Hacker News Reader

Comment by snowwrestler | Hacker News Reader

> Nestled deep within this fucked up situation is an asymmetry of information that gives the flunky incredible power over someone who is, in almost every other context, perceived to be better than they are (especially in this case involving a young rich kid with an expensive toy). Most human beings, when confronted with such an imbalance of power, are not going to be able to resist abusing their power.

This is self-congratulatory pop psychology claptrap. But it will probably sell well to a certain (shall we say Randian) subset of the HN readership.

> "If you can at least pretend that I'm a good person, just doing my job, then you won't have to suffer.

Yes, yes, isn't so unreasonable the way those "flunkies" expect to be treated like worthwhile human beings?

View on HN

> Yes, yes, isn't so unreasonable the way those "flunkies" expect to be treated like worthwhile human beings?

It is unreasonable for them to use their power to coerce the sort of treatment from people that they mistakenly believe they are entitled to.

This is the case whether you consider them flunkies or community heroes.

Why is it mistaken to expect to be treated nicely? When did it become ok to be an asshole to fellow citizens?

When I go to the convenience store to buy a donut, I am nice to the clerk behind the counter. When I go through customs, I am nice to the agent behind the counter. How are those mistakes?

Expecting that is absolutely fine. Feeling entitled to that is not. You don't get to fuck over other people's days when they fail to extend you a courtesy.

Well I mean, clearly they do get to do that, but that is a problem, not excusable behavior.

I treat clerks nicely because I am a decent person. I treat government officials in positions of power over me nicely because, aside from being a decent person, I understand the score.

Frankly I wish American culture were such that I could just give people $50s instead of putting on the song and dance. Either one is bribery, neither particularly morally superior to the other.

You think you understand the score, but to me it seems more like a persecution complex.

The irony is that in Arrington's situation the border agent tried to educate Mike that this was a rule that could be safely bent in the interest of expedience, but it was Mike himself who insisted on perfect procedure.

If you are dealing with the burrito vendor outside your office and keep it straight business ("super burrito, with steak"), perhaps because it has been a long day and you are tired as hell, there is no retribution. The quality of your burrito service is not compromised just because you failed to be his 5 minute friend that day. Why? Maybe the burrito vendor understands customer service, maybe because the burrito vendor understands that you are peers in an economic transaction, or maybe because the burrito vendor just doesn't have an ego problem. Who knows, who cares.

Fail to pretend to be a friend to that cop, DMV worker, or private security guard at the front desk of your buddies apartment? Good luck not getting hassle or at least artificially degraded service.

EMT or firefighter? Taxi driver? Doctors and nurses? Train ticket puncher? Just like the burrito vendor, no pressure to be their "friend".

Some jobs either attract people with a sense of entitlement, or cultivate a sense of entitlement in otherwise decent people. The root cause of this? Who the hell knows, but everyone who perceives it is not imagining things. If you haven't noticed it, then perhaps you need to tune in.

I've never been hassled by cops, DMV workers, or private security guards. In fact two years ago I screwed up car registration paperwork and a DMV worker was invaluable in helping me get it sorted out efficiently.

Am I somehow special? I doubt it. Maybe I don't have problems with government employees because I approach those situations with positive expectations and I try to be nice to people.

Maybe I do that because I actually know a few people in customer-facing government roles and they are no more entitled or abusive that anyone else I know.

I can tell you though that from their perspective, abuse is a frequent occurence--usually from folks who walk through the door with a sense of persecution. A lot of people view anyone behind a government desk as fair game, since, after all, everyone knows the government is out to get us.

Lying to a federal agent is a felony.

I'm not saying it justifies rudeness, but I can see being quite thoroughly paranoid about signing a federal form that contains a known inaccuracy. The agent's opinion that the discrepancy was unimportant might not have been shared by her superiors.

If people can be subject to federal prosecution for signing a form prepared by government workers, those workers should consider it their job to make sure the contents of that form are absolutely accurate.

Umm, you break federal laws or regulations every day in the course of your normal life. I guarantee it.

You add in state and municipal codes and you probably are breaking the law right now as you read this and probably in multiple ways.

Consider what you are saying. "Government workers should consider it their job [to be] absolutely accurate." Do you really want a vehicular safety inspection when you get pulled over for speeding? Especially given that the tests for which are written so that any commercial vehicle with any wear and tear at all will fail some aspect.

"Standing your ground" on principle is fine I guess if you have as large an ego as Arrington; I would rather focus on what is important and get sh*t done. I also really would advise taking anything he says when it comes to anything he has a vested interest in with a grain of salt. He has less than a stellar record on honesty when it comes to self-reporting.

Yes but it's a bit more damning if you SIGN YOUR NAME to something you know is false. It's easier for a judge or jury to find leniency in breaking a law you didn't know about than knowingly stating a falsehood to be true. It's much easier to twist the situation from "I signed it cause they said it was okay." (Where's your proof? This will turn into a he said she said situation) to a "He intentionally mislead the government in order to [something bad, cheat on taxes, get through customs unlawfully, etc.]"

you break federal laws or regulations every day in the course of your normal life.

Perhaps. But if that's true, I don't know which laws they are or how I'm breaking them.

Consider what you are saying. "Government workers should consider it their job [to be] absolutely accurate." Do you really want a vehicular safety inspection when you get pulled over for speeding?

You have completely twisted what I said. First, I said if someone can be prosecuted for signing a form prepared by government workers. You left that critical condition out entirely. Secondly, and more broadly, I'm not talking about government workers demanding absolute accuracy of us -- I'm talking about them demanding absolute accuracy of themselves.

IANAL, obviously, but it does occur to me that once the customs worker encouraged Arrington to sign the form anyway, should he ever have been prosecuted for doing so -- which I agree seems unlikely -- he had, I would think, a valid entrapment defense. Of course, he probably had no proof that she said that, but being able to argue it might have been sufficient anyway. So I agree, he probably should have signed the form.

But I don't really care about that. Arrington is not collecting a salary paid by my tax dollars; he is simply a citizen attempting to protect himself. Whether he made the right choice or not here is for him to figure out. What I care about is the behavior of my government, which I pay for and which claims to be acting on authority vested in it by its citizens, of which I am one.

At the top of this thread is someone complaining about how "flunkies" love to use complex procedure to punish people.

But in this actual case, the agent seems to have done the opposite--try to help bend the process so Mike could get on with his life. Mike is the one who decided to, in his own words, "stand on principle."

As to how serious that particular bend is, I don't personally know. I would tend to assume that a trained federal agent might have a better handle on that than Mike Arrington, though.

Lying to a federal agent is a felony in the US. Had he signed the papers and gotten in trouble, do you actually think the agents would have admitted their wrongdoing to save him and risk their jobs?

Law enforcement agents are not fellow citizens. They are tools used by the State to engage in class warfare.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com