to do a job and did it to the benefit of an oil company. You can't pay a detective to investigate a family murder or sexual assault and shouldn't have to. Ostensibly that's what taxes for and what most people actually want them to do anyways. The day we normalize companies paying for services like these is the day we normalize the things people actually like police doing getting even more de-prioritized because everyday people can't (and shouldn't) pay for it. It's like a college building a new sports stadium, suuuure they say the ticket sales will offset the cost and help the school but somehow it all gets funneled back into sports.

gruez 5y ago
> All these comments seem to live in a fantastical world where money doesn't corrupt or influence behavior. Police were paid to do a job and did it to the benefit of an oil company. You can't pay a detective to investigate a family murder or sexual assault and shouldn't have to. Ostensibly that's what taxes for and what most people actually want them to do anyways. But as another commenter mentioned[1], the pipeline company isn't doing this voluntarily, they're doing it because the utility commission forced them to. If that's the case, what's the difference between the pipeline company paying the police, and the pipeline company paying taxes, which goes to the town, which pays the police? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28776698 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28776698
- Barrin92 5y ago
  For starters according to the article: "Enbridge told the Guardian an independent account manager allocates the funds, and police decide when protesters are breaking the law. But records obtained by the Guardian show the company meets daily with police to discuss intelligence gathering and patrols. And when Enbridge wants protesters removed, it calls police or sends letters. “Our police are beholden to a foreign company,” Tara Houska, founder of the Indigenous frontline group Giniw Collective, told the Guardian. “They are working hand in hand with big oil. They are actively working for a company. Their duty is owed to the state of Minnesota and to the tribal citizens of Minnesota.”" The company does much more than just funding the police comparable to tax revenue, they're literally organisizing and coordinating with police in their own interests, put simply, they use the police like a bunch of private goons.
  - avs733 5y ago
    underfunding public institutions in ways that drive them towards other sources of funding and outside influence by those with power and capital is not accidental, it is intentional. You can effectively force this type of corruption by cutting apportionment without cutting responsibilities. C.f.... * IRS unable to investigate rich tax cheats due to lack of agents * the FDA example used elsewhere * America's public universities * This
    - gruez 5y ago
      > underfunding public institutions in ways that drive them towards other sources of funding and outside influence by those with power and capital is not accidental, it is intentional. You fail to address the question in my earlier comment: what's the difference between: 1. a company being forced to pay taxes to the local government, and the local government using that to fund the police 2. a company being forced to pay the police
      - verall 5y ago
        It adds a layer of indirection which helps prevent moral hazard. If the company pays taxes to the local government, and the local government pays the police department, AND the company is not allowed to pay the police department directly, there is less possibility for the company to incentivize particular behaviors. The police budget should be set by the local government, breaking protestor lines should not come with rewards provided by a private company, that investigating regular public crimes would not have.
        gruez 5y ago
