5 ms·

> due to providing a better service. And let's not forget skirting around existing laws & regulations. Speaking just for myself, I'd be pissed if my neighbor,

> due to providing a better service. And let's not forget skirting around existing laws & regulations. Speaking just for myself, I'd be pissed if my neighbor, who makes the same salary as I do, just decided to stop paying taxes, and suddenly was able to bank ~30% more than I do. Is it because he works harder, provides better service, or is it just because he decided that somehow rules don't apply to him?

joshstrange 12y ago
This is a very good point and frankly I don't have a good response to it. I'm not sure the argument holds up completely though. I think a better one might be: You both own computer consulting companies but you have government clearance while your neighbors company does not. One day government agencies decide they don't care if you have the clearance or not and decide to hire your neighbor because they have better programmers and can get the job done faster. Government contracts is another sector that I think is overly-regulated and give an unfair advantage to the companies that can throw people at money at getting clearance so that only they can bid absurd amounts of money on contracts just to fuck them up and go way over budget but I digress...
Fomite 12y ago
"is it just because he decided that somehow rules don't apply to him?" They prefer to refer to this as "disrupting".
kazagistar 12y ago
Right. But getting angry at him is not productive. Either convince the government to enforce the law, get the law changed, or use the same weakness in the law yourself.
- anigbrowl 12y ago
  Why not? By evading the law he's creating additional expense for taxpayers, compounding the free rider problem with the need for greater expenditure on enforcement.
dchest 12y ago
I agree with you that it's totally unfair that ~30% are taken from you, but not from your neighbor. This is why we need to abolish regulations and taxes.

joshstrange 12y ago

This is a very good point and frankly I don't have a good response to it. I'm not sure the argument holds up completely though. I think a better one might be: You both own computer consulting companies but you have government clearance while your neighbors company does not. One day government agencies decide they don't care if you have the clearance or not and decide to hire your neighbor because they have better programmers and can get the job done faster. Government contracts is another sector that I think is overly-regulated and give an unfair advantage to the companies that can throw people at money at getting clearance so that only they can bid absurd amounts of money on contracts just to fuck them up and go way over budget but I digress...

Fomite 12y ago

"is it just because he decided that somehow rules don't apply to him?" They prefer to refer to this as "disrupting".

kazagistar 12y ago

Right. But getting angry at him is not productive. Either convince the government to enforce the law, get the law changed, or use the same weakness in the law yourself.

anigbrowl 12y ago
Why not? By evading the law he's creating additional expense for taxpayers, compounding the free rider problem with the need for greater expenditure on enforcement.

dchest 12y ago

I agree with you that it's totally unfair that ~30% are taken from you, but not from your neighbor. This is why we need to abolish regulations and taxes.