Hacker News Reader

Comment by interfixus | Hacker News Reader

"In California, the penalty is $1,000 and up to six months in jail"

The number and nature of jailable offenses in the US state and federal legal systems keep baffling the European mind.

It has to be a dog, you have to pass it off as a service animal, and you have to do so in a way that meets the CA legal standard for "fraudulent". It's a little silly that there's a specific statute for it (and that it only covers dogs), but it's really just a refinement of the crime of fraud, which most assuredly is a crime in Europe too.

But that's sort of the point -- if it's redundant with fraud then why does it need a separate law?

In US common law, fraud requires that the victim bear some sort of loss (injury), and there's none in this particular set of circumstances. So existing fraud law isn't generally sufficient to cover this particular set of circumstances.

Because legislators don't feel they have accomplished something if they don't get their name on a statute.

A little free publicity on a controversial one doesn't hurt either.

One of the things that this visitor to CA found disturbing was how so many signs have the code number of the law listed on it. Made the visit feel more police-state-ey. Even the little cart that carries tourists up the hill at Alcatraz had a "do not board moving vehicle" sign on it with a legal reference.

CA has a really weird relationship with government.

I think it's cool that you can go look up the code number and know exactly what the law is and what it requires you to do. Surely that is less police state than a board just screaming penalties?

"Don't board moving vehicle" is an instruction which implies no penalties.

"Don't board moving vehicle/legal code #123v4" is an instruction which implies legal ramifications if you disobey.

Many countries in Europe (I would know beacuse I live in one of them) have laws forbidding you from possessing certain drawn pornography of fictional characters on threat of imprisonment. I would say we have our fair share of hideous or ridiculous laws too.

And this is in Caifornia, one of the most liberal states. I shudder at the thought of how it must be like in Deep South.

It's not hard to find out; just search "service dog fraud" and [southern state], for instance, to find out that Alabama appears to have no such law, while Texas will fine you for trying to pass off a dog as a service animal (but apparently hasn't done so in a long time).

Political affiliation and number of laws and regulations aren't obviously correlated. How many red states/cities have the same fines and taxes for grocery bags and improper garbage sorting?

Generally speaking the left states are also the most authoritarian states. If you can think of it CA probably has a law regulating it and criminalizing failure to comply.

Whether a state is left or right leaning does not have any bearing on whether it is highly authoritarian or not. It just so happens that the general pattern in the US is high population -> lots of laws -> left leaning.

"...authoritarian..."

I don't think that word means what you think it means... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authoritarianism

favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.

Maybe you didn't understand what he meant, because authoritarian makes perfect sense in the context he was using it.

On the contrary, authoritarian governments are not democratic, which is illustrated by the example sentence in the OED definition you've provided (but not cited): ‘the transition from an authoritarian to a democratic regime’

Any engagement with the word more serious than a dictionary lookup will indicate that regulation and authoritarianism are not at all the same thing. Restricting the access of pets to restaurants is not the same as the dismantlement of civil society to enable a one-party regime.

It is authoritarian behaviour, not literally an authoritarian form of government.

>favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.

Thank you. This is exactly how I meant it

That seems an odd claim, as right leaning states have the highest incarceration rates per capita.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_incar...

Higher incarceration rates do not on their own imply higher authoritarianism; they might also imply a higher number of lawbreakers, even with a lower number of laws. A more-competent police & legal system might also yield more prisoners, even with identical laws and an identical infraction rate.

Well, I would say that higher incarceration rates do not prove higher authoritarianism, but that is a reasonable implication. I think "count of individuals deprived of freedom of movement" is likely a stronger signal than "count of laws on books".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com