7 ms·

Many people automatically assume a government can't make up sensible regulations. There are a lot of them in the US. It's a meme you hear all the time, especi

by e40 10y ago

Many people automatically assume a government can't make up sensible regulations. There are a lot of them in the US. It's a meme you hear all the time, especially in a POTUS election year.

revscat 10y ago
And is the fundamental belief of libertarians: that governments can do nothing right, either morally or pragmatically.
- travoc 10y ago
  That's not accurate. They seem more concerned that every bit of power given to government to do something right will eventually be used to do something wrong.
  - nommm-nommm 10y ago
    That's exactly what the libertarians on HN post. I seriously hope it's a very vocal minority though.
  - RHSeeger 10y ago
    To be fair, there's a long and repeated history in the US of ---- GOV: We know this law is overreaching, but we promise we'll only use it the "right" way. ... 2 years goes by ... GOV: If you don't <plead guilty | accept this plea bargain>, we'll tack on a charge of breaking <this law that is overreaching>, even though you didn't violate what it's supposed to be about, and add 20 years to your sentence. ---- It's seen over and over. The US citizen's distrust of government getting more power than it absolutely needs isn't paranoid, it's based on the actions of the government.
    - notahacker 10y ago
      Conversely, and more relevantly to regulations on self-regulating cars, there's a long and repeated history of -- GROUP: The regulation is anti-business, anti-freedom and massively outdated. We should sweep it all away and deregulate this sector as much as possible. The market will take care of the bad companies. ...2 years goes by... GROUP: Do you know how important it is that this industry survives? Please give us some money to fix it. And some of the behaviour of some companies in our industry is unethical and dangerous and really should be stopped. Why didn't you step in earlier?
- tomp 10y ago
  I'm (mostly) a libertarian, and I disagree. I think the government is fundamental at keeping the society sane, secure and organized.
  - jotato 10y ago
    I agree. I find my self leaning libertarian as of the last few years. To me it isn't about no regulation; just no "nanny" regulation
- opo 10y ago
  No that is simply not true. Just because someone doesn't think that the war on drugs is a good idea or that prostitution should not be criminalized, etc. doesn't mean they think "governments can do nothing right" libertarians != anarchists
ams6110 10y ago
My biggest gripe is overreach. You start with sensible building codes, and eventually the city council is telling you what color bricks you have to use before they'll approve your plan. Yes this happens.
- scribu 10y ago
  As someone living in a country where there are very lax building codes, I would welcome regulation that mandates what colors you're allowed to use!
  - dsr_ 10y ago
    Why is that? I can see why there would be regulations on brick quality, but why color?
    - zbyte64 10y ago
      The regulation on brick color mentioned above is at the city level, not federal or state. You have districts that enforce ascetic rules typically to preserve the look of a neighborhood.
    - JamesLeonis 10y ago
      I used to live near an old historic town with buildings standing since the 1850s. New people and businesses are moving in all the time and stuff needs to be built. The town uses color codes and other design elements to preserve both the older buildings as well as making newer buildings match the historic tone. This is explicitly done to promote and keep tourism flowing into the town, which is a HUGE part of their income. If an industry or contractor balks at these ideas (and they do every now and again) there are several other larger modern cities a few miles away with access to the Interstate and train yards. These don't share the "historic preservation" codes of this little town. If the town allowed a free-for-all on design it would wreck it's main source of income and likely cause decay over the years as tourism dropped off.
      - 10y ago
luma 10y ago
I think it might be deeper than that. I don't feel that the US government, on it's own, is incapable of drafting up reasonable legislation. The problem is that the US government is 100% for sale to the highest bidder, and corruption runs deep (we just call it "campaign contributions" as if that makes it better). If sensible regulation is proposed, it'll last 30 seconds before the good senator from [some self-driving car company's home state] has turned it into a document crafted to drive business to his "contributor". This isn't a political statement as it cuts across both parties, which renders it all the more insidious.
- leereeves 10y ago
  And on top of that you have obstructionism (from both sides) and deliberate efforts to sabotage the other side.
- sharemywin 10y ago
  Or even if the politician isn't influenced by the campaign contributions they'll just run 1 sided ads against the other side that usually have margin at best factual basis.
- krschultz 10y ago
  Surely this is based on 0 personal direct experience with the people that write these kinds of regulations. I have worked with engineers that write technical regulations. They are generally focused on doing a good job at the task at hand. To think some mid level person that is hired into a normal job and never meets a politician in their career cares about campaign contributions is asinine. What do you think the people at NASA and NAVSEA and NIST do all day?
- XorNot 10y ago
  This is not an informed opinion. This is an opinion carefully shaped by the same influences from different industries over the last 30 years who generally benefit from the removal of their regulatory environment (miners, oil industry). The real byline is in your proposed commitment to trying too improve government process: you don't have any. You think it's hopeless. You're apathetic. Which is what everyone, pushing any agenda, wants from you.
BurningFrog 10y ago
Economists, based on empirical research, by and large agree that "Regulatory Capture" will normally make regulations work in the interest of the major companies in an industry, rather than the public interest. This is a social science result, not a meme.
- sharemywin 10y ago
  Regulatory Capture will by definition always result in Regulations working in the interest of the major companies(or special interest) in an industry, rather than the public interest. Definition: Regulatory capture is a form of government failure that occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating.
  - sharemywin 10y ago
    The question is does regulatory capture always happen?
    - hx87 10y ago
      It tends to happen when the following are true: a) Previous government experience is highly valuable in private sector employees b) Government pay is less than this value b) affects regulatory capture in two ways: it allows civil servants the opportunity to get massive raises by going private (and incentivises them to be nice to future employers) and cripples the recruitment of highly talented individuals who are less dependent on industry advice. I don't think attacking a) is feasible in a modern regulatory state, but b) is readily doable if a government is willing to significantly deviate from standard salary scales for high-value industries. For example, SEC salaries would have to be much, much higher than Department of the Interior salaries. AFAIK, Singapore already does this and has very high talent retention rates. Even within the US government, it isn't entirely unprecedented, since an E-3 Navy special forces operator probably makes 8x the salary of an E-3 Army public relations specialist.
maylibertarian 10y ago
One problem is that regulations tend to accumulate. I like what Canada does with its "one for one rule" which removes one piece of old outdated regulation for every new regulation made. In fact, at first when British Columbia implemented this law, they did 2 for 1 to clean out old laws, until later switching to 1 for 1. http://www.npr.org/2015/05/26/409671996/canada-cuts-down-on-red-tape-could-it-work-in-the-u-s http://www.npr.org/2015/05/26/409671996/canada-cuts-down-on-...
- astrocat 10y ago
  I'd never heard of one-for-one, but it's such a brilliant idea! Thanks for sharing
plandis 10y ago
I just assume that the government work do anything without a benefit for themselves. In this case they are probably getting some nice benefits from the automakers. I say this as someone who has failed to even get a non-form letter answer from any of my elected officials state level or higher. I'm convinced that money is the only way to affect policy.
pdeuchler 10y ago
You're right, we probably should be celebrating our lead tainted water, fracking, telecommunications monopolies, $300 Epipens, unaccountable financial institutions, pipelines across native land, corrupt campaign contributions, infrastructure decay, lack of decent health care...

