Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by pc86 299 days ago
There is one side of the political spectrum that feels that the penalty for a crime should be set irrespective of the perpetrator because that's fair. Two people that commit the same infraction pay the same absolute amount.

There is another side that feels the penalty should "hurt" the same amount because that's fair. Two people that commit the same infraction feel the same amount of pain (theoretically), roughly corresponding to paying the same relative amount.

IMO this falls apart when you accept the almost tautological fact that these laws are enforced selectively, so "fairness" goes out the window almost immediately. Enforcement is used as political pressure and as punishment. Under that view, the second option above feels much worse than the first.
1 comments
account42 299 days ago
Even if enforcement was "unfair" (let's ignore for a fact that this is not a binary determination and not being able to be perfect isn't an argument for not trying) then everyone having the potential to experience the same hurt from the unfair system is still more fair than a corrupt society where some people can have their lives destroyed by an unfair fine but others can just shrug it off.
link
pc86 298 days ago
I agree it's not a binary thing but you're still viewing it as "an unfair system that is trying its best" vs. "a corrupt society" and my entire point is that is a completely false dichotomy. As Madison said, "enlightened men will not always be at the helm" - you have to design your system in such a way that bad actors are limited in their scope.

Proportional fees "hurt" everyone the same and give the government the discretion to "hurt" whomever they choose via malicious prosecution and selective enforcement. Flat-rate fees at minimal amounts save most people from this corruption. If the difference is between a flat rate penalty that hurts 5% of society if imposed, and a proportional penalty that hurts 100% of society if imposed, how is the first one not objectively better in the nearly certain scenario of a bad actor being in charge at some point in the future?

link