13 ms·

So you don't think obeying the law is a good thing? Don't you think regulations exist for a reason? In the case of the medical field for example, I'm very hap

So you don't think obeying the law is a good thing? Don't you think regulations exist for a reason? In the case of the medical field for example, I'm very happy it is heavily regulated and I would expect everyone in that field to follow those regulations. Now if you think think some of your industry's regulations are unreasonable, that's a whole other discussion. But it seems like what you are complaining about here is that your business has to follow rules/law/regulations.

newmanships 10y ago
I don't think that's what he means at all. Nowhere in his statement does he say he shouldn't have to obey the law. Think the complaining is more about the vast amount of regulations that there are. I'm sure you break laws on a daily basis that you have no clue even exist (if you live in the US).
- tptacek 10y ago
  There's overly complex regulation, and then there's "this type of business is required to have an air filtration system and yours has been operating without one for months". My brother just opened a coffee roaster and cafe in suburban Chicago. It's just him, my sister in law, and a couple friends, none of them with any hospitality experience. There were a lot of regulations, and they had to go several rounds with the city during their build-out. But they got through it. The weird thing about the comment upthread is that they were "forced to install" a filtration system. How did that get past inspection? The dumb little coffee shop --- no food, no cooking smells --- had to have one just to open up.
  - wtbob 10y ago
    > There were a lot of regulations, and they had to go several rounds with the city during their build-out. But they got through it. So far as you know. The problem is that it's entirely possible that there's some little-known codicil of some code which they are in violation of, the rectification of which could at the outside cost as much as they've already invested.
    - tptacek 10y ago
      I have friends running small food businesses in Chicago --- I was an investor in one of them, a butcher --- and while my friends have run into problems after inspections and suchlike, none of them have been shut down or really jeopardized in any way. The inspection drama I've seen has, I hate to say it, been mostly reasonable. (The neighborhood complaints, less so.) Am I just "lucky", and this is a commonplace problem with other people's companies?
      - wglb 10y ago
        For a sample size of two, one a painting and repair garage, and another a trucking company, the level of annoyance and apparent post-facto requirements for opening these businesses were right up to the threshold of madness.
- maverick_iceman 10y ago
  In California you need to register your pet with the State Government.
icelancer 10y ago
That is correct. I think disobeying the law in all forms is a good idea. Excellent strawman. Or perhaps it is simply because 2,500 regulations including distance signs can be from the curb because one person tripped over a sign while not watching and then sued the city leads to a ridiculously over-litigated atmosphere.
- theonething 10y ago
  Well, the reason why I came to the conclusion that you don't value obeying the law is because of your example about the hassle it would be if someone kept notifying the authorities about you violating Section such and such. It's a hassle because someone is forcing you to obey the law. The implication is that when no one reports you, then it's fine for you to conveniently violate that law because you think it's a bad law. If that is the wrong implication, then please correct me. I meant my rhetorical question about obeying the law to be in the context of your example. But I should have been more clear about that. A better revised question is "so you don't think you should have to obey laws you disagree with?" Our opinion of a law does not have any bearing on our responsibility to obey it. If we think a law is stupid, we can try to get it changed, but until then, we obey it. That's how rule of law works. I have no doubt that your industry is ridiculously over-litigated. But I'd rather all businesses obey all the laws (and work to change the stupid ones) than decide for themselves which ones they'd like to obey and which they get to violate with impunity.
  - icelancer 10y ago
    I see, yes. Do you feel the same way about sodomy laws and other non-executed laws on the books about oppressing minorities and such that went ignored instead of actually changed under litigation? I assume that those should be obeyed to the letter as well.
    - theonething 10y ago
      Regardless of whether or not I agree with a law, I as an individual, should not have the right to decide whether I should obey it. In the case of a law that I vehemently disagree with on moral grounds, the proper form of protest is in the context of group; e.g. organize group protests, petitions, etc. The difference here is individual vs group. If a critical mass of people think a law is wrong, there's a good chance there's something to that. A group context offers accountability and helps filter bad thinking/decisions, etc. I'm operating under the assumption of a working democracy here (working but far from perfect). If tomorrow, the government passes a law commanding everyone to kill children, I will not obey it. Why? Because it's wrong and I'll know it's wrong because there's going to be a heck of a lot of people agreeing with me. Letting individuals alone decide leads to undesirable results. A cook thinks the requirement to wash his hands after using the bathroom is ridiculous. So he concludes it is immoral for the government to impose on his freedom to choose when to wash his hands and he disobeys this law. Yuck! This example is not far fetched as many cooks are immigrants from countries that don't hold to that practice legally or culturally. If we leave it up to the individual to choose which laws to obey or not obey with impunity, then law becomes meaningless. They are not laws, but nice suggestions.
dang 10y ago
This is an example of where it would be better to have applied the Principle of Charity, i.e. responding to the strongest plausible interpretation of an argument, rather than picking a weaker one that looks bad. http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html "Charity" in this sense isn't primarily ethical. It just makes for more interesting discussions and fewer digressive snits. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12522540 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12522540 and marked it off-topic.
- theonething 10y ago
  I agree in the sense that I did not express myself very clearly resulting in the tone of my post not following the Principle of Charity. I corrected myself in a sub post, but still think I could have done better even in that correction. So thanks for pointing this out so I learn to communicate more charitably next time. But I disagree that the subthread is off topic and resulted in digressive snits. The topic of the thread from the start is about regulations, lame regulations and response to them. I think my posts stuck to the topic. I felt we were having thoughtful discourse on an important topic, although I didn't appreciate the sarcasm on icelander's part, but given my uncharitable first post, perhaps it was deserved. So for example, rayiner's comment is also about whether following the law is right. > And if everybody else has to follow those laws, why should your friend's place be any different?

