← Back to context

Comment by njovin

6 days ago

So the PO creates a franchise program that they later decide isn't suitable for any sane, good-faith actor, and instead of revising the terms of the franchise program to make it so, they assume that the participants are criminals and prosecute them?

33 comments

njovin

Reply
lawlessone  6 days ago

The same way many think about welfare/unemployment/disability schemes.

Constant hoops to jump through to prove they're looking for work or still incapable.

Or in the case of illness to prove they're still sick. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-59067101

  • citizenpaul  6 days ago

    There is a rather famous book written on this subject.

    Catch-22.

    In order to be given disability you must jump through so many hoops that no one whom is actually sick could complete them. Or how in unemployment you must prove you must spend your time proving you are looking for a job so you cannot spend you time actually looking for a job. My personal fav because its almost universal is sick-day policies that codify 100% abuse of sick days because people are punished for not using them because some people were "abusing" their sick days.

    In the case of the book to be discharged from military service they must prove they are insane which no insane person could complete.

    • viciousvoxel  5 days ago

      Minor correction, but in the book the act of asking to be discharged on account of insanity is taken as proof that one is sane, because no sane person would want to keep flying bombing missions day after day with low odds of survival.

      1 reply →

  • IshKebab  5 days ago

    Yeah but in the UK there actually are lots of people claiming benefits that probably shouldn't be. Especially Personal Independent Payments.

    It's enough of an issue that even Labour (left wing) is having to deal with it. Though as usual Starmer has chickened out (I think this is like the third thing that was obviously a good move that he's backed down on after dumb backlash).

  • wagwang  5 days ago

    [flagged]

    • account42  3 days ago

      Sometimes proving that you need it ends up costing more than the money that would have gone to people that didn't actually need it.

    • h2zizzle  5 days ago

      The general logic is that money is going to be taken from people no matter what (crime, expensive late interventions, etc.) and that relatively preventative measures are preferable because they cost less while preserving the social contract.

    • jacksnipe  5 days ago

      Sorry, but citation needed. Means testing might seem “obvious” from first principles, but from a policy point of view, it makes little to no sense.

      The macroeconomic effects of welfare programs create a society that is better for everyone to live in. Reducing the issue to a matter of personal responsibility is a reframing that allows you to completely lose sight of the big picture, and create programs that are destined to fail by not reaching many of the people they need to.

      12 replies →

  • knowitnone  5 days ago

    there is lots of welfare fraud. if you think money should just be handed out without question then you start handing your money out first.

LiquidSky  6 days ago

> isn't suitable for any sane, good-faith actor

I think this is the parent’s point: this is the POV of the rich and powerful who lead the organization. They can’t imagine someone in a different position seeing these franchises as a way to secure good (or at least decent), long-term, stable employment.