3 ms·
The problem with that is as inefficiency grows within the organization that receives the money - so do incentives to capture more. Even if it's coming from an e
by unshavedyak 3y ago
The problem with that is as inefficiency grows within the organization that receives the money - so do incentives to capture more. Even if it's coming from an external organization (the police), they can still communicate and find ways to work together through this perverse incentive.
This is more difficult if 100% of it goes out the door. Hypothetically you could still get ecosystem issues, though. Where an org argues for more fines so that their existence is justified and that they don't shrink. etc.
- mulmen 3y agoThe allocation of ill gotten gains is irrelevant. This is theft. These are assets that belong to honest citizens. It’s unacceptable that they would lose their honest gains to the whims of a cop.
- unshavedyak 3y agoYea, don't think anyone (or at least myself and the parent) are arguing anything related to that. we're discussing the incentives that lead to police becoming thieves. Which is just as important as the police being thieves. Assuming you want to fix the root cause, at least.
- mulmen 3y agoWe don't need to disincentivize the police from stealing. We need to take away their legally sanctioned right to steal.
- Bakersfield 3y agoAnd we need to instate harsh penalties for the ones who continue to steal.
- unshavedyak 3y agoThe incentives are what put those systems in place. It's two halves of the same coin. One is cause, the other is effect. You don't think as long as they have incentive to fine more as it directly influences their budget, that it might affect their actions towards fining and seizing citizens? Are you saying it's unrelated? edit: To word it differently, do you think solving this one problem will end their association with your money and their budget?