by e40 10y ago

Many people automatically assume a government can't make up sensible regulations. There are a lot of them in the US. It's a meme you hear all the time, especially in a POTUS election year.

revscat 10y ago

And is the fundamental belief of libertarians: that governments can do nothing right, either morally or pragmatically.

travoc 10y ago
That's not accurate. They seem more concerned that every bit of power given to government to do something right will eventually be used to do something wrong.
- nommm-nommm 10y ago
  That's exactly what the libertarians on HN post. I seriously hope it's a very vocal minority though.
- RHSeeger 10y ago
  To be fair, there's a long and repeated history in the US of ---- GOV: We know this law is overreaching, but we promise we'll only use it the "right" way. ... 2 years goes by ... GOV: If you don't <plead guilty | accept this plea bargain>, we'll tack on a charge of breaking <this law that is overreaching>, even though you didn't violate what it's supposed to be about, and add 20 years to your sentence. ---- It's seen over and over. The US citizen's distrust of government getting more power than it absolutely needs isn't paranoid, it's based on the actions of the government.
  - notahacker 10y ago
    Conversely, and more relevantly to regulations on self-regulating cars, there's a long and repeated history of -- GROUP: The regulation is anti-business, anti-freedom and massively outdated. We should sweep it all away and deregulate this sector as much as possible. The market will take care of the bad companies. ...2 years goes by... GROUP: Do you know how important it is that this industry survives? Please give us some money to fix it. And some of the behaviour of some companies in our industry is unethical and dangerous and really should be stopped. Why didn't you step in earlier?
tomp 10y ago
I'm (mostly) a libertarian, and I disagree. I think the government is fundamental at keeping the society sane, secure and organized.
- jotato 10y ago
  I agree. I find my self leaning libertarian as of the last few years. To me it isn't about no regulation; just no "nanny" regulation
opo 10y ago
No that is simply not true. Just because someone doesn't think that the war on drugs is a good idea or that prostitution should not be criminalized, etc. doesn't mean they think "governments can do nothing right" libertarians != anarchists

ams6110 10y ago

My biggest gripe is overreach. You start with sensible building codes, and eventually the city council is telling you what color bricks you have to use before they'll approve your plan. Yes this happens.

