5 ms·

Sure, but those are symptoms of larger problems. Increasing enforcement is an act of hiding the symptoms and it does not and will never solve the underlying pro

Sure, but those are symptoms of larger problems. Increasing enforcement is an act of hiding the symptoms and it does not and will never solve the underlying problem. For example, I encounter far less discrimination and less racism living in where I do now than in other places, and yet the laws are practically the same here as in anywhere else. The reason I experience less discrimination here is due to the encompassing framework that everyone here is subjected to as part of their experience growing up. The strictness of the laws is irrelevant to that issue. If you want to change how people act, you need to change the entire framework that people are growing within.

dml2135 5y ago
I may be missing something, but increased enforcement sounds like a great way to solve the corruption problem? Eg. Public servants make ends meet by fudging timesheets => Enforcement clamps down on practice => Employees bargain for higher pay to make up for difference => Public gets a more transparent accounting of their labor costs
- thrashh 5y ago
  To me adjusting the level of enforcement is like the “fine” knob. It absolutely needs to be adjusted according to the situation. But it’s not the “coarse” knob. You can only turn enforcement up or down so much before you need a paradigm shift.
  - MichaelZuo 5y ago
    You make it sound like you have convincing evidence that is the case. Do you?
- ballenf 5y ago
  There's no set of laws that can efficiently govern dishonest people. Or in "low trust" environments, if you prefer think of it amorally. Enforcement just moves around where the corruption is incentivized to happen. Is it at the bottom -- workers stealing extra pay or higher up where the enforcement happens?
joe_the_user 5y ago
Sure, but those are symptoms of larger problems. Increasing enforcement is an act of hiding the symptoms and it does not and will never solve the underlying problem. That's sometimes true but I'd just note this has nothing to do with the original argument made praising gray areas. The drug war is a place where there's an escalating war between dealing and enforcement, yes. But most dealers aren't having a lot of fun in this gray area.

dml2135 5y ago

I may be missing something, but increased enforcement sounds like a great way to solve the corruption problem? Eg. Public servants make ends meet by fudging timesheets => Enforcement clamps down on practice => Employees bargain for higher pay to make up for difference => Public gets a more transparent accounting of their labor costs

thrashh 5y ago
To me adjusting the level of enforcement is like the “fine” knob. It absolutely needs to be adjusted according to the situation. But it’s not the “coarse” knob. You can only turn enforcement up or down so much before you need a paradigm shift.
- MichaelZuo 5y ago
  You make it sound like you have convincing evidence that is the case. Do you?
ballenf 5y ago
There's no set of laws that can efficiently govern dishonest people. Or in "low trust" environments, if you prefer think of it amorally. Enforcement just moves around where the corruption is incentivized to happen. Is it at the bottom -- workers stealing extra pay or higher up where the enforcement happens?

joe_the_user 5y ago

Sure, but those are symptoms of larger problems. Increasing enforcement is an act of hiding the symptoms and it does not and will never solve the underlying problem. That's sometimes true but I'd just note this has nothing to do with the original argument made praising gray areas. The drug war is a place where there's an escalating war between dealing and enforcement, yes. But most dealers aren't having a lot of fun in this gray area.