3 ms·

> You're just creating terms that only mean "good regulation" and "bad regulation" and arguing that all we need is to have the good regulation but not the bad r

> You're just creating terms that only mean "good regulation" and "bad regulation" and arguing that all we need is to have the good regulation but not the bad regulation. The business of separating the one from the other is the whole issue. For starters I didn't create those terms. The second issue I have is your statement is completely unqualified, that the problem is separating them. Please qualify how they are the same or provide evidence. Right now you're just making things up or so it appears. > Problem: Minors are gathering in outdoor community spaces to consume alcohol. For one you assume it's a problem. It may or may not be. Your solutions are at best a false dilemma and are limiting choice when there could be and are a multitude of other options. If there's a point you're trying to make with your example it has gone well over my head. > It's also trivial to devise regulations that will simultaneously be effective and inefficient. You can easily prevent elevator accidents by prohibiting elevators. Yes... You can trivially make anything work or not work. What is your point? Are you attempting to say there is a triviality to making something safe and sound and/or economic in regards to regulation? I really don't at all know what your point is here. What is the relevance of this in the conversation? Right now I'm very honestly, very, confused about what you're trying to say.

AnthonyMouse 9y ago
The category "economic regulation" is just a different name for government corruption. It can't be distinguished from safety regulations because they're overlapping rather than independent. Protectionist taxi licensing regulations nominally exist for safety reasons and might in fact do both things at the same time. The "safety regulations" around nuclear power plants were specifically designed to make them not economically viable, by a baptists and bootleggers coalition of anti-nuclear weapons activists and fossil energy companies. The distinction doesn't provide a useful filter, it's just a restatement of the fact that cronyism is bad. > For one you assume it's a problem. It may or may not be. Your solutions are at best a false dilemma and are limiting choice when there could be and are a multitude of other options. If there's a point you're trying to make with your example it has gone well over my head. Suppose hypothetically that under-aged drinking is a problem. That there are a multitude of other options to solve it is the entire point. The different choices have different economic consequences, so whoever is writing the legislation gets to decide who they want to kill and who they want to save. A pure example of "bad" economic regulation would be completely naked. There would just be a law that says that only GM can sell cars. But that never really happens. Instead it gets dressed up in some ostensibly legitimate justification.

AnthonyMouse 9y ago

The category "economic regulation" is just a different name for government corruption. It can't be distinguished from safety regulations because they're overlapping rather than independent. Protectionist taxi licensing regulations nominally exist for safety reasons and might in fact do both things at the same time. The "safety regulations" around nuclear power plants were specifically designed to make them not economically viable, by a baptists and bootleggers coalition of anti-nuclear weapons activists and fossil energy companies. The distinction doesn't provide a useful filter, it's just a restatement of the fact that cronyism is bad. > For one you assume it's a problem. It may or may not be. Your solutions are at best a false dilemma and are limiting choice when there could be and are a multitude of other options. If there's a point you're trying to make with your example it has gone well over my head. Suppose hypothetically that under-aged drinking is a problem. That there are a multitude of other options to solve it is the entire point. The different choices have different economic consequences, so whoever is writing the legislation gets to decide who they want to kill and who they want to save. A pure example of "bad" economic regulation would be completely naked. There would just be a law that says that only GM can sell cars. But that never really happens. Instead it gets dressed up in some ostensibly legitimate justification.