7 ms·

The solution to excessive regulation is less regulation, not more. These things tend to backfire.

gumby 7y ago
That may be true (I tend to agree) but it is just as hard to implement. It's not a magic bullet.
dredmorbius 7y ago
The fix for bad regulation to poor effect is good regulation to beneficial effect. "Excessive" and "less" are not synonyms for "bad" and "good". This isn't about quantity, it's about quality.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  Yes, but also no. One of the big problems is that regulations are immortal. They get passed and never repealed. This causes two problems. First, they don't go away even if they're bad. Second, they accumulate. That's especially problematic for bad regulations, but it's even a problem for good regulations. If you have a boat with five tons of idle carrying capacity and you decree that it carry four tons of the king's freight, all is well and there is a net benefit produced. But if you decree that it carry eight tons of the king's freight, it sinks. So if you want to add new rules, you need to find some old ones to take back out. And you should be uniquely careful what you add to begin with, because every one has an opportunity cost, and even bad rules are sticky.
  - Ericson2314 7y ago
    We rarely net delete/discard shitty software either. But we could. There's no fundamental reason.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      Shitty software can be ignored without being deleted. Hard to ignore shitty laws.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    There is such a thing as sunset provisions, though they are not applied as regularly as one might hope. Laws are not of necessity eternal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_provision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_provision Though yes, that is a legitimate issue.
    - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
      That might actually help if it was the default, e.g. you need a large supermajority or unanimity to pass a law that lasts more than five years.
      - dredmorbius 7y ago
        Right. An alternative might be retroactive reviews or jubilees. Other forms of legislative garbage collection carry high costs and side effects.
- Consultant32452 7y ago
  I think everyone understands that regulations are written by the highest bidder. If not at first, then over time. Some people think that can be fixed, get money out of politics and then good regulation can exist in the long run. Others do not think that's possible, so it's better to remove the power from government altogether, because over time it will always be bought.
- BurningFrog 7y ago
  I don't think you're describing a solution. Saying that if something is bad, you should try to make it good is just restating the problem.
  - dredmorbius 7y ago
    My goal wasn't to point out a specific regulatory solution. My goal was to highlight an exceedingly tired and bogus argument.
    - 3131s 7y ago
      Thank you for that, I have said exactly the same thing many times.
    - BurningFrog 7y ago
      The sharp dividing line here is between those (A) who think "we just need to get the regulations right the next time", and those (B) who think that is inherently impossible, based on Public Choice theory, experience and/or general cynicism. To us from school (B), the school (A) thoughts are hopelessly naive, but it's impossible to convince anyone of our wisdom who hasn't found it on their own, and it just comes across as infuriating "you'll understand when you're older" condescension. And so life goes on :)
FridgeSeal 7y ago
The solution to (toothless, deliberately ineffective) regulation (built by lobbying and incumbents) is not less regulation, it's regulation not constructed by vested interests.
hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago
Deregulation of the financial sector has caused several major financial crashes.
shkkmo 7y ago
That's not a solution, it's just a contrapostive. The solution is to change/improve the system that is creating the regulations. There will almost definitely be new regulations involved in doing this. I don't see how a system that creates excessive regulation can be expected to constructively par down that regulation without significant changes to that system.

That may be true (I tend to agree) but it is just as hard to implement. It's not a magic bullet.

The fix for bad regulation to poor effect is good regulation to beneficial effect. "Excessive" and "less" are not synonyms for "bad" and "good". This isn't about quantity, it's about quality.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
Yes, but also no. One of the big problems is that regulations are immortal. They get passed and never repealed. This causes two problems. First, they don't go away even if they're bad. Second, they accumulate. That's especially problematic for bad regulations, but it's even a problem for good regulations. If you have a boat with five tons of idle carrying capacity and you decree that it carry four tons of the king's freight, all is well and there is a net benefit produced. But if you decree that it carry eight tons of the king's freight, it sinks. So if you want to add new rules, you need to find some old ones to take back out. And you should be uniquely careful what you add to begin with, because every one has an opportunity cost, and even bad rules are sticky.
- Ericson2314 7y ago
  We rarely net delete/discard shitty software either. But we could. There's no fundamental reason.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    Shitty software can be ignored without being deleted. Hard to ignore shitty laws.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  There is such a thing as sunset provisions, though they are not applied as regularly as one might hope. Laws are not of necessity eternal. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_provision https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_provision Though yes, that is a legitimate issue.
  - AnthonyMouse 7y ago
    That might actually help if it was the default, e.g. you need a large supermajority or unanimity to pass a law that lasts more than five years.
    - dredmorbius 7y ago
      Right. An alternative might be retroactive reviews or jubilees. Other forms of legislative garbage collection carry high costs and side effects.
Consultant32452 7y ago
I think everyone understands that regulations are written by the highest bidder. If not at first, then over time. Some people think that can be fixed, get money out of politics and then good regulation can exist in the long run. Others do not think that's possible, so it's better to remove the power from government altogether, because over time it will always be bought.
BurningFrog 7y ago
I don't think you're describing a solution. Saying that if something is bad, you should try to make it good is just restating the problem.
- dredmorbius 7y ago
  My goal wasn't to point out a specific regulatory solution. My goal was to highlight an exceedingly tired and bogus argument.
  - 3131s 7y ago
    Thank you for that, I have said exactly the same thing many times.
  - BurningFrog 7y ago
    The sharp dividing line here is between those (A) who think "we just need to get the regulations right the next time", and those (B) who think that is inherently impossible, based on Public Choice theory, experience and/or general cynicism. To us from school (B), the school (A) thoughts are hopelessly naive, but it's impossible to convince anyone of our wisdom who hasn't found it on their own, and it just comes across as infuriating "you'll understand when you're older" condescension. And so life goes on :)

FridgeSeal 7y ago

The solution to (toothless, deliberately ineffective) regulation (built by lobbying and incumbents) is not less regulation, it's regulation not constructed by vested interests.

hdfbdtbcdg 7y ago

Deregulation of the financial sector has caused several major financial crashes.

shkkmo 7y ago

That's not a solution, it's just a contrapostive. The solution is to change/improve the system that is creating the regulations. There will almost definitely be new regulations involved in doing this. I don't see how a system that creates excessive regulation can be expected to constructively par down that regulation without significant changes to that system.