At least with governments you get a representative.
...if you live in a republic. Bonus points if it's a democratic republic; then your representative will actually listen to you... if you can outbid the competition and get said representative elected via advertising money.
At least with a corporation, they can't impose arbitrary fines on you and lock you in a concrete box if you don't pay said fines... unless the government says they can.
> ...if you live in a republic.
The Parliament of the United Kingdom doesn't actually exist? That explains a lot about Brexit.
Consider the recent Miller II case [1]. The prime minster advised the Crown to prorogue parliament, which it did. The supreme court decided that the advice was dodgy, and so the prorogation was void.
This is not how it works for normal decisions taken under advice! If you advise me to buy an avocado ice-cream, and i do, but it turns out that you've never tried avocado ice-cream, and it's actually horrible, i don't get to go back to the shop and tell them that the purchase was void. I made my decision, and i have to stand by it. I might get to sue you for giving me duff advice, but there's no suggestion that my decision itself is altered.
So it really seems here that the Queen isn't deciding to do things, even in theory.
If she refused to do something she's required to - issue the prorogation, assent to laws, etc - then she would be in trouble, not because she's upsetting the balance of power, but because she's simply not doing her job, which is to exercise the powers of the Crown as required by law.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_(Miller)_v_The_Prime_Ministe...
If she so wished, given she is the font of all law in the country, she could close down Parliament and sack her advisors - there is no legal mechanism to stop her, except the practical consequences of doing so.
The House of Lords can only delay laws AFAIK and the monarch just can't decide anything. Even if they did, the House of Commons would still exist.
Yes, the Lords may only delay bills for up to a year and the Commons has the right to reintroduce the bill in the next session and pass it without the consent of the Lords under the Parliament Acts (1911 and 1949 respectively).
At least with corporations you get a choice, short of emigrating. Google is one of the most dominant corporations in the world, yet there are multiple alternatives to most of their services.
Some states don't even have charter schools, can you believe that?? They only have one choice for schooling from grade K-12
This is complete BS. Private schools have always existed, and still do. On top of that, homeschooling is legal.
That wouldn't be paying for it twice... it would be paying for it like 1.1 times because of the large number of house holds that have no children in public school and still pay taxes.
:)
Case in point: 300 people killed by Boeing and 100 people dead in the fire in Grenfell tower in UK.
On the contrary, a representative might amend/revere the situation, for example by changing the law.
How do we make it an apples to apples comparison? For example,today, 2 million people a year die from air pollution, who is to blame for those deaths?
What about drug cartels, do we count the deaths that occurred in fighting them 'against' government? But if the government did not exist, those deaths would be higher, so do we count 'prevented deaths'? What about tabacco, etc. I dont think a realistic tally can be made.
I once had an incident where the receptionist at a DMV office messed up and didn't register me. I had patiently waited for 3 hours before noticing that people who lined up after me started getting called. So when I went up and asked if anything is wrong, the office manager looked something up on her screen and, upon seeing that I'm not registered, smiled and cracked a joke about it with another employee. She then told me I have to go back and take a seat and wait for my number to get called. At this point, I realized something went terribly wrong, and started literally begging to get expedited since I had already waited for more than three hours by then. The office manager's response was to scream at me, telling me that I'm causing disruption, and threatening to remove me with force.
I wonder if there's a way to actually improve the quality of these services?
In the UK the extremely user hostile government services are those for the marginalized; benefits and immigration. But the universal ones have pressure to work effectively.
I'm really curious how this works.
They don't take a picture of you in person for your driver's license? Even the first one? What about the driving tests? Eyesight tests?
What if you want to buy a used car from a stranger, do you hand over the cash and then wait weeks for the registration to change hands by post? How do they prevent title theft if they can't check ID in person?
One of the step to get full license is to take theory test in person at test centre. They check your address and verify ID again at this stage.