        > It adds a layer of indirection which helps prevent moral hazard. If the company pays taxes to the local government, and the local government pays the police department, AND the company is not allowed to pay the police department directly, there is less possibility for the company to incentivize particular behaviors. According to the article there's already a layer of indirection. "independent account manager allocates the funds" What's the difference between "independent account manager" and "local government" in this case? Moreover, what can either party do to influence the police's behavior? Does having "evil pipeline co." on the check make the police chief more willing to beat up protesters or something? >The police budget should be set by the local government Considering that the payment is being forced by the utility commission, I doubt the local government is able to spend the money as they see fit (ie. spend it on schools rather than police). For all intents and purposes their budget-setting ability is fairly limited. >breaking protestor lines should not come with rewards provided by a private company, that investigating regular public crimes would not have. Is there any indication that's the case? As far as I understand it the utility commission is forcing the pipeline company to give the police a given amount, and the pipeline is complying with that requirement. Is the pipline company setting a bounty per protester beaten up or something?
choward 5y ago
> All these comments seem to live in a fantastical world where money doesn't corrupt or influence behavior.. You can't pay a detective to investigate a family murder or sexual assault and shouldn't have to. An example of corruption is how the FDA is funded. Pharmaceutical companies who want their application for approval to be given priority can pay extra. Because of this the pharmaceutical companies end up doing most of the funding of the FDA instead of the federal government. Ever since this rule was put in place a higher percentage of drugs have been recalled and had to add side effects to the label than before. Just like in the detective example, nobody should be given preferential treatment just because they pay more. Just because a drug company pays more to get their drug doesn't mean it's drug is more valuable to society than the one that it skipped in line. It's just like paying a detective to investigate your case doesn't make it more important.
- SeanLuke 5y ago
  > Because of this the pharmaceutical companies end up doing most of the funding of the FDA instead of the federal government. 45% is way too much, but it is not "most of the funding". IIRC that was an urban legend that got started recently. Many government agencies are funded to a significant degree based on fees from their specific constituents. The post office is funded in large measure from postage fees. Highway construction is funded in part from gasoline and automotive vehicle taxes. The USPTO is funded in part from fees. So is the SEC. The point of fees of this sort is that they are directed narrowly at the petitioners who use the service of the agency. Do you want Merck to have its (arbitrarily many) applications to the FDA paid for by you, rather than Merck, via income tax? Surely it should be shouldering the cost of its own drug submissions. That can be dangerous of course. It's true that such fees can promote regulatory capture, or even corruption, but they are not in and of themselves examples of corruption as you claimed. 45% is ridiculously high but it is not corruption. Corruption would be the FDA approving drugs in return for payment where it would not have otherwise. > Just because a drug company pays more to get their drug doesn't mean it's drug is more valuable to society than the one that it skipped in line. No, it means that the company was willing to shoulder the costs of expedited processing. Embassies do this too, you know: if you pay more money you can get your passport processed faster. I don't like the idea of expedited approval processes for drugs: it damages the safety checks in place. But I don't think that just because Merck paid gets its drug approved faster means it "skipped ahead in line" in front of J&J, just that its process is moving faster because it paid for the resources to make that happen.
jazzyjackson 5y ago
Speaking of those stadiums, when there's a large event, the city asks the event holder to compensate them for the amount of overtime it will cost the city to man the event. It's already quite normal, tho I agree with you in principle. If taxes paid for any and all necessary police protection, Trump wouldn't owe the city of El Paso half a million dollars.
ipsum2 5y ago
> You can't pay a detective to investigate a family murder or sexual assault Isn't that the point of private detectives (aka private investigators)? They can be used to provide admissible evidence to a court.

