4 ms·

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 a

by 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.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - ethbro 8y ago
        Hypothetically we have code enforcement. In reality, the chance of getting caught on a non-obvious building defect is much lower than certain. I see licensing as buying into the system and aligning interests. Suddenly, it's in a tradesperson's personal interest to follow regulations, as they otherwise risk their right to practice. That said... as was mentioned upthread, there's a happy balance. If there's limited long term harm, it's probably not justifiable to require licensure.
- vidarh 8y ago
  Some hair weaving involve first relaxing the hair with chemicals that can cause severe burns if done incorrectly in order to ensure the weave and the natural hair blends properly. Some weaves are attached with adhesives that can also cause damage if used incorrectly. In both cases there is a potential for hair loss and disfigurement. I think that's a good example of a field where lack of knowledge can be a very dangerous thing. I'd have thought like you until having seen first hand what some such hair products can do. I'm sure there are unnecessary licensing. But I'm equally sure a lot of the licensing that seems pointless actually has reasonable justifications that are just not obvious if you don't know the field.

by ethbro 8y ago

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.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - ethbro 8y ago
      Hypothetically we have code enforcement. In reality, the chance of getting caught on a non-obvious building defect is much lower than certain. I see licensing as buying into the system and aligning interests. Suddenly, it's in a tradesperson's personal interest to follow regulations, as they otherwise risk their right to practice. That said... as was mentioned upthread, there's a happy balance. If there's limited long term harm, it's probably not justifiable to require licensure.
vidarh 8y ago
Some hair weaving involve first relaxing the hair with chemicals that can cause severe burns if done incorrectly in order to ensure the weave and the natural hair blends properly. Some weaves are attached with adhesives that can also cause damage if used incorrectly. In both cases there is a potential for hair loss and disfigurement. I think that's a good example of a field where lack of knowledge can be a very dangerous thing. I'd have thought like you until having seen first hand what some such hair products can do. I'm sure there are unnecessary licensing. But I'm equally sure a lot of the licensing that seems pointless actually has reasonable justifications that are just not obvious if you don't know the field.