Hacker News Reader

Comment by opendais | Hacker News Reader

Because focusing on the IRS ignores the fact Congress can alter the IRS's mandate at-will to remove any of the policies of the IRS that is considered "bad". The President and his appointees can alter things within the mandate.

Get angry at the people that make policy, not the people that enforce it.

Sure, the IRS could be nicer. However, as someone who had to handle a policy enforcement role from time to time...I know the people I had to enforce policy on hate me, personally. However, I'm just enforcing policy. That enforcement is basically an email saying "No, disregard what X told you because Y is current policy."

People at the bottom usually aren't assholes "just because". We become assholes because people get angry with us over stuff we have no control over [unless we quit].

View on HN

Getting enforcers to quit or be fired is the general idea of focusing in on them -- if there are no enforcers then nothing is enforced regardless what the policy makers say. It's another solution to solving the problem of bad policy besides the one of changing the policy. One could argue its results. The strategy seems to make a lot of TSA employees feel bad, so the turnover there is quite high, but enough people need any job just to make ends meet that the overall effect to their workforce isn't very much. But this just suggests an alteration: focus on individuals of the loathed organizations, which has had success in the form of social justice warriors being quite successful at getting individuals, even "powerful", higher-up-the-ladder individuals, fired for things they've said or done.

ROFLMAO.

If you don't fix the policies, they just hire replacements. You even admit it is how it works.

"The strategy seems to make a lot of TSA employees feel bad, so the turnover there is quite high, but enough people need any job just to make ends meet that the overall effect to their workforce isn't very much."

You also didn't think about the logical result of pushing out the people who would feel bad about bad policies. It means you leave only the desperate & the bad people running the organization. Well done! You've removed everyone with a hint of moral fiber and/or soul from the enforcement role. And then you'll be surprised when no decent person is there to help you when there is an issue.

If you read my comment carefully you'll see I don't advocate this strategy, I'm just exploring it. Extermination can be an attractive strategy, it just doesn't work very well against endless foes. The part you quote is sufficient for casting doubt on its efficacy -- that I didn't make the slam dunk of pointing out who's left seems irrelevant. Thanks for reminding me of that additional detail, though.

> "Get angry at the people that make policy, not the people that enforce it."

Ever heard of "Good cop, bad cop" ?

That isn't relevant. If you don't fix the policies, they just hire replacements.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com