3 ms·
It seems like it's not more regulation vs less regulation but rgulation in the interests of society vs regulation in the interests of the powerful. America has
by zimablue 8y ago
It seems like it's not more regulation vs less regulation but rgulation in the interests of society vs regulation in the interests of the powerful. America has very lax rules on political donations from corporations, allowing almost unlimited lobbying. Plus a two-party system and the ration of population=>votes being very uneven.
- beaconstudios 8y agoregulations seem insanely hard to design well. It's very easy to claim you're regulating for the good of society, but have said regulation have a completely different effect. They're far from a panacea.
- zimablue 8y agoThe way I think about it: you have lots of problems in society which are prisoners dilemma in nature. The only way for the prisoners to escape their fate is to have some external authority fix the incentives and that's basically the law. Three ways to use the law: Regulation Sueing people for damages Complex contracts There are situations where some of these work better than others and we just need to pick. It's really hard to imagine sueing for damages working precisely for something like preventing air pollution, the chain of causation is too long. You have no choice other than regulation. There's this libertatian politics common on HN but I've never seen a convincing argument of how you solve air pollution using 2. or 3. Imo you will always need regulation.