[MeinBlutIstBlau]

> The more people in power have been hit, the more repercussions we can hope for.

This reminds me of a story I heard at a presentation when working at a bank. A politician was going through a closing process for property he was purchasing. He had an issue and found out that the banks automatically tac on PMI for his type of loan, regardless of loan to value ratios.

A year later, their state passed legislation saying PMI cannot be forced on mortgaged loans with certain ratios and must be disclosed before closing.

Funny how things work :)

[MrDresden]

There exists a saying in Icelandic exactly for this situation; 'it matters if you are reverand John or just plain John' (is. 'það er ekki sama hvort er Jón eða séra Jón')

[Leparamour]

I think a similar well-know idiom is:

"Quod licet Iovi, non licet bovi."[0]

("what is permitted to Jupiter is not permitted to an ox")

[0] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Appendix:List_of_Latin_phrase...

[mixmastamyk]

Had to look up, PMI = Private mortgage insurance.

[MeinBlutIstBlau]

For reference, normally banks mandate that stuff when the loan to value (LTV) ratio is very high. Meaning they didn't put a large down payment there. It's insurance you pay so that in case you quit paying or cant, the bank can recoup their losses. Essentially you're forced to pay to insure the bank's investment. Now normally you can remove it once you reach whatever LTV the financial has in their policy (usually 75-80%), but at the time when the politician was dealing with it, you basically had it on for the "life of loan."

[pydry]

This is essentially the argument behind prohibiting private schooling.

[AbrahamParangi]

Then the argument should be that the children of public servants must go to public schools.

[pydry]

Meaning:

* the people who fund reelection campaigns get to opt out of public education.

* politicians before and after their political careers can opt out.

* a quick change to the law is all that would be required for politicians to opt out while theyre in office.

It would be enough to make them care a bit more, but only an outright prohibition would make them truly committed to public education.

[AbrahamParangi]

This argument can be applied to anything: “everyone must have or experience the same government thing because otherwise the government provided good will be shitty.”

The counter-argument is the same in all places too, which is that: “freedom is good, so you should have a really good reason for restricting it and restrict it as little as possible, and this isn’t a good enough reason because it probably won’t work out like you intend”

[int_19h]

Here's another one. A small town mayor got raided by the state SWAT over marijuana (package shipped to wrong address, at that). Himself and his mother-in-law were handcuffed and held at gunpoint for several hours in their underwear, and his two dogs shot. The mayor went on to sponsor a bill that required all police departments with SWAT teams to publish reports on how often they're deployed, and the reasons for deployments - which showed that the vast majority of SWAT raids are to serve search warrants in non-violent crimes, mostly drugs. Despite strong opposition from law enforcement, the bill passed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berwyn_Heights,_Maryland_mayor...

I'm afraid this story doesn't have a good ending in the long term, though - the law expired in 5 years, and wasn't renewed.