5 ms·

> The flaw with that argument is that something like 99 of 100 laws exist because, basically, they should. They benefit society, so essentially the whole popula

> The flaw with that argument is that something like 99 of 100 laws exist because, basically, they should. They benefit society, so essentially the whole population wants them. That's very much debatable. It's not even clear how to count the number of laws, even if we are only considering Federal law in the US. (see https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43056.pdf https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43056.pdf ) Certainly there is no one who knows all the laws, and unlike in coding, there's no commitment to DRY or modularization, which leads to very common unintended consequences. You're arguing the 99/100 case, but I'm sure it would be easy to find someone to credibly argue the 1/100 case.

ethbro 8y ago
The 99/100 case (in this argument) is mostly tragedy of the commons laws. Where every person would individually benefit from breaking them, but the community as a whole would be worse off. E.g. environmental regulations
- zaroth 8y ago
  Disagreeing with the law just because it would personally financially benefit you to break it is pretty weak sauce. I think a much stronger argument could be made that many laws — and particularly regulations — fail even at their stated purpose. There was an article on the front page last week [1] about the total cost to the economy from licensing “professional” work which can clearly be done safely and effectively without a license, for example, hair weaving. While the direct cost of obtaining licenses and completing the educational requirires (which often provides no actual benefit in increased skill or earnings), is relatively low… If you factor in the cost to the economy of people who aren’t able to work at a more profitable profession because they are restricted from entering it due to the licensing, the cost was extraordinary. I think any analysis which covers all the myriad misguided attempts government makes to micromanage our lives is going to blow far past 1/100 of laws and regulations being damaging rather than helpful, even when considering the general populace. [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18682946 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18682946
  - sbov 8y ago
    The florist example reads as the most egregious: https://ij.org/report/blooming-nonsense-2/ https://ij.org/report/blooming-nonsense-2/ You have to pass a written and practical test (aka subjective test) - administered by other licensed florists (aka your competitors). Licenses should be about public safety. There's no reason to have a subjective test when it comes to this.
    - iamdave 8y ago
      Licenses should be about public safety. It seems though in some industries (not all), as you allude to in the floral industry, that licensing is just another manifestation of rent seeking and ever encroaching regulatory capture. Would you concur? Curious to hear what you think there could (or should) be done about it in your opinion? In the case of selling floral products-caveat lector: I know nothing about flowers other than they are pretty and smell nice-would it make sense to replace licensing with some sort of rating system for businesses to aid consumers in deciding who they want to procure professional services from based on assessed expertise and past services rendered (not Yelp, an assessment from your industry peers)?
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - ethbro 8y ago
      Imho, licenses should only be used in situations where (1) there are cost externalities to be considered that the free market doesn't expose+ or (2) it's better for society as a whole if supply is managed (e.g. capped licenses / quotas) + E.g. a cheap electrician using aluminum wiring that may short in 10 years and burn the house down. But of which the customer may not be aware / informed.
      - bluGill 8y ago
        We have codes and laws about what wiring you are allowed to use, and independent inspections to ensure that things were done right. (even the best person makes a mistake). Adding a license doesn't really do much. I can teach a smart person how to write a house in a couple days (this includes looking up what size wire to use on the charts - the NEC is actually very readable once you figure out which section applies), from there on some experience will make you faster. Yet to become licensed requires years of experience, mostly to keep people out of the job.
iamdave 8y ago
Your link to the Congressional Research Service report, was that included to highlight how difficult it is to enumerate the number of Federal laws? Because if so, so far reading this, it seems the Federal government has a pretty solid, and measurable grip on that very activity, just from the text of the report, and it doesn't seem remarkably difficult for them since they've come up with seemingly multiple ways to delineate the different types of Federal rules from each other, and have been able to point to various methods used to come up with their final assessment totals. None of it seemed overtly complicated or difficult, and I'm about as far removed from "well read" on government reports as a person can get.
- emiliobumachar 8y ago
  So, how many federal laws are currently in effect?
  - dnautics 8y ago
    And can you say for certain that you didn't break a law today?
    - viraptor 8y ago
      Always a good link: https://twitter.com/CrimeADay https://twitter.com/CrimeADay
yholio 8y ago
This is not even a law, it's a regulation from an agency that tries to assert itself as a regulator of communication satellites. This has strategic implications for US and it's probably a good idea anyway from a space collision point of view - but nonetheless is a regulatory land grab from other international bodies. As a general rule, these type of moves can only be controlled by breaking them and testing then in court. The agencies have a strong incentive to go for a maximal interpretation of the relevant statues and increase their influence and funding.
- threeseed 8y ago
  Governments have a mandate to regulate what happens in their own country. It’s how the entire world functions. And so it makes no sense that enforcement should be considered a land grab from other international bodies. And we don’t control crimes like murder by allowing people to break the laws and then testing them in court.
  - yholio 8y ago
    > And we don’t control crimes like murder by allowing people to break the laws and then testing them in court. I usually err on the side of constructive conversation, but I have to say that is a ridiculous straw-man - and you know it.
- Taniwha 8y ago
  Regulations are laws where the details were left to the bureaucrats by the politicians who drafted the laws - it allows for implementation flexibility. But they are still backed by actual laws, and are not lessened by being regulations - if anything they are better because you can always apply to the implementing authority to change things without going the whole parliamentary route. There's a downside in less well developed countries without a tradition of a non-political civil service (like the US) where an incoming politician installs their political flunkies can change the regulations to suit their donors

