5 ms·
That used to be how the USA worked.
by pbreit 7y ago
That used to be how the USA worked.
- mdorazio 7y agoI feel like this is still how it works. If something is unregulated, you can do what you want. It's just that we've added so many regulations for everything that pretty much nothing is allowed anymore without going through some kind of approval process.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y agoIt turns out if you don't make a rule for something, someone is going to come along and start dumping toxic waste into a playground.
- Zak 7y agoIf used effectively, basic tort law could cover this sort of thing. Where you really need detailed regulations is if you want to permit someone to pollute in a limited way without getting sued.
- wahern 7y ago> If used effectively Unless we lived in an omniscient surveillance state that automatically notified property owners, basic tort law really couldn't address this effectively because the benefits of dumping easily exceed the risk adjusted costs simply because the costs of detecting and suing for illegal dumping on a property owner by property owner basis are far too great.[1] Indeed, the more toxic the waste the more the situation favors dumpers. [1] To be clear, that's not a comment on pricey lawyers and slow courts, but regards fundamental structural limitations to such a legal system.
- wahern 7y agoFunny because it's true. But to be fair doing such a thing is invariably already illegal under basic rules of property and tort, it's just that the penalties aren't very much. Though even with steep statutory penalties and even criminal penalties it still happens--people still dump toxic waste into the deep woods everywhere. But I would presume that the steeper penalties are somewhat effective at the margins.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y ago> But to be fair doing such a thing is invariably already illegal under basic rules of property and tort, it's just that the penalties aren't very much. It would also be a nightmare to have to go through the court system for every infraction.
- sixothree 7y agoPretty much every regulation exists because of an abuse or harm to someone.
- malandrew 7y agoBut many regulations come about as knee-jerk reactions and end up doing more harm than good because they were ill-considered and implemented in haste.
- SketchySeaBeast 7y agoThat's an argument for regulation reform, but not necessarily reduction - whatever overstepping occurred, there was an initial need for regulation that still needs to be met.
- malandrew 7y ago> there was an initial need for regulation that still needs to be met not necessarily. we have kneejerk reactions to statistically anomalous events all the time. Some things happen so infrequently that the regulation does far more harm than good. People have a desire to do something, anything, but never question if something should be done in the first place and establishing rational criteria to determine if they shouldn't act at all.
- pbreit 7y agoI'm not sure this is always or even mostly the case. Would love to see regulations with a fixed sunset date like 10 years or something.
- pbreit 7y agoProbably not wrong. But frequently only happened to some ONE and now we have these idiotic rules that stifle everyone.