Hacker News Reader

Comment by tehjoker | Hacker News Reader

I think that was the idea. If the warnings were effective, then business processes are affected. If consumers can be trained to ignore them, then the state looks like it's doing something for people without changing anything materially.

View on HN

> then the state looks like it's doing something for people without changing anything materially.

You've just described California politics perfectly.

This is anecdotal, but one thing I have noticed about Californians is that there is a sense that government inaction is worse than government action. In other words, if there is some problem (real or perceived), the state can't simply do nothing about it. And, the politicians of California are enthusiastic about creating new bureaucracy to enforce the newly minted laws. Which they usually pay for by creating some specific tax/fee on some specific transaction or type of product, which then creates more complexity and bureaucracy.

That's the legacy of Reganomics and the collapse of the New Deal coalition. Sucks, but we'll do better soon hopefully.

s/California politics/politics/g

I think over time it helps to "dilute the brand" of government institutions, so to speak, meaning people lose faith in the effectiveness and necessity of the policies being foisted on them.

“The state” has nothing to do with it. This was voted into law by regular voters. Think of it every time someone assumes the common citizen should be involved in writing laws.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com