ethbro 8y ago

The 99/100 case (in this argument) is mostly tragedy of the commons laws. Where every person would individually benefit from breaking them, but the community as a whole would be worse off. E.g. environmental regulations

zaroth 8y ago
Disagreeing with the law just because it would personally financially benefit you to break it is pretty weak sauce. I think a much stronger argument could be made that many laws — and particularly regulations — fail even at their stated purpose. There was an article on the front page last week [1] about the total cost to the economy from licensing “professional” work which can clearly be done safely and effectively without a license, for example, hair weaving. While the direct cost of obtaining licenses and completing the educational requirires (which often provides no actual benefit in increased skill or earnings), is relatively low… If you factor in the cost to the economy of people who aren’t able to work at a more profitable profession because they are restricted from entering it due to the licensing, the cost was extraordinary. I think any analysis which covers all the myriad misguided attempts government makes to micromanage our lives is going to blow far past 1/100 of laws and regulations being damaging rather than helpful, even when considering the general populace. [1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18682946 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18682946
- sbov 8y ago
  The florist example reads as the most egregious: https://ij.org/report/blooming-nonsense-2/ https://ij.org/report/blooming-nonsense-2/ You have to pass a written and practical test (aka subjective test) - administered by other licensed florists (aka your competitors). Licenses should be about public safety. There's no reason to have a subjective test when it comes to this.
  - iamdave 8y ago
    Licenses should be about public safety. It seems though in some industries (not all), as you allude to in the floral industry, that licensing is just another manifestation of rent seeking and ever encroaching regulatory capture. Would you concur? Curious to hear what you think there could (or should) be done about it in your opinion? In the case of selling floral products-caveat lector: I know nothing about flowers other than they are pretty and smell nice-would it make sense to replace licensing with some sort of rating system for businesses to aid consumers in deciding who they want to procure professional services from based on assessed expertise and past services rendered (not Yelp, an assessment from your industry peers)?
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - ethbro 8y ago
    Imho, licenses should only be used in situations where (1) there are cost externalities to be considered that the free market doesn't expose+ or (2) it's better for society as a whole if supply is managed (e.g. capped licenses / quotas) + E.g. a cheap electrician using aluminum wiring that may short in 10 years and burn the house down. But of which the customer may not be aware / informed.
    - bluGill 8y ago
      We have codes and laws about what wiring you are allowed to use, and independent inspections to ensure that things were done right. (even the best person makes a mistake). Adding a license doesn't really do much. I can teach a smart person how to write a house in a couple days (this includes looking up what size wire to use on the charts - the NEC is actually very readable once you figure out which section applies), from there on some experience will make you faster. Yet to become licensed requires years of experience, mostly to keep people out of the job.

iamdave 8y ago

Your link to the Congressional Research Service report, was that included to highlight how difficult it is to enumerate the number of Federal laws? Because if so, so far reading this, it seems the Federal government has a pretty solid, and measurable grip on that very activity, just from the text of the report, and it doesn't seem remarkably difficult for them since they've come up with seemingly multiple ways to delineate the different types of Federal rules from each other, and have been able to point to various methods used to come up with their final assessment totals. None of it seemed overtly complicated or difficult, and I'm about as far removed from "well read" on government reports as a person can get.

emiliobumachar 8y ago
So, how many federal laws are currently in effect?
- dnautics 8y ago
  And can you say for certain that you didn't break a law today?
  - viraptor 8y ago
    Always a good link: https://twitter.com/CrimeADay https://twitter.com/CrimeADay

yholio 8y ago

This is not even a law, it's a regulation from an agency that tries to assert itself as a regulator of communication satellites. This has strategic implications for US and it's probably a good idea anyway from a space collision point of view - but nonetheless is a regulatory land grab from other international bodies. As a general rule, these type of moves can only be controlled by breaking them and testing then in court. The agencies have a strong incentive to go for a maximal interpretation of the relevant statues and increase their influence and funding.

threeseed 8y ago
Governments have a mandate to regulate what happens in their own country. It’s how the entire world functions. And so it makes no sense that enforcement should be considered a land grab from other international bodies. And we don’t control crimes like murder by allowing people to break the laws and then testing them in court.
- yholio 8y ago
  > And we don’t control crimes like murder by allowing people to break the laws and then testing them in court. I usually err on the side of constructive conversation, but I have to say that is a ridiculous straw-man - and you know it.
Taniwha 8y ago
Regulations are laws where the details were left to the bureaucrats by the politicians who drafted the laws - it allows for implementation flexibility. But they are still backed by actual laws, and are not lessened by being regulations - if anything they are better because you can always apply to the implementing authority to change things without going the whole parliamentary route. There's a downside in less well developed countries without a tradition of a non-political civil service (like the US) where an incoming politician installs their political flunkies can change the regulations to suit their donors