Hacker News Reader

Nope, deterrence is still only required proportionally. If someone parks on a crosswalk and the cost of that to society is $200 and the fine is $500 then the fact that they're paying $500 means you're still coming out ahead. And if the cost to society is more than $500 then you've set the fine wrong regardless of who is paying it.

View on HN

But the point isn't to turn something bad into a valid transaction that is simply unfavourable. The point is to deter the behaviour in the first place, regardless of how much you're willing to pay to do it.

But why would you want to do that? Why would you prefer no-transaction over one that generates a $300 profit?

Nope, deterrence is still only required proportionally

Cite?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com