4 ms·

Your way has its own set of pitfalls, and I'm not sure that they're less than the alternative. If you do business in New York, Chicago, and Boston, then you ha

by ricree 10y ago

Your way has its own set of pitfalls, and I'm not sure that they're less than the alternative. If you do business in New York, Chicago, and Boston, then you have to worry about laws in all three places. The more you lean upon local lawmaking, then the more you risk adding a big layer of legal incompatibility once you start crossing borders.

kristopolous 10y ago
Maybe becoming a giant onerous company should have such barriers...
AnthonyMouse 10y ago
> If you do business in New York, Chicago, and Boston, then you have to worry about laws in all three places. Which, first of all, you already do, the county/state/federal laws apply on top of those. But you're also assuming that uniform national laws will be less complicated than dealing with different local laws, which doesn't seem to bear out in practice. California is going to care about earthquakes and Massachusetts is going to care about ice storms but not really the other way. If you do business in both California and Massachusetts then you have to care about both earthquakes and ice storms regardless, and if the relevant legislation is at the federal level then it will cover both. Which means local laws aren't more complicated for companies who do business in both places, they're less complicated for companies who don't, because then if you only do business in Massachusetts you don't have to deal with earthquake regulations.
- sharemywin 10y ago
  But does insurance, banking(mortgage, payday loans), transportation laws really need 50 different laws? even contract law could be ubiquitous and where lawyers can practice in all fifty states.
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    > But does insurance, banking(mortgage, payday loans), transportation laws really need 50 different laws? Sure they do. You're insuring against earthquakes in California and ice storms in Massachusetts. North Dakota has a much different banking environment than New York City. Trucks pulling three trailers make sense in big empty western states with wide open spaces but no sense in high traffic urban environments with tight corners.

by ricree 10y ago

kristopolous 10y ago

Maybe becoming a giant onerous company should have such barriers...

AnthonyMouse 10y ago

> If you do business in New York, Chicago, and Boston, then you have to worry about laws in all three places. Which, first of all, you already do, the county/state/federal laws apply on top of those. But you're also assuming that uniform national laws will be less complicated than dealing with different local laws, which doesn't seem to bear out in practice. California is going to care about earthquakes and Massachusetts is going to care about ice storms but not really the other way. If you do business in both California and Massachusetts then you have to care about both earthquakes and ice storms regardless, and if the relevant legislation is at the federal level then it will cover both. Which means local laws aren't more complicated for companies who do business in both places, they're less complicated for companies who don't, because then if you only do business in Massachusetts you don't have to deal with earthquake regulations.

sharemywin 10y ago
But does insurance, banking(mortgage, payday loans), transportation laws really need 50 different laws? even contract law could be ubiquitous and where lawyers can practice in all fifty states.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  > But does insurance, banking(mortgage, payday loans), transportation laws really need 50 different laws? Sure they do. You're insuring against earthquakes in California and ice storms in Massachusetts. North Dakota has a much different banking environment than New York City. Trucks pulling three trailers make sense in big empty western states with wide open spaces but no sense in high traffic urban environments with tight corners.