newmanships 10y ago

I don't think that's what he means at all. Nowhere in his statement does he say he shouldn't have to obey the law. Think the complaining is more about the vast amount of regulations that there are. I'm sure you break laws on a daily basis that you have no clue even exist (if you live in the US).

tptacek 10y ago
There's overly complex regulation, and then there's "this type of business is required to have an air filtration system and yours has been operating without one for months". My brother just opened a coffee roaster and cafe in suburban Chicago. It's just him, my sister in law, and a couple friends, none of them with any hospitality experience. There were a lot of regulations, and they had to go several rounds with the city during their build-out. But they got through it. The weird thing about the comment upthread is that they were "forced to install" a filtration system. How did that get past inspection? The dumb little coffee shop --- no food, no cooking smells --- had to have one just to open up.
- wtbob 10y ago
  > There were a lot of regulations, and they had to go several rounds with the city during their build-out. But they got through it. So far as you know. The problem is that it's entirely possible that there's some little-known codicil of some code which they are in violation of, the rectification of which could at the outside cost as much as they've already invested.
  - tptacek 10y ago
    I have friends running small food businesses in Chicago --- I was an investor in one of them, a butcher --- and while my friends have run into problems after inspections and suchlike, none of them have been shut down or really jeopardized in any way. The inspection drama I've seen has, I hate to say it, been mostly reasonable. (The neighborhood complaints, less so.) Am I just "lucky", and this is a commonplace problem with other people's companies?
    - wglb 10y ago
      For a sample size of two, one a painting and repair garage, and another a trucking company, the level of annoyance and apparent post-facto requirements for opening these businesses were right up to the threshold of madness.
maverick_iceman 10y ago
In California you need to register your pet with the State Government.

icelancer 10y ago

That is correct. I think disobeying the law in all forms is a good idea. Excellent strawman. Or perhaps it is simply because 2,500 regulations including distance signs can be from the curb because one person tripped over a sign while not watching and then sued the city leads to a ridiculously over-litigated atmosphere.

theonething 10y ago
Well, the reason why I came to the conclusion that you don't value obeying the law is because of your example about the hassle it would be if someone kept notifying the authorities about you violating Section such and such. It's a hassle because someone is forcing you to obey the law. The implication is that when no one reports you, then it's fine for you to conveniently violate that law because you think it's a bad law. If that is the wrong implication, then please correct me. I meant my rhetorical question about obeying the law to be in the context of your example. But I should have been more clear about that. A better revised question is "so you don't think you should have to obey laws you disagree with?" Our opinion of a law does not have any bearing on our responsibility to obey it. If we think a law is stupid, we can try to get it changed, but until then, we obey it. That's how rule of law works. I have no doubt that your industry is ridiculously over-litigated. But I'd rather all businesses obey all the laws (and work to change the stupid ones) than decide for themselves which ones they'd like to obey and which they get to violate with impunity.
- icelancer 10y ago
  I see, yes. Do you feel the same way about sodomy laws and other non-executed laws on the books about oppressing minorities and such that went ignored instead of actually changed under litigation? I assume that those should be obeyed to the letter as well.
  - theonething 10y ago
    Regardless of whether or not I agree with a law, I as an individual, should not have the right to decide whether I should obey it. In the case of a law that I vehemently disagree with on moral grounds, the proper form of protest is in the context of group; e.g. organize group protests, petitions, etc. The difference here is individual vs group. If a critical mass of people think a law is wrong, there's a good chance there's something to that. A group context offers accountability and helps filter bad thinking/decisions, etc. I'm operating under the assumption of a working democracy here (working but far from perfect). If tomorrow, the government passes a law commanding everyone to kill children, I will not obey it. Why? Because it's wrong and I'll know it's wrong because there's going to be a heck of a lot of people agreeing with me. Letting individuals alone decide leads to undesirable results. A cook thinks the requirement to wash his hands after using the bathroom is ridiculous. So he concludes it is immoral for the government to impose on his freedom to choose when to wash his hands and he disobeys this law. Yuck! This example is not far fetched as many cooks are immigrants from countries that don't hold to that practice legally or culturally. If we leave it up to the individual to choose which laws to obey or not obey with impunity, then law becomes meaningless. They are not laws, but nice suggestions.

dang 10y ago

This is an example of where it would be better to have applied the Principle of Charity, i.e. responding to the strongest plausible interpretation of an argument, rather than picking a weaker one that looks bad. http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html http://philosophy.lander.edu/oriental/charity.html "Charity" in this sense isn't primarily ethical. It just makes for more interesting discussions and fewer digressive snits. We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12522540 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12522540 and marked it off-topic.

theonething 10y ago
I agree in the sense that I did not express myself very clearly resulting in the tone of my post not following the Principle of Charity. I corrected myself in a sub post, but still think I could have done better even in that correction. So thanks for pointing this out so I learn to communicate more charitably next time. But I disagree that the subthread is off topic and resulted in digressive snits. The topic of the thread from the start is about regulations, lame regulations and response to them. I think my posts stuck to the topic. I felt we were having thoughtful discourse on an important topic, although I didn't appreciate the sarcasm on icelander's part, but given my uncharitable first post, perhaps it was deserved. So for example, rayiner's comment is also about whether following the law is right. > And if everybody else has to follow those laws, why should your friend's place be any different?