This is the purpose of a great deal of regulation, simply raising the cost of some transaction to benefit those who have already cleared the bar. In this case, it is particularly clear to see because the person being held down has virtually no resources at all, but it is merely a difference of scale, not kind, to many other such endless regulations.
All regulations have social costs. It should be a routine question "What will the costs be?", "Who will bear them?", and "Is it worth it?", but the questions are so rarely asked. No matter how small the cost, it can be the difference between success and failure for somebody. A full economic accounting often shows the costs aren't worth it because of second order effects (which would be beyond the scope of a HN post, but for example, once the gate has been set up, those on the right side of the gate can artificially charge more, often negating the value to society of the regulation).
If you don't like this result, think twice next time you feel tempted to suggest that the answer to some problem is regulation. Maybe it is. But if you don't know what the costs are, and you haven't thought about how people will change their behavior after you've put your regulation in place, you haven't got it all worked out yet.
This unintended or not consequence is so often the case, that it might as well be intended. But in general, yes it's true incompetence is much more common then malice.
This is a significant problem with legislation in general. We can hardly expect our supposed representatives to have given much thought to the unintended consequences of their actions when they surely haven't read all of the bills on which they vote.
my favorite is that when you go to a subway in San Fran, if you ask to have your sub toasted for 30 seconds, you then have to pay 10% sales tax on it.
cold food is free but "hot food" is taxed. i can understand the purpose--restaurants are more luxuries than needs--, it just seems absurd in that context.
All regulations have social costs. It should be a routine question "What will the costs be?", "Who will bear them?", and "Is it worth it?", but the questions are so rarely asked. No matter how small the cost, it can be the difference between success and failure for somebody. A full economic accounting often shows the costs aren't worth it because of second order effects (which would be beyond the scope of a HN post, but for example, once the gate has been set up, those on the right side of the gate can artificially charge more, often negating the value to society of the regulation).
If you don't like this result, think twice next time you feel tempted to suggest that the answer to some problem is regulation. Maybe it is. But if you don't know what the costs are, and you haven't thought about how people will change their behavior after you've put your regulation in place, you haven't got it all worked out yet.