Hacker News Reader

Comment by throwaway0a5e | Hacker News Reader

Of course a spoon makes a crappy can opener if you try and use it for that job.

Institutions get designed around their mandate. If you're trying to run a school system you wouldn't invent a court. If you were trying to deal with violations of law you wouldn't create a school board.

The federal government's mandate was to manage issues that arise between states and each other, between states and other countries and to a lesser extent, to prevent the states from violating the rights of their inhabitants and its architecture reflects that mandate. Over the years the federal government has expanded in scope far beyond the types of issues it was designed with the intent of managing. Expecting that system to provide decisive action on issues that are outside of what the system was designed for is unrealistic.

View on HN

Agreed. Your comment reminds me of this great quote:

“Simple, clear purpose and principles give rise to complex and intelligent behavior. Complex rules and regulations give rise to simple and stupid behavior.”

– Dee Hock

The hubris of creating complex rules to outsmart a problem leads to the creation of yet more complex rules to solve its own shortcomings.

The problem is that you can't ram down income redistribution schemes in places like New York without watching all the income earners move to another state. No rational person is going to subject themselves to being robbed like that, they will leave (like I did with NYC). The key is to do it at a national level so you can shove it down everyones throats concurrently and give them no way to escape your shitty systems. Then you can appeal to your larger base of voters who are benefiting from stealing from a smaller number of people who are providing all of the resources, or a least until the government runs out of other peoples money to use as bribes.

I'm not convinced that's as true as you think it is. Sure, some people will move, but presumably people have reasons other than the tax rate that they want to live in a place like New York and so, presumably, they will stay as long as they value those things more than lower taxes.

I'm sure there is the equivalent of a laffer curve by which intangibles are valued subjectively like that. At some point of government overreach people leave... and they are leaving in droves.

I always assume that people who make blanket statements like this imagine they're actually providing real value, and that they're one of the few doing so.

This is a joke. Let's assume you have a technology that doubles productivity. Two guys work 20 hours each or one guy works 40 hours and the other one does not. In the first scenario nobody complains that they are the bread winner. In the second scenario, the bread winner complains about a problem he himself caused by hogging the entire 40 hour work week. I am assuming that the economy isn't growing by the way.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com