4 ms·

Just raises the bar. It's still a penalty that doesn't relate to the misdeed, and hurts different people differently. The problem is we use money as a form of

Just raises the bar. It's still a penalty that doesn't relate to the misdeed, and hurts different people differently. The problem is we use money as a form of pain, because that is one facet of it, money can sure hurt, but taking money from one person is like taking away a finger or a leg, decimating their ability to function at all things in life, and then everyone punishes that person even more, now for not being a productive contributing member of society. Meanwhile another person can supply "fingers" all day and not be even inconvenienced let alone handicapped. But taking money as a form of pain appeals to assholes, and funds their organizations, win-win!

Terr_ 3y ago
> Just raises the bar. Uh, yeah, because you claimed it was a fundamentally weak bar people could walk though. I raised it to illustrate you were actually stepping over it instead. > It's still a penalty that doesn't relate to the misdeed They are literally related by cause and effect. Trying to force some broader poetic Hammurabi-style connection is a non-starter, since it means my overdue library book would require a local librarian to break into my home and seize one of my own books as a hostage. As amusing as that sounds, the abstraction of an overdue-book fine is wayyyy more practical and easier to do in a just and proportionate way. (Especially if all the books I have are from other libraries.) > hurts different people differently Which is why fines should be scaled better, like I said in my last post, rather than being fixed sums that some can ignore, like you described in yours. > The problem is we use money as a form of pain Anything the transgressor doesn't like is going to be a form of "pain", the least we can do is use something which is both (A) adjustable and (B) reversible.
- Brian_K_White 3y ago
  Perhaps the problem is that we us the same money for both necessities and luxuries. It allows assholes to decide to see everything as a luxury that someone they don't like doesn't deserve. There is nothing about a traffic infraction that requires money as the penalty, instead of say, an annoying class or community service, or limiting their use of a vehicle to work or school, which is a thing that is done sometimes. Money is just easy for the administrator at the (no pun) expense of the subjects. That's a shit reason to do something that way. But the majority of the rule-makers and system-designers are people that this setup doesn't harm. What a strange coincidense! That right there blows all these crybaby excuses how it would just be so hard to even try to think of anything else right out of the water.

Terr_ 3y ago

> Just raises the bar. Uh, yeah, because you claimed it was a fundamentally weak bar people could walk though. I raised it to illustrate you were actually stepping over it instead. > It's still a penalty that doesn't relate to the misdeed They are literally related by cause and effect. Trying to force some broader poetic Hammurabi-style connection is a non-starter, since it means my overdue library book would require a local librarian to break into my home and seize one of my own books as a hostage. As amusing as that sounds, the abstraction of an overdue-book fine is wayyyy more practical and easier to do in a just and proportionate way. (Especially if all the books I have are from other libraries.) > hurts different people differently Which is why fines should be scaled better, like I said in my last post, rather than being fixed sums that some can ignore, like you described in yours. > The problem is we use money as a form of pain Anything the transgressor doesn't like is going to be a form of "pain", the least we can do is use something which is both (A) adjustable and (B) reversible.

Brian_K_White 3y ago
Perhaps the problem is that we us the same money for both necessities and luxuries. It allows assholes to decide to see everything as a luxury that someone they don't like doesn't deserve. There is nothing about a traffic infraction that requires money as the penalty, instead of say, an annoying class or community service, or limiting their use of a vehicle to work or school, which is a thing that is done sometimes. Money is just easy for the administrator at the (no pun) expense of the subjects. That's a shit reason to do something that way. But the majority of the rule-makers and system-designers are people that this setup doesn't harm. What a strange coincidense! That right there blows all these crybaby excuses how it would just be so hard to even try to think of anything else right out of the water.