4 ms·

We have a dysfunctional government that's clearly beholden to various powers, including ones whose business model relies on stupid laws not changing. (I'm not p

by easong 11y ago

We have a dysfunctional government that's clearly beholden to various powers, including ones whose business model relies on stupid laws not changing. (I'm not personally sure I would even call our government a plutocracy, since that implies some level of control or organization.) At this point the only way we are ever going to get change is if large numbers of people decide that stupid laws are stupid and ignore them. See, for instance, the multi-decade long campaign to decriminalize marijuana. More generally, I don't see a good way for our society to collectively figure out the cost/benefit ratio for many regulations other than experimentation (the institutions that should be doing so are permanently out to lunch). It's not ideal, but from my standpoint startup companies pushing boundaries is the best solution we've got for dealing with stagnated industries.

geofft 11y ago
Sure, but there's still a difference between large numbers of people in semi-public, and a single company in private. If Zenefits asked even their own customers if they agreed that these federal regulations were stupid, I doubt they'd get many yes answers (partly because, at least in theory, the intent of the regulation is to protect those customers). I am pretty okay with even large numbers of companies, with different motivations and financial incentives, all deciding that the same law is stupid. (One case seems to be the export regulations on non-open-source crypto-using software, for instance.) Even if they're all companies, that is much more defensible on democracy and not plutocracy.
- easong 11y ago
  Some company has to be first. Imagine you're an entrepreneur, and you've identified a heavily regulated industry full of sclerotic companies with connections to the regulators that serve large numbers of customers extremely poorly. You believe that you can't break into the market without violating some regulations that have a strongly negative effect on product quality. What should you do? Go to VCs and ask them to fund a decade-long lobbying campaign with a very high probability of failure in which you pour your heart and soul into getting some obscure regulation in some obscure area that nobody cares about changed, and then afterwards start a company to better serve the customer (along with everyone else who is rushing in to benefit from the lightened regulatory load)? Or try to start a company, show everyone that they regulations are dumb, make customers happy, and then force the regulators to change out of sheer embarrassment? If we don't occasionally reward people who took the second option (and were right!), I don't think we would get safer, more ethical change, we would just get less and everyone would be worse for it. I'm obviously fine with people who break regulations and end up hurting others being punished to the full extent that the law allows, but there needs to be an escape valve for when the government has it wrong.
- phonon 11y ago
  These are State licensing requirements, not federal regulations.
saalweachter 11y ago
> See, for instance, the multi-decade long campaign to decriminalize marijuana. You're confounding tyranny of the majority with corruption; the reason marijuana is still criminalized in most places is because a large enough percentage of the population thinks it should be, for whatever reason.
- easong 11y ago
  No, the point I'm trying to make is that seemingly one of the only ways to get stupid laws changed is for them to be broken, and for people to see that the law is pointless (or not pointless!). Why exactly the law is or was in place doesn't matter too much. Another example would be the woman who has the gall to braid hair without a license - if she hadn't broken the law, nobody would talk about it, there would never be any chance for reform, and we would all be incrementally poorer for it. I'm not taking a position on specific laws, just that it's important that some laws occasionally be broken so that as a society we can test whether or not it matters if someone breaks them. If breaking a law doesn't result in negative outcomes, it shouldn't be a law.
  - ubernostrum 11y ago
    No, the point I'm trying to make is that seemingly one of the only ways to get stupid laws changed is for them to be broken The counterpoint is that civil disobedience requires harsh punishment of the disobedience in order to be effective. If somebody flagrantly violates a law because they claim it's bad, and walks away with little to no punishment for doing so, the public's impression will be "well, must not be such a bad law if that's all that happens", which will not serve to change things.
    - easong 11y ago
      If the law is never enforced, that's almost as good as it being repealed. Given the lack of any other effective mechanism for obsoleting laws, I would book 'this joins the thousands of other bad laws that are never enforced' as a win for anyone who thinks we could do without it.

by easong 11y ago

geofft 11y ago

Sure, but there's still a difference between large numbers of people in semi-public, and a single company in private. If Zenefits asked even their own customers if they agreed that these federal regulations were stupid, I doubt they'd get many yes answers (partly because, at least in theory, the intent of the regulation is to protect those customers). I am pretty okay with even large numbers of companies, with different motivations and financial incentives, all deciding that the same law is stupid. (One case seems to be the export regulations on non-open-source crypto-using software, for instance.) Even if they're all companies, that is much more defensible on democracy and not plutocracy.

easong 11y ago
Some company has to be first. Imagine you're an entrepreneur, and you've identified a heavily regulated industry full of sclerotic companies with connections to the regulators that serve large numbers of customers extremely poorly. You believe that you can't break into the market without violating some regulations that have a strongly negative effect on product quality. What should you do? Go to VCs and ask them to fund a decade-long lobbying campaign with a very high probability of failure in which you pour your heart and soul into getting some obscure regulation in some obscure area that nobody cares about changed, and then afterwards start a company to better serve the customer (along with everyone else who is rushing in to benefit from the lightened regulatory load)? Or try to start a company, show everyone that they regulations are dumb, make customers happy, and then force the regulators to change out of sheer embarrassment? If we don't occasionally reward people who took the second option (and were right!), I don't think we would get safer, more ethical change, we would just get less and everyone would be worse for it. I'm obviously fine with people who break regulations and end up hurting others being punished to the full extent that the law allows, but there needs to be an escape valve for when the government has it wrong.
phonon 11y ago
These are State licensing requirements, not federal regulations.

saalweachter 11y ago

> See, for instance, the multi-decade long campaign to decriminalize marijuana. You're confounding tyranny of the majority with corruption; the reason marijuana is still criminalized in most places is because a large enough percentage of the population thinks it should be, for whatever reason.

easong 11y ago
No, the point I'm trying to make is that seemingly one of the only ways to get stupid laws changed is for them to be broken, and for people to see that the law is pointless (or not pointless!). Why exactly the law is or was in place doesn't matter too much. Another example would be the woman who has the gall to braid hair without a license - if she hadn't broken the law, nobody would talk about it, there would never be any chance for reform, and we would all be incrementally poorer for it. I'm not taking a position on specific laws, just that it's important that some laws occasionally be broken so that as a society we can test whether or not it matters if someone breaks them. If breaking a law doesn't result in negative outcomes, it shouldn't be a law.
- ubernostrum 11y ago
  No, the point I'm trying to make is that seemingly one of the only ways to get stupid laws changed is for them to be broken The counterpoint is that civil disobedience requires harsh punishment of the disobedience in order to be effective. If somebody flagrantly violates a law because they claim it's bad, and walks away with little to no punishment for doing so, the public's impression will be "well, must not be such a bad law if that's all that happens", which will not serve to change things.
  - easong 11y ago
    If the law is never enforced, that's almost as good as it being repealed. Given the lack of any other effective mechanism for obsoleting laws, I would book 'this joins the thousands of other bad laws that are never enforced' as a win for anyone who thinks we could do without it.