There is opportunity cost when someone leaves a library book under their bed and no one else can use it. Eventually the library must replace the book. In my experience the fees cap at the value of the book. I see it more as an attempt to recoup costs incurred. If it was for deterrence the fees would need to be exorbitant.
The cost to society at large for lost books is trivial, whereas the advantage of having these books distributed among low-income households is priceless. The New York Public Library has figured this out.
That's the whole point isn't it? That punishment doesn't work. Rich people can afford to shrug off the fine while the poor never return to the library again.
"The flow of quizzes stands upon somebody else's legs."
It's not hard to think of something to say.
The difference is my sentence was knowingly ridiculous and nonsensical.
Words that don't contribute to a discussion are just noise.
The equivalent of someone banging pots and pans in the middle of a conversation because they want to get noticed.
edit: Brilliantly, you wrote a comment 6 days ago that opened with: "Critical thinking is at an all-time low in Western society."...the irony is palpable.
It's common for the less erudite to confuse pithy for lack of intelligence. When I had time, I wrote a more complete response to a more neutral comment (see below). Many of us have lives outside Hacker News.
My point, as it still stands, is that punishment is meant to deter, and deterrence doesn't reduce criminal activity, history has proven that time and time again. Case in point: The Taliban is back to cutting hands for stealing, a terrifyingly high punishment for a basic crime that gets community service on average across North America (first offense). By your logic, theft should be eliminated altogether in Afghanistan. Is it? Is the per capita rate of theft higher or lower than North America? I leave it to you as an exercise to uncover, with a minor hint: it's higher.
