8 ms·
When the government makes you waste a a day filling out paperwork to prove that your dog food doesn’t contain human remains, don’t blame the regulators. Blame t
by QuadmasterXLII 7y ago
When the government makes you waste a a day filling out paperwork to prove that your dog food doesn’t contain human remains, don’t blame the regulators. Blame the guy before you who made a buck by vertically integrating his cannery and his morgue.
- aeorgnoieang 7y agoNah, blame the regulators too for thinking that filling out paperwork is likely to meaningfully dissuade someone from using human remains to make dog food. It was probably sufficient to explain to that one guy why that was bad.
- freehunter 7y ago>It was probably sufficient to explain to that one guy why that was bad. Greed doesn't listen to reason.
- icelancer 7y ago....nor regulators.
- erobbins 7y agoWith a functional government, regulations enable the regulators to punish people who do these things.
- merpnderp 7y agoSince we're talking about human remains in dog food, there's already likely a litany of felonies involved in turning a person into dog food. The regulators just like to regulate.
- dymk 7y ago> there's already likely a litany of felonies involved in turning a person into dog food yes, it's a felony because of regulation, made by... regulators
- xyzzyz 7y agoTheft is also forbidden by regulation, but thankfully I don't have to file daily reports yet to Theft-Prevention Agency listing all the things that I handled but not stolen today.
- lonelappde 7y agoYou don't, but banks and pawn shops do.
- gamblor956 7y agoTheft is not forbidden by regulation, it's forbidden by laws. What's the difference? Laws are written by legislators, i.e., the elected representatives. Regulations are written by agencies created and empowered by laws to oversee certain parts of the government/governmental functions. Regulators work largely by requiring reports because most agencies don't have criminal enforcement powers, and thus can act only on the basis of what is (or isn't) reported...
- nybble41 7y agoThe real difference is that theft is punishable under natural law regardless of what any regulators or legislators might say. There can be no consistent system which would permit theft while prohibiting a proportional punishment for it. If theft is permitted then enforced restitution (recovery of the stolen property) and punishment (fines) must also be permitted, because these are ultimately the same action. Laws and regulations which are not merely codification of natural law ultimately come down to attempting to create rules which apply to some people and not others. Unfortunately, legislators and regulators get away with this all to often through a combination of good propaganda and willingness to employ unjustified force to achieve their goals.
- dragonwriter 7y agoGreed listens to regulators that have teeth, because then the expected benefit of non-compliance is negative.
- MisterBastahrd 7y agoIt's not there to dissuade you. It's there to provide a paper trail in case you do something stupid.
- jjeaff 7y agoOr have one page with a single checkbox that says "I understand it is illegal to use human remains in dog food"
- freewilly1040 7y agoRegulation isn't about informing people what the rules are, it's about people proving they are following the rules.
- lonelappde 7y agoIt's both. The level of paperwork depends on the risk profile.
- jjeaff 7y agoSure. And there is no way a stack of paperwork can prove you are -not- using human remains. Check the box that you understand and expect possible, random inspections.
- vkou 7y agoWould you prefer that regulators would sanction bad behaviour and throw people in jail post-facto, make-up-the-rules-as-they-go-along instead? Because that's the most palatable alternative.
- freehunter 7y agoI used to work in compliance and the number of regulations that are punitive punishments for bad things that actually happened is just astounding. SOX compliance is arduous but it only exists (and is as strict as it is) because some banks decided to destroy the global economy just to make a bit of money and couldn't understand why this was a bad thing.
- wheelerwj 7y ago> for bad things that actually happened is just astounding. you are not kidding. "You mean we have to monitor for this because someone ACTUALLY tried doing that before...?"
- chrisco255 7y agoSure, bad things happen. But there's a trade-off between regulatory burden and economic vibrancy and adaptability. We all know that taxi regulations sort of existed because a lot of tourists would get taken advantage of. But then, the taxi companies and politicians exploited it to promote local monopolies and enforced it with limited edition, expensive taxi medallions that prevented people from starting up legitimate cab companies to compete with the incumbents. That sort of thing happens all the time and that opportunity cost is not often talked about.
- peacetreefrog 7y agoAgreed. Though it's tough to square the fact that bad things happen sometimes with desire to do something. The Onion actually had a good video on this a few years ago: https://politics.theonion.com/truck-accident-that-killed-rafters-in-canyon-sparks-tru-1819594960 https://politics.theonion.com/truck-accident-that-killed-raf...
- wbl 7y agoSOX predates the GFC by a decade.
- rgbrenner 7y agoSox was passed in response to Enron. While that may have been a big failure, it had no effect on the wider economy. In fact Enrons scandal only came out after the 2001 recession ended... the economy grew during and after Enron’s failure.
- AndrewBissell 7y agoAs someone who does a lot of work for state-level regulatory compliance for a winery, let me assure you that the proportion of effort devoted to establishing that we sell a safe product is exactly 0%. It's all about making sure we pay excise taxes and our labels don't violate some modern-day censor's notions of good taste.
- mring33621 7y agoA long time ago, I worked in defense. Our design engineers had to fill out government paperwork (many pages) that provided an estimate for how long the rest of the government paperwork would take.
- DesiLurker 7y agosounds like rocket equation to me, you carry mass that helps you carry mass that helps you carry mass...
- smallnamespace 7y agoWas it a first order estimate or did it include the time it took to fill itself out?
- fzeroracer 7y agoTo be fair, doesn't that describe agile development as well?
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- macinjosh 7y agoRight, because there is no other option than to have the government get in everyone's business. Why should the government impose on my business because some asshole did something he shouldn't have? It's oppressive and we should fight it.
- phs318u 7y agoThis “imposition” is a cost of doing business. If you don’t like it choose another line of business. For as long as there is a legitimate demand for the product/service in question someone will provide supply at a price point which is sustainable. The process of getting to that point may involve some companies trying and failing before others try and succeed. This is capitalism.
- feenix566 7y agoInstead of making everyone sign a stack of papers stating that their dog food doesn't contain human remains, the legislature could simply pass a law stating that you pay fines and/or go to jail if your dog food contains human remains. That way you avoid punishing people who act in good faith for the misdeeds of those who didn't.