3 ms·

Your argument doesn't really make sense: regulation is bad because it regulates some stuff... but since some stuff is regulated then we should be able to do som

Your argument doesn't really make sense: regulation is bad because it regulates some stuff... but since some stuff is regulated then we should be able to do some different stuff? Things are on that sidewalk because they were "analysed" and accepted, they are regulated. They are sidewalk-legal things. Just like on the road there are road-legal cars and what you're saying is that illegal cars should also be allowed because they're cars and we already have plenty. So regulation is bad because you're not allowed to do illegal things that are sorta' like legal ones but not really. Regulation can't cover everything perfectly from the get go because it would imply that the people making it can know with perfect accuracy every single issue that might come up in the future. So you make it more restrictive and then adjust case by case. The genius idea can be covered by a permit unless there's a real blocker somewhere. If you're in IT you'll understand this example: try writing a RegEx that matches all those words and only those words (strings?) that I will be using in my comments over the next 2 days.[*]

close04 8y ago
[*] Sesquipedalian
rickycook 8y ago
i read the argument as regulating types of behaviour and outcomes, rather than individual things. much current regulation seems to be frustrating because they failed to do more root cause analysis: why don’t you want things on the sidewalk? regulate so that these things are met, then people can do what they like.
- close04 8y ago
  That's exactly how it works. But regulation is there for years or decades. Sometimes "types" might be something too generic to be valid for so long. You will invariably end up with things that shouldn't be allowed but (arguably) are. That can be really bad. Or things that should be allowed but aren't. That shouldn't be that bad since you can get an exception. In this case the regulation probably says: You are not allowed to put any type of thing on a sidewalk that doesn't belong to you unless explicitly permitted by the owner. The only reason we're discussing it is because the title is clickbait. Might as well have been: Person breaking rules is stopped.

close04 8y ago

[*] Sesquipedalian

rickycook 8y ago

i read the argument as regulating types of behaviour and outcomes, rather than individual things. much current regulation seems to be frustrating because they failed to do more root cause analysis: why don’t you want things on the sidewalk? regulate so that these things are met, then people can do what they like.

close04 8y ago
That's exactly how it works. But regulation is there for years or decades. Sometimes "types" might be something too generic to be valid for so long. You will invariably end up with things that shouldn't be allowed but (arguably) are. That can be really bad. Or things that should be allowed but aren't. That shouldn't be that bad since you can get an exception. In this case the regulation probably says: You are not allowed to put any type of thing on a sidewalk that doesn't belong to you unless explicitly permitted by the owner. The only reason we're discussing it is because the title is clickbait. Might as well have been: Person breaking rules is stopped.