3 ms·

As a well-known start-up founder I know likes to say, to paraphrase: I like regulations because they're guidelines that help us operate in the best interests o

As a well-known start-up founder I know likes to say, to paraphrase: I like regulations because they're guidelines that help us operate in the best interests of ourselves and the public. And they prevent our competitors from acting immorally or dangerously to get a business advantage (which might force us to have to take either make the same immoral/dangerous moves or shut down). Bad regulations are bad, of course, but regulations empower businesses when applied correctly.

rtx 9y ago
Thats the problem, we have limited control on people making those regulations. So as a compromise less regulation is always better.
- chasing 9y ago
  You have more control over your government than you have over Uber or AirBnB -- especially if you're not a customer of either of those businesses. The government is (ideally) merely a voice of all of the people. Transportation and housing (for example) are parts of the critical infrastructure of a community. Allowing decisions about those things to be made entirely by the (relatively wealthy and mono-cultural) owners and customers of those businesses is unfair to the other people affected by those businesses. Hence regulation. Which, again: There are bad and stupid regulations. Of course. But regulations are useful tools, overall.
  - rtx 9y ago
    True, however we don't live in an ideal world. We need to take our society into consideration. Where Rich have more say in the government. This can be remedied by government having less say in my life.
    - chasing 9y ago
      > We need to take our society into consideration. Where Rich have more say in the government. These two ideas are at odds. The rich are doing fine for themselves. The people we need to go out of our way to make sure we're helping is the less wealthy and the less powerful. That's whom the government should be advocating for. But in balance. Businesses need to be allowed to flourish, as well. And, by the way, you benefit greatly by having the government have a say in your life. [Edit: I believe I misinterpreted the bit of text I quoted from you. Apologies on that. But my general comment stands.]
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      That's certainly not true if the disempowering of government only occurs in those areas of government where the rich are pushing for it because of how it constrains their power. It might not be true generally, either, say if the advantage wealth provides outside of government is greater than the advantage it provides in government. That rich have disproportionate influence in government doesn't mean they don't have even more disproportionate influence outside of it.
- tremon 9y ago
  Less regulation is not a compromise at all, it was the goal you started out with.
- neon_electro 9y ago
  Have you considered the root cause as to why the "people making those regulations" seem to be compromised? What do you know about the influence of big money in government?

rtx 9y ago

Thats the problem, we have limited control on people making those regulations. So as a compromise less regulation is always better.

chasing 9y ago
You have more control over your government than you have over Uber or AirBnB -- especially if you're not a customer of either of those businesses. The government is (ideally) merely a voice of all of the people. Transportation and housing (for example) are parts of the critical infrastructure of a community. Allowing decisions about those things to be made entirely by the (relatively wealthy and mono-cultural) owners and customers of those businesses is unfair to the other people affected by those businesses. Hence regulation. Which, again: There are bad and stupid regulations. Of course. But regulations are useful tools, overall.
- rtx 9y ago
  True, however we don't live in an ideal world. We need to take our society into consideration. Where Rich have more say in the government. This can be remedied by government having less say in my life.
  - chasing 9y ago
    > We need to take our society into consideration. Where Rich have more say in the government. These two ideas are at odds. The rich are doing fine for themselves. The people we need to go out of our way to make sure we're helping is the less wealthy and the less powerful. That's whom the government should be advocating for. But in balance. Businesses need to be allowed to flourish, as well. And, by the way, you benefit greatly by having the government have a say in your life. [Edit: I believe I misinterpreted the bit of text I quoted from you. Apologies on that. But my general comment stands.]
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    That's certainly not true if the disempowering of government only occurs in those areas of government where the rich are pushing for it because of how it constrains their power. It might not be true generally, either, say if the advantage wealth provides outside of government is greater than the advantage it provides in government. That rich have disproportionate influence in government doesn't mean they don't have even more disproportionate influence outside of it.
tremon 9y ago
Less regulation is not a compromise at all, it was the goal you started out with.
neon_electro 9y ago
Have you considered the root cause as to why the "people making those regulations" seem to be compromised? What do you know about the influence of big money in government?