5 ms·

> There are many regulations that are critical to a functioning society. I disagree vehemently, and believe there are very few that are necessary, aside from e

> There are many regulations that are critical to a functioning society. I disagree vehemently, and believe there are very few that are necessary, aside from enforcing the harm principle and a few basic functions (i.e. diplomacy & military). Rather, most people use laws to attempt to enforce upon society their visions of how it ought to look and operate (i.e. drug bans, zoning). My motivation for getting rid of _most_ regulations is ideological (I can think of no ethical justification for the state to compel, by force, a home-owner to install an outlet in his wall), and I was attempting to illustrate a practical aspect of why; I don't believe there's much "bathwater" to be thrown out that wouldn't have been provided through other means.

shkkmo 7y ago
Your motivation may be ideological but it is not in anyway practical. If you look worldwide, places with minimal levels of regulation and enforcent tend to be more impoverished and almost no countries with a functioning government have the level of regulation that you advocate. The evidence strongly suggest that regulation tends to increase economic efficiency (at least up to a point). Perhaps you can redirect your ideological distaste to find ways to help systematically determine which regulations are effective/necessary and expediently remove those that are harmful rather than advocating for a state of affairs that ignores reality.
- logicchains 7y ago
  Singapore and Hong Kong are two of the richest countries on Earth per capita, and have much less regulation than the US or Europe.
  - anticensor 7y ago
    But they have much more stringent enforcement.
    - big_chungus 7y ago
      Those poorer nations with less regulations don't enforce what they have. See, for instance, the post about massive sand theft in India; rampant corruption enables anyone to bypass the law amd cause harm to others. Passing more regulations won't fix that; said nations have tried that and failed.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - anticensor 7y ago
        I specifically meant HK and Singapore.
  - shkkmo 7y ago
    Hong Kong and Singapore certainly have zoning and land use regulation. They have consumer safety regulations. They have much more strict drug law penalties. Thereay be areas where they have less regulation but they are hardly the poster children for "minimal regulation" countries. I am not at all saying that our level of regulation is perfect. There are lots of bad regulations that exist to protect industry profits or simply remove citizen choice out of fear.
OJFord 7y ago
> Rather, most people use laws to attempt to enforce upon society their visions of how it ought to look and operate (i.e. drug bans, zoning). My motivation for getting rid of _most_ regulations is ideological Do you not see that, were you to get your way, you'd be doing precisely the same, just with a different vision? If I want 'drug bans and zoning', for example, I'll be cross that you've used (perhaps lack of) laws to force your own liberal vision upon me. And that's essentially how we've (in much of the world) arrived at multi-party democracy.
- big_chungus 7y ago
  Not passing a law does not force you to do anything. It still leaves individuals the freedom to make choices; i.e. I support removing drug restrictions but don't use them myself. Let everyone make his own choice. Your position is the restrictive one, the one where you seek to force me to live as you see fit; not passing a law allows everyone to live according to his own choices. On the other hand, if I transgress against your governmental club, policemen bust down my door at 3 AM and haul me off; there is no such occurrence without a law.
  - OJFord 7y ago
    (to be clear 'my' position is just assumed for argument's sake) It's still the laws or not that govern society, it still affects me. You'd like some minimal laws too, as you said, such as preventing people killing each other - that also is restricting other people, for the benefit of the others.
    - big_chungus 7y ago
      Absolutely, I believe in some very basic stuff, like what you described (enforcing the harm principle). But, someone's drug abuse (for instance) does not harm me, unless I have to pay for the rehab; a lack of zoning may lead to an ugly house, but the closest that comes to harm is failing to provide visual or aesthetic pleasure to me. However, you claimed restricting one from killing another is for the benefit of the one. Not so, rather it is to prevent undue harm to another. Conceptually, it is the difference between you stealing $100 and me giving you the same. I also believe in remediating externalities, i.e. no one gets to dump toxic sludge in the river. I simply don't see an ethical case for laws that tell a landowner what he can and can't do with the property.

shkkmo 7y ago

Your motivation may be ideological but it is not in anyway practical. If you look worldwide, places with minimal levels of regulation and enforcent tend to be more impoverished and almost no countries with a functioning government have the level of regulation that you advocate. The evidence strongly suggest that regulation tends to increase economic efficiency (at least up to a point). Perhaps you can redirect your ideological distaste to find ways to help systematically determine which regulations are effective/necessary and expediently remove those that are harmful rather than advocating for a state of affairs that ignores reality.

logicchains 7y ago
Singapore and Hong Kong are two of the richest countries on Earth per capita, and have much less regulation than the US or Europe.
- anticensor 7y ago
  But they have much more stringent enforcement.
  - big_chungus 7y ago
    Those poorer nations with less regulations don't enforce what they have. See, for instance, the post about massive sand theft in India; rampant corruption enables anyone to bypass the law amd cause harm to others. Passing more regulations won't fix that; said nations have tried that and failed.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - anticensor 7y ago
      I specifically meant HK and Singapore.
- shkkmo 7y ago
  Hong Kong and Singapore certainly have zoning and land use regulation. They have consumer safety regulations. They have much more strict drug law penalties. Thereay be areas where they have less regulation but they are hardly the poster children for "minimal regulation" countries. I am not at all saying that our level of regulation is perfect. There are lots of bad regulations that exist to protect industry profits or simply remove citizen choice out of fear.

OJFord 7y ago

> Rather, most people use laws to attempt to enforce upon society their visions of how it ought to look and operate (i.e. drug bans, zoning). My motivation for getting rid of _most_ regulations is ideological Do you not see that, were you to get your way, you'd be doing precisely the same, just with a different vision? If I want 'drug bans and zoning', for example, I'll be cross that you've used (perhaps lack of) laws to force your own liberal vision upon me. And that's essentially how we've (in much of the world) arrived at multi-party democracy.

big_chungus 7y ago
Not passing a law does not force you to do anything. It still leaves individuals the freedom to make choices; i.e. I support removing drug restrictions but don't use them myself. Let everyone make his own choice. Your position is the restrictive one, the one where you seek to force me to live as you see fit; not passing a law allows everyone to live according to his own choices. On the other hand, if I transgress against your governmental club, policemen bust down my door at 3 AM and haul me off; there is no such occurrence without a law.
- OJFord 7y ago
  (to be clear 'my' position is just assumed for argument's sake) It's still the laws or not that govern society, it still affects me. You'd like some minimal laws too, as you said, such as preventing people killing each other - that also is restricting other people, for the benefit of the others.
  - big_chungus 7y ago
    Absolutely, I believe in some very basic stuff, like what you described (enforcing the harm principle). But, someone's drug abuse (for instance) does not harm me, unless I have to pay for the rehab; a lack of zoning may lead to an ugly house, but the closest that comes to harm is failing to provide visual or aesthetic pleasure to me. However, you claimed restricting one from killing another is for the benefit of the one. Not so, rather it is to prevent undue harm to another. Conceptually, it is the difference between you stealing $100 and me giving you the same. I also believe in remediating externalities, i.e. no one gets to dump toxic sludge in the river. I simply don't see an ethical case for laws that tell a landowner what he can and can't do with the property.