We have small driving test centres in most areas. You prebook the slot and turn up. They’re fairly punctual.
You go to your doctor and get a proof of health. Costs around $100.
Typically the tests are arranged with your driving instructor as part of the course. Each attempt is also around $100.
When selling a used car, you just give the person the registration certificate when you've received payment. Then you reregister the car on the tax authority Web site.
Driving tests are done in person with an appointment, so no queueing. There's no eyesight or medical tests, but at the start of the driving test the examiner will ask you to read a numberplate from a specific distance (20 meters?)
The registration transfer system used to be done on the basis of a "log book", which then became a piece of paper with an authentication hologram, but now it is of course online: https://www.gov.uk/checks-when-buying-a-used-car / https://motorway.co.uk/guides/v5c-the-ultimate-guide-to-the-...
> How do they prevent title theft if they can't check ID in person?
I'm not really sure what this means or how to translate it to the UK system? You might be at risk if someone managed to forge a V5 for a car they had stolen?
A video essayist I follow on youtube had a bit of a discussion about this, about being on the receiving end, after his car had been stolen, joy-ridden, and then set on fire. He was required to pay impound fees for the wreck, using proof of ownership that had been in the glove box. When he told this to the clerk at the impound lot, the response came, "Well, that's going to be a bit of a problem, isn't it?". And followed the red haze and the realization that these lots don't have bullet-proof glass in front of the counter to protect from robbery.
But I'd argue that it's borderline impossible to genuinely account for even the second tier of possible edge cases, even in the best of faith; law is too complex, and world changes at different rates in different places in too many ways to make that kind of considered extrapolation anything but speculative in the best case, and hopeful, well-intentioned gambling in the worst. Incidentally, this is a typical argument against regulation, though I'm not sure I agree with that, either...
How does one rattle an institution out of its comfort zone? It's a pretty old question.
The setting had a government so powerful that it could cause horrible problems with offhand decisions, and so large that it couldn't be reasoned with or set unified policy. (It rather reminds me computerized stock trading today, with problems like the "flash crash" where decisions outrun the actual intent of any human involved.) It couldn't shrink or slow down and still handle genuinely pressing decisions, so the solution was an agency meant to delay and interrupt whatever actions it thought would cause problems.
I certainly don't think modern governments are so efficient they need to be intentionally delayed, but the nature of the department is interesting: powerful and almost unrestricted in oversight, but strictly reactive and unable to make policy. It's not a perfect fix, but regulatory capture and incompetence are less worrying when the people deciding on government procedures aren't the same ones enforcing them.
In the real world, that might look like a Department of Exceptions. It would be unable to make or even change policy, but would have broad power to reverse specific government decisions. The point isn't to fix bad governance, that's too hard a problem, but to fix issues like this where the edge cases of a rule produce absurd results. For safety from overreach, it would probably need to be one-sided; able to undo government actions on private entities, but not apply new ones or step into private disputes. (I.e. it can grant you a car registration without the normal papers, but it can't peanlize a non-crime or reverse a civil lawsuit.) And for safety from capture, it can't be unaccountable, but holding it to strict policies would be self-defeating - perhaps the best fix would simply be to record common-sense rationales for each decision, and set a low bar to fire or vote out employees for bad decisions.
It's a wild idea, and I can see a host of possible issues. But your point about courts is interesting: we already have a system which can't make law, but has enormous power to review government decisions. This would be much the same idea, aimed at irrational actions instead of illegal ones.
Take it from me: Don't get overly attached to money, things, or really even people. Think of it all more as a ride that you get to enjoy for a while, and then you get off.
If you're killing yourself at your job with the thought that you'll someday retire happily or otherwise get to start a happier phase of life (or even just be thanked for your hard work), disabuse yourself of that notion. The money you're piling up can be taken from you in a flash, or become worthless to you due to more overwhelming developments.
