3 ms·

Passive-aggressive much? Sometimes a simple quip requires a long response to accurately address multiple potential issues. In speaking about forward-looking gov

Passive-aggressive much? Sometimes a simple quip requires a long response to accurately address multiple potential issues. In speaking about forward-looking government regulation, bringing up how forward-looking government regulation failed in other cases is pretty relevant. And never was the idea mentioned that these things should not be governed at all, which is you throwing out a strawman. Simply that the nature of modern regulation is to restrict possible outcomes, and that also has negative externalities. "Good" advancements can be just as restricted as "bad" advancements, and it's extremely difficult to tell the difference years or even decades before they happen.

toyg 11y ago
> Sometimes a simple quip requires a long response to accurately address multiple potential issues. Not sprayed with gratuitous ad-hominems, not really. > bringing up how forward-looking government regulation failed in other cases is pretty relevant. I struggled to consider it relevant, considering how it's widely accepted that reduction in regulation is one of the main causes of the recent financial crash. Forward-looking regulation was there and was removed. I think that particular example doesn't make the point he thinks it makes. > And never was the idea mentioned that these things should not be governed at all It was basically inferred. If you take his points to the logical conclusions, there is no point in regulating the car industry, they hire the best minds so they will know what to do. > "Good" advancements can be just as restricted as "bad" advancements Of course; but it's extremely difficult to prove whether the advantages of outlawing both outweigh the advantages of allowing both. So we came up with this rule that "we legislate only after shit happens". Is it crazy to think this arrangement could be sub-optimal, and there might be a better compromise?

toyg 11y ago

> Sometimes a simple quip requires a long response to accurately address multiple potential issues. Not sprayed with gratuitous ad-hominems, not really. > bringing up how forward-looking government regulation failed in other cases is pretty relevant. I struggled to consider it relevant, considering how it's widely accepted that reduction in regulation is one of the main causes of the recent financial crash. Forward-looking regulation was there and was removed. I think that particular example doesn't make the point he thinks it makes. > And never was the idea mentioned that these things should not be governed at all It was basically inferred. If you take his points to the logical conclusions, there is no point in regulating the car industry, they hire the best minds so they will know what to do. > "Good" advancements can be just as restricted as "bad" advancements Of course; but it's extremely difficult to prove whether the advantages of outlawing both outweigh the advantages of allowing both. So we came up with this rule that "we legislate only after shit happens". Is it crazy to think this arrangement could be sub-optimal, and there might be a better compromise?