191–200 of 351 posts
Spying on your friends, neighbors, and family? Nothing to see here, just old Soviet style repression tactics.
Orwell was right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What I’d like to see is hard separation of roads and bike lanes. That's a great idea, as long as the hard separation goes both ways with bikes no longer being allowed in car lanes.
Why? I don't get this "gotcha". Is there any actual rational reason for making such rules, or is it stemming from some annoyance from seeing cyclists in the road? There already exists roads where cyclists can't be: Highways/motorways. If the problem is cyclists in the road, that solves itself by building better infrastructure. Where there's adequate cycling infrastructure, cyclists prefer to use it. Where there's lac…
It's from a combination of getting stuck behind cyclists going really slowly and with no opportunity to pass them, and from so much blatantly illegal behavior by them like running red lights without even slowing down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Compliance with the law is a separate issue from the contents of the law. Agree. More of my thought is what happens when everyone is incentivized with money to spy on everyone else? How can you misuse this as a government? How can unscrupulous businesses misuse this? >If switching to a fine-based bounty system like this suddenly causes an uproar over a given law, then I submit the proper thing is to look over that l…
>[P]eople might want to keep a bad law if they continue to make money by snitching. In fact, money is the exact wrong incentive for this sort of thing. I've said elsewhere the optimal mechanism here is for that money to be paid to the snitcher, from the person who is being turned in. This would lead us to assume that for most crimes of a personal nature, we would have about as many people losing money due to the law…
In some cases, which seem like a good idea like corporate malfeasance whistleblowers or government grift whistleblowers. This is because the people paid by our tax dollars would be at a disadvantage compared to an insider in the company. In others, you could see the direction it must go.
>Thanks for letting me pick the reason, that's very thoughtful of you.
Cheers!
>Obviously it's because said law being strongly enforced would cause such a public backlash that it would quickly get repealed in its entirety, and thus further erode the monopoly on violence the state holds over its citizenry. Cops then have fewer en passants they can pull when they don't follow procedure, etc etc. I'm glad we're in agreement on this.
There might very well be laws like that. However, let me offer a non-controversial and obvious one. Speed limits. Many places have 65mph listed as a speed limit. Everyone knows you are not allowed to go faster. However very few place will pull you over for going 66mph or even 70mph. If they started pulling over everyone going 70 in a 65 there would not be "such a public backlash that it would quickly get repealed in its entirety" because we all know and they all knew they were breaking the law. But it isn't enforced in an authoritarian way because we have different vehicles, sometimes you need to pass, and frankly 70 and 65 just aren't that big of a problem. But almost everyone would agree that we do need a speed limit, although they might not agree on the number and a number has to be picked.
Now, I don't want to assume your political leanings, but I am getting some strong libertarian vibes. And you seem like a nice and thoughtful person, so maybe bad ideas don't even occur to you because you are honest and just don't think that way. But imagine, or go ask grok, some other ways this could work out. And while you are at it, imagine a law that did not effect all citizens the same. Now imagine that a bad law could effect a relatively small group much more than others. In what way could they cause affect a backlash that would quickly get a law repealed in its entirety?
Using money to incentivize any public action on behalf of the government should be a sort of last-resort situation where it makes sense and the people already being paid to do it can't for some reason. This is a very libertarian idea, in fact. A more reasonable idea, although much less libertarian, would be to pass a law that makes it where cars can not idle for more than a specified amount of time in certain situations, but that would come with its own can of worms don't you think? And I personally wouldn't be for such a law. In fact I am against the snitch on idlers law. If someone wants to pay $7 a gallon for gas to set there and idle it away, why shouldn't they be able to? How is it different than them driving the same gas away?
Spying on your friends, neighbors, and family? Nothing to see here, just old Soviet style repression tactics.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> always reporting graffiti How does your city deal with graffitis? mine is plagued with graffitis and I can't see how they can be fought. It takes too much resources to remove them in a timely manner and impossible to catch the perpetrators.
San Francisco does the sensible thing and fines the property owner. This is the just and right thing. In fact, I strongly support putting victims of drunk driving in jail: this strongly disincentivizes driving near drunk drivers.
Spying on your friends, neighbors, and family? Nothing to see here, just old Soviet style repression tactics.
Don't worry though, every ticket the company got was billed right back to buildings we were working at in another form. The balance sheet always wins.
I like the general idea, and I’ve been surprised this hasn’t taken off elsewhere, eg citizen videos for traffic violations like blocking intersections, it seems these should be ROI positive for the city to implement (lower enforcement costs, more ticket revenue).
I really don't understand why anyone would want this Do you really want to live in a society where we're monitored for even the slightest infractions at all times and automatically punished regardless of any circumstances that might explain the behavior?
Having grown up in the city and gone to a public school where over half of my peers had asthma from the heavy truck route next to our playground, I welcome any kind of financial realignment between drivers (especially commercial drivers) and their behavior.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
it’s not working - it’s one of the highest ranking posts - and you really don’t want to go around admitting that. seriously, take a break.
Yep and I got an upvoted comment dissenting against all the authoritarian bootlickers in every single thread on this post. People agree with me. Even on the comments of mine that got flagged lol It even pissed people off enough that one of the mods started commenting about my own personal projects that have nothing to do with this lmao Oh and I guess it did work because now it's down to 28, almost off the front page.…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yep and I got an upvoted comment dissenting against all the authoritarian bootlickers in every single thread on this post. People agree with me. Even on the comments of mine that got flagged lol It even pissed people off enough that one of the mods started commenting about my own personal projects that have nothing to do with this lmao Oh and I guess it did work because now it's down to 28, almost off the front page.…
[flagged]
lol you know you're the one acting in bad faith here. hope you feel better soon