It wouldn't. But I'd wager that Uber isn't going to be held accountable (or not very accountable) for this, so why not write the rules so that everyone gets to be as cavalier? It'd save a lot of companies the headaches that go along with I.T security.
Better example. Almost everyone performs rolling stops at stop signs. Even when people are ticketed they just pay it don't change their behavior. Why have the fine at all?
I don't dispute your logic though I would prefer more traffic law enforcement.
But the uber situation would be closer to this - the parking meter costs $20/hr and a parking ticket costs $5. We're creating a situation where people who break the law get ahead of those who obey it. Either we can ramp up enforcement (good luck with that happening) or we can level the playing field.
I would prefer smarter drivers over more laws. Mandatory defensive driver education programs and stricter tests. Few people ever intend to break the laws that get them into accidents, so making sure they don't accidentally break them by being, smarter, more aware drivers would ideal.
Well look at this case as an individual circumstance:
The US federal government decided 30 years ago that it was going to attempt to prevent some kinds of transactions from being part of the global economic growth. Kinds of transactions that were always here, and always willing to be part of the global economic growth.
It decided to use other people's money to attempt to enforce this blockade, at great expense, for perpetuity.
It does this by creating onerous reporting requirements for companies and individuals worldwide, and onerous and expensive procedures for the individuals that fail to merely file the correct paperwork.
All the while, massive multinational banks have been letting the well funded organizations continue moving their money through them and contributing to the global economic growth, while citizens are being fined and imprisoned for paperwork problems.
And your go-to thought was a satire on anyone suggesting less regulation, implying the same or more regulation would be a BETTER use of public resources?
World economic growth has always been fueled by money whose source you don't agree with. Using everyone's money in a government to merely PRETEND like it can prevent illicit sourced money from being used seems irresponsible and unconscionable, looking at the track record.
Is it really so uncomfortable to admit that multinational "cartels" (organizations of people under a common charter) are pretty good at fueling economic growth globally? Because thats how its always been
Anti-money laundering laws don't pretend there is a victim, they attempt to discourage behavior by regulating an intermediary.
They also fail at it while ensnaring otherwise law abiding citizens in the dragnet.
So there is no logic to extrapolate to murders, where there is a victim from the activity of murdering.
AML via the Bank Secrecy Act, Patriot Act and other regulations was a swing and a miss, just looking at the evidence alone. Cash transactions over $10,000 were supposed to be reported, to stop terrorists, and the 1 BILLION of organized drug money that HSBC cleared is the equivalent of a dozen terrorists being financed per day, since 9/11.
Excepts its just people with a little extra cash that get jailed from these reporting laws.