scribu 10y ago
As someone living in a country where there are very lax building codes, I would welcome regulation that mandates what colors you're allowed to use!
- dsr_ 10y ago
  Why is that? I can see why there would be regulations on brick quality, but why color?
  - zbyte64 10y ago
    The regulation on brick color mentioned above is at the city level, not federal or state. You have districts that enforce ascetic rules typically to preserve the look of a neighborhood.
  - JamesLeonis 10y ago
    I used to live near an old historic town with buildings standing since the 1850s. New people and businesses are moving in all the time and stuff needs to be built. The town uses color codes and other design elements to preserve both the older buildings as well as making newer buildings match the historic tone. This is explicitly done to promote and keep tourism flowing into the town, which is a HUGE part of their income. If an industry or contractor balks at these ideas (and they do every now and again) there are several other larger modern cities a few miles away with access to the Interstate and train yards. These don't share the "historic preservation" codes of this little town. If the town allowed a free-for-all on design it would wreck it's main source of income and likely cause decay over the years as tourism dropped off.
    - 10y ago

luma 10y ago

I think it might be deeper than that. I don't feel that the US government, on it's own, is incapable of drafting up reasonable legislation. The problem is that the US government is 100% for sale to the highest bidder, and corruption runs deep (we just call it "campaign contributions" as if that makes it better). If sensible regulation is proposed, it'll last 30 seconds before the good senator from [some self-driving car company's home state] has turned it into a document crafted to drive business to his "contributor". This isn't a political statement as it cuts across both parties, which renders it all the more insidious.

leereeves 10y ago
And on top of that you have obstructionism (from both sides) and deliberate efforts to sabotage the other side.
sharemywin 10y ago
Or even if the politician isn't influenced by the campaign contributions they'll just run 1 sided ads against the other side that usually have margin at best factual basis.
krschultz 10y ago
Surely this is based on 0 personal direct experience with the people that write these kinds of regulations. I have worked with engineers that write technical regulations. They are generally focused on doing a good job at the task at hand. To think some mid level person that is hired into a normal job and never meets a politician in their career cares about campaign contributions is asinine. What do you think the people at NASA and NAVSEA and NIST do all day?
XorNot 10y ago
This is not an informed opinion. This is an opinion carefully shaped by the same influences from different industries over the last 30 years who generally benefit from the removal of their regulatory environment (miners, oil industry). The real byline is in your proposed commitment to trying too improve government process: you don't have any. You think it's hopeless. You're apathetic. Which is what everyone, pushing any agenda, wants from you.

BurningFrog 10y ago

Economists, based on empirical research, by and large agree that "Regulatory Capture" will normally make regulations work in the interest of the major companies in an industry, rather than the public interest. This is a social science result, not a meme.

sharemywin 10y ago
Regulatory Capture will by definition always result in Regulations working in the interest of the major companies(or special interest) in an industry, rather than the public interest. Definition: Regulatory capture is a form of government failure that occurs when a regulatory agency, created to act in the public interest, instead advances the commercial or political concerns of special interest groups that dominate the industry or sector it is charged with regulating.
- sharemywin 10y ago
  The question is does regulatory capture always happen?
  - hx87 10y ago
    It tends to happen when the following are true: a) Previous government experience is highly valuable in private sector employees b) Government pay is less than this value b) affects regulatory capture in two ways: it allows civil servants the opportunity to get massive raises by going private (and incentivises them to be nice to future employers) and cripples the recruitment of highly talented individuals who are less dependent on industry advice. I don't think attacking a) is feasible in a modern regulatory state, but b) is readily doable if a government is willing to significantly deviate from standard salary scales for high-value industries. For example, SEC salaries would have to be much, much higher than Department of the Interior salaries. AFAIK, Singapore already does this and has very high talent retention rates. Even within the US government, it isn't entirely unprecedented, since an E-3 Navy special forces operator probably makes 8x the salary of an E-3 Army public relations specialist.

maylibertarian 10y ago

One problem is that regulations tend to accumulate. I like what Canada does with its "one for one rule" which removes one piece of old outdated regulation for every new regulation made. In fact, at first when British Columbia implemented this law, they did 2 for 1 to clean out old laws, until later switching to 1 for 1. http://www.npr.org/2015/05/26/409671996/canada-cuts-down-on-red-tape-could-it-work-in-the-u-s http://www.npr.org/2015/05/26/409671996/canada-cuts-down-on-...

astrocat 10y ago
I'd never heard of one-for-one, but it's such a brilliant idea! Thanks for sharing

plandis 10y ago

I just assume that the government work do anything without a benefit for themselves. In this case they are probably getting some nice benefits from the automakers. I say this as someone who has failed to even get a non-form letter answer from any of my elected officials state level or higher. I'm convinced that money is the only way to affect policy.

pdeuchler 10y ago

You're right, we probably should be celebrating our lead tainted water, fracking, telecommunications monopolies, $300 Epipens, unaccountable financial institutions, pipelines across native land, corrupt campaign contributions, infrastructure decay, lack of decent health care...