• afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah preverse incentives. When doing the wrong thing makes the most sense for the individual. Happens often in tragedy of the commons situations.

    If you hit a pedestrian it is better for you that they die. If you find an endangered animal on your land it is better for you to kill it. If you have a child with someone who makes minimum wage it is better for you to divorce.

    Maybe it is too much to expect but for things like this, when public policy experts came up with a standard instead of just inheriting a situation, that they plan for these things in advance. Spend a few moments and look at where the incentives are before just hammering a new policy into place.

    • Patches
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      If you hit a pedestrian it is better for you that they die

      Uh maybe in China. I would not say that in the United States. Manslaughter is a serious charge.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        ·
        1 year ago

        You aren’t factoring in civil suits. Someone dead, their family can only get so much. Someone crippled can just keep going after you and might have to as they go into greater and greater levels of debt. What would you do if suddenly your income went down to about 14k USD a year and with each passing day the chances of you returning to work diminished, wouldn’t you be desperate enough to try to win some money from the person who did this to you? Wouldn’t you go along with any shyster lawyer who promised results?