gruez 5y ago

> All these comments seem to live in a fantastical world where money doesn't corrupt or influence behavior. Police were paid to do a job and did it to the benefit of an oil company. You can't pay a detective to investigate a family murder or sexual assault and shouldn't have to. Ostensibly that's what taxes for and what most people actually want them to do anyways. But as another commenter mentioned[1], the pipeline company isn't doing this voluntarily, they're doing it because the utility commission forced them to. If that's the case, what's the difference between the pipeline company paying the police, and the pipeline company paying taxes, which goes to the town, which pays the police? [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28776698 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28776698

Barrin92 5y ago
For starters according to the article: "Enbridge told the Guardian an independent account manager allocates the funds, and police decide when protesters are breaking the law. But records obtained by the Guardian show the company meets daily with police to discuss intelligence gathering and patrols. And when Enbridge wants protesters removed, it calls police or sends letters. “Our police are beholden to a foreign company,” Tara Houska, founder of the Indigenous frontline group Giniw Collective, told the Guardian. “They are working hand in hand with big oil. They are actively working for a company. Their duty is owed to the state of Minnesota and to the tribal citizens of Minnesota.”" The company does much more than just funding the police comparable to tax revenue, they're literally organisizing and coordinating with police in their own interests, put simply, they use the police like a bunch of private goons.
- avs733 5y ago
  underfunding public institutions in ways that drive them towards other sources of funding and outside influence by those with power and capital is not accidental, it is intentional. You can effectively force this type of corruption by cutting apportionment without cutting responsibilities. C.f.... * IRS unable to investigate rich tax cheats due to lack of agents * the FDA example used elsewhere * America's public universities * This
  - gruez 5y ago
    > underfunding public institutions in ways that drive them towards other sources of funding and outside influence by those with power and capital is not accidental, it is intentional. You fail to address the question in my earlier comment: what's the difference between: 1. a company being forced to pay taxes to the local government, and the local government using that to fund the police 2. a company being forced to pay the police
    - verall 5y ago
      It adds a layer of indirection which helps prevent moral hazard. If the company pays taxes to the local government, and the local government pays the police department, AND the company is not allowed to pay the police department directly, there is less possibility for the company to incentivize particular behaviors. The police budget should be set by the local government, breaking protestor lines should not come with rewards provided by a private company, that investigating regular public crimes would not have.
      - gruez 5y ago
        > It adds a layer of indirection which helps prevent moral hazard. If the company pays taxes to the local government, and the local government pays the police department, AND the company is not allowed to pay the police department directly, there is less possibility for the company to incentivize particular behaviors. According to the article there's already a layer of indirection. "independent account manager allocates the funds" What's the difference between "independent account manager" and "local government" in this case? Moreover, what can either party do to influence the police's behavior? Does having "evil pipeline co." on the check make the police chief more willing to beat up protesters or something? >The police budget should be set by the local government Considering that the payment is being forced by the utility commission, I doubt the local government is able to spend the money as they see fit (ie. spend it on schools rather than police). For all intents and purposes their budget-setting ability is fairly limited. >breaking protestor lines should not come with rewards provided by a private company, that investigating regular public crimes would not have. Is there any indication that's the case? As far as I understand it the utility commission is forcing the pipeline company to give the police a given amount, and the pipeline is complying with that requirement. Is the pipline company setting a bounty per protester beaten up or something?

choward 5y ago

> All these comments seem to live in a fantastical world where money doesn't corrupt or influence behavior.. You can't pay a detective to investigate a family murder or sexual assault and shouldn't have to. An example of corruption is how the FDA is funded. Pharmaceutical companies who want their application for approval to be given priority can pay extra. Because of this the pharmaceutical companies end up doing most of the funding of the FDA instead of the federal government. Ever since this rule was put in place a higher percentage of drugs have been recalled and had to add side effects to the label than before. Just like in the detective example, nobody should be given preferential treatment just because they pay more. Just because a drug company pays more to get their drug doesn't mean it's drug is more valuable to society than the one that it skipped in line. It's just like paying a detective to investigate your case doesn't make it more important.

SeanLuke 5y ago
> Because of this the pharmaceutical companies end up doing most of the funding of the FDA instead of the federal government. 45% is way too much, but it is not "most of the funding". IIRC that was an urban legend that got started recently. Many government agencies are funded to a significant degree based on fees from their specific constituents. The post office is funded in large measure from postage fees. Highway construction is funded in part from gasoline and automotive vehicle taxes. The USPTO is funded in part from fees. So is the SEC. The point of fees of this sort is that they are directed narrowly at the petitioners who use the service of the agency. Do you want Merck to have its (arbitrarily many) applications to the FDA paid for by you, rather than Merck, via income tax? Surely it should be shouldering the cost of its own drug submissions. That can be dangerous of course. It's true that such fees can promote regulatory capture, or even corruption, but they are not in and of themselves examples of corruption as you claimed. 45% is ridiculously high but it is not corruption. Corruption would be the FDA approving drugs in return for payment where it would not have otherwise. > Just because a drug company pays more to get their drug doesn't mean it's drug is more valuable to society than the one that it skipped in line. No, it means that the company was willing to shoulder the costs of expedited processing. Embassies do this too, you know: if you pay more money you can get your passport processed faster. I don't like the idea of expedited approval processes for drugs: it damages the safety checks in place. But I don't think that just because Merck paid gets its drug approved faster means it "skipped ahead in line" in front of J&J, just that its process is moving faster because it paid for the resources to make that happen.

jazzyjackson 5y ago

Speaking of those stadiums, when there's a large event, the city asks the event holder to compensate them for the amount of overtime it will cost the city to man the event. It's already quite normal, tho I agree with you in principle. If taxes paid for any and all necessary police protection, Trump wouldn't owe the city of El Paso half a million dollars.

ipsum2 5y ago

> You can't pay a detective to investigate a family murder or sexual assault Isn't that the point of private detectives (aka private investigators)? They can be used to provide admissible evidence to a court.