3 ms·

Yeah that's how I used to think too, but we can characterize it another way if we want to. The costs of upkeeping the codes that keep us safe should be born by

Yeah that's how I used to think too, but we can characterize it another way if we want to. The costs of upkeeping the codes that keep us safe should be born by those that test their limits. But in the end, to me it is much simpler than that: This is a minor annoyance at worst. Imagine losing a family member due to ignorance or recklessness of others. Or prolonged, acute illness due to a misdiagnoses and subsequent medication complication. An engagement ending without notice because you answered a question innocently and honestly and it caused them to re-think the whole thing. These are real problems. When life is rosy cosy a three inch thick book costing $350 may seem like an outrage, but it really isn't.

rhn_mk1 5y ago
I guess another way to look at this is just another tax that you have to pay. This tactic is underhanded though in that it favors those who don't pay the tax and take risks without knowing the code (they have more money left if they win the gamble). EDIT: plus, a "buy this law" tax is regressive: those who do the least work subject to this tax will bear the highest tax/unit of work costs. E.g. a private person remodelling their house will pay the same 300$ as the huge construction company. It also creates a hurdle for new entrants, who don't have any existing connections from whom they could borrow the book. When it comes to financing the research on law, there are ways that have better properties than those above (like a tax on work done).
- freshpots 5y ago
  I mean, you also need an engineering degree and a license to practice engineering there. Where does one draw the line? There are barriers to entry and requirements in most fields.
  - rhn_mk1 5y ago
    I'd draw the line at not spreading/hiding the costs. Have the payment for the law be part of the degree (for example), instead of creating a surprise payment only after somebody already invested some time into the path.

rhn_mk1 5y ago

I guess another way to look at this is just another tax that you have to pay. This tactic is underhanded though in that it favors those who don't pay the tax and take risks without knowing the code (they have more money left if they win the gamble). EDIT: plus, a "buy this law" tax is regressive: those who do the least work subject to this tax will bear the highest tax/unit of work costs. E.g. a private person remodelling their house will pay the same 300$ as the huge construction company. It also creates a hurdle for new entrants, who don't have any existing connections from whom they could borrow the book. When it comes to financing the research on law, there are ways that have better properties than those above (like a tax on work done).

freshpots 5y ago
I mean, you also need an engineering degree and a license to practice engineering there. Where does one draw the line? There are barriers to entry and requirements in most fields.
- rhn_mk1 5y ago
  I'd draw the line at not spreading/hiding the costs. Have the payment for the law be part of the degree (for example), instead of creating a surprise payment only after somebody already invested some time into the path.