3 ms·
Whats your recourse to getting reimbursed for a regulation that is too expensive?
by conanbatt 9y ago
Whats your recourse to getting reimbursed for a regulation that is too expensive?
- toomuchtodo 9y agoSuperior to getting reimbursed when there is no regulation whatsoever. See: Equifax data breach costs shouldered by the American public who have no resource provided by regulation
- conanbatt 9y agoSuperior? Which recognized bad regulations did you get your money back from?
- toomuchtodo 9y agoThat's the point. Regulation > No regulation. We're just arguing the amount of said regulation.
- conanbatt 9y agoI don't think you are reading my comments. You say that without regulation you wouldn't have a recourse to get your money back on bad behavior from private companies, but if a regulation harms you economically, you will never get your money back anyway. Regulation does not give you a recourse to get your money back. In fact, even worse. The state can never make amends on its mistakes.
- toomuchtodo 9y agoLet me twist an analogy. I don't care if law enforcement is more expensive than just absorbing the cost of crimes. I want the rule of law enforced, even if it's more expensive.
- conanbatt 9y agoThats fine. You go your way and let other people go their way and everyone gets what they want.
- s73v3r_ 9y agoThat's not at all true and you know it.
- conanbatt 9y agoI can only answer what is said to me. He said he cared more about the law than the economic results, and I provide a solution for his desires and for the people that don't share them. I, maybe like you, suspect that he wants others to follow the laws he wants, which is an entirely different proposition.
- aianus 9y agoThis is the exact attitude that has resulted in the war on drugs.
- toomuchtodo 9y agoPolitical apathy and racially motivated legislation resulted in the war on drugs. Don’t want the law enforced? Change the law.
- aianus 9y ago> Don’t want the law enforced? Change the law. Yes, the law should be changed, but not because drugs aren't bad. But because the high costs of enforcement (direct and indirect) have been worse than the lower costs of people being free to get high. By your logic, we should continue to ignore all those costs because drugs are still a negative to society and the moral law must be enforced no matter the enforcement cost.