I saw a homeless man the other day with two dogs. The dogs were obviously happy, and had no concern that they were poor and might have had a much richer life. They had their health, weren't starving, and there were interesting things to do that day. I strive to live like those dogs.
Shame though, because Stoic derives from Latin for porch. The Stoics sat and shared their ways of a happy life on porches.
Stoicism does not subscribe itself to the male gender - it is a pursuit, much like Taoism or Buddism, to reach peace within the Logos, or rather the grand chaos that is the universe itself.
Anyone of any descent or gender may become one with the Logos.
And maybe a dash of Walt Whitman: https://www.all-creatures.org/poetry/ar-I-think-I.html
"I think I could turn and live with [the] animals..."
With the right attitude, a lot is possible, but as you said there is often this "wall of indifference". I think a big reason for this is that it can feel good to exercise power over other people by saying "no". This is doubly the case if you live in a society where everyone is always doing this to everyone else: you feel "small" and pushed around, so when you actually get the chance to push others around you'll instinctively grab it.
Not only governments; big companies that just 'do things' because, like you say, no-one seems to have given any consideration to the edge cases. When you put that to them (Google, MS etc), the answer is always (possibly with some rancid dress-up) 'we cannot account for every case; that would not be commercial'. Governments probably have the same reasons but they cannot say that out loud (usually) because re-election (of their political party).
A friend changed her last name two months ago; she got a letter that it succeeded and it would take 3-6 months to take effect. So today, while she was traveling, she got a letter from the gov that it was finished and that all her papers are per direct expired. Passport, ID, driver's license etc. This was an edge case in that: 0) it rarely happens (first name happens more often, last name is rare here) 1) it usually takes much longer 2) they usually send a letter with enough room to request new papers 3) most people don't travel much.
But the end result was; those docs expired and 'we are sorry not warning you on time, but sorry we cannot do anything, you have to come to NL to request new ones'. No valid documents to travel, so how does that work? Anyway; not quite the same thing as the article, but it happens weekly at least. No-one thinks things through, ever.
There's often someone who wants to fix the bug when it comes up but unless it's mission critical over time it drops in priority and fades into the nothingness of the backlog and in the rare instances when the bug comes up it still keeps getting dealt with manually.
This isn't unique to government but the fact that government has a monopoly on many of the services it provides and the onus is often on the citizen to take action to avoid some sort of default action against them certainly does not help them find motivation to fix the edge cases quickly.
To other HN readers, what recourse do the people in the article have?
This is a private pension plan which ran out of money. The only "government" involved is that the law about who holds the bag is unfair.
But I don't see that that changes the point much: this is entirely private people arguing in court over 100% private money. There's literally no bureaucracy to be offended by. In theory this kind of dispute could happen with any 401k plan in the US too.
The pension administrator is not corrupt. Their current assets are 101% of what they need to be to cover their liabilities, assuming they can use returns on the assets to pay for the liabilities, given some standard set of assumptions about investment returns [1].
The "shortfall" is about a "wind-up basis", or "buy-out basis", which means assuming that the scheme sells its assets and uses the proceeds to buy annuities. Buying annuities is a really expensive way to provide a pension, so their current assets aren't enough to cover their liabilities this way. But they're not going to do this! Neither the administrator nor the members want to do this! The private people are not arguing over the private money, they're all perfectly happy with each other. But the law requires that a pension fund has enough assets to do this!
Why does the law require this? I have no idea. I'd have to dig out Hansard or white papers from the mid-'90s to find out, and that is a bridge too far. But it seems clear that the problem here is entirely derived from government regulations which don't align with what the private people involved want.
[1] https://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2018-01-11a.578.5
And I'd probably agree as a numeric argument. But I still don't see that as an argument against "government". And I surely don't see that as an argument against the idea of regulating risk in pensions, given the propensity of these things to go belly up over history.
Perhaps other people were arguing that in this thread; they're wrong. But it's also wrong to say that this problem is nothing to do with regulations!