6 ms·

>What other examples of laws outside of finance can you cite where individuals are restricted in order to protect them from other bad actors? Pretty much any c

>What other examples of laws outside of finance can you cite where individuals are restricted in order to protect them from other bad actors? Pretty much any consumer safety or mandatory licensing law. Even something as simple as buying a beer - we insist that legal adults are not allowed to buy a beer until they are older. We insist that adults must be over 21 to buy a handgun in many states, or that (in other states) they must show that they are sophisticated gun owners by passing a firearms safety course. We let people with special licenses and training (pharmacists) buy opiates openly, yet deny individuals the right to do so without receiving written permission. We don't allow non-specialists to buy certain kinds of explosives, but we allow others with credentials to do so. The same applies to all kinds of things, up to and including varieties of river frogs (!). We insist on documented "informed consent" for things like surgery, again to protect vulnerable people from bad actors. We don't let adults buy many kind of fireworks out of fear that they will harm themselves or others, yet if someone can prove (through obtaining a license) that they are competent, we let them buy and fire huge commercial fireworks. In short: there are an enormous number of similar restrictions. A lot of them exist because the previous state (no law) caused enough damage that restrictions were added.

Ericson2314 6y ago
I'm OK with these sorts of "in defense of us all" regulation, but I think the wealth test in particular is a bit perverse. I think this "anti-classism" critique is better than the libertarian critique.
- mywittyname 6y ago
  Regulations are written in blood. We didn't have rules, then something extremely bad happened to make people say, "that should be illegal." So it's made illegal. A generation passes and young people look at said regulations, think, "that's a stupid rule," and they revoke it. Goto 10. Investments that require you to be accredited are often pretty bad ones. All the great opportunities get cherry-picked by those with the right networks. What most people will be investing in are the scraps that all the smart investors passed on. That's how accredited investors get burned and go back to boring old index funds. If you open these markets up to average Joes, it's going to be a bloodbath. Fox News will switch from running ads to invest in gold to ones for scam companies with fraudulent books. Elderly women will get hounded by phone salesman. We'll go back to the way it was in the 80s. The problem with caveat emptor is society as a whole gets screwed as well. We all get to live with the economic collapse brought on by the situation.
  - pc86 6y ago
    This is true for something like the FAA's FARs where they're trying to save lives. It is absolutely not true of every nonsensical paternialistic nonsense Congress has passed.
  - Ericson2314 6y ago
    My preferred solution is UBI + no gambling with the UBI rule. Similar effect in this area (ignoring all the other wonderful benefits a UBI has) but without the nastiness of a net worth rule.
    - beambot 6y ago
      Where do you draw the line between gambling & investment...? Example: Median returns across venture capital are net-negative, even if expected value is net-positive: https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/01/the-meeting-that-showed-me-the-truth-about-vcs/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/01/the-meeting-that-showed-me... The effect is even more extreme for early-stage startups given the power-law nature of returns.
      - Ericson2314 6y ago
        Yeah it's all gambling. I'm doing a 180 and saying net worth floor bad, can't spend UBI on it good. The "it" in both cases is supposed to be held constant.
  - throw0101a 6y ago
    > A generation passes and young people look at said regulations, think, "that's a stupid rule," and they revoke it. Goto 10. See the concept of "Chesterton's fence": > In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.” * https://www.chesterton.org/taking-a-fence-down/ https://www.chesterton.org/taking-a-fence-down/ First determine and be able to explain why something was put in place. If you cannot explain why, you have no right to tear it down. If you can explain the original reason, you may then be able to explain why it may no longer be needed.
millettjon 6y ago
How about if we insisted you have 1,000,000 USD to buy guns or alcohol?
toby 6y ago
Most of your examples are designed to prevent unqualified people from hurting others, the main exception being the regulated drugs one. This raises the question of whether a similar system could exist for investments. Do you think there could be a "prescription" investment where you'd need a sign-off from someone with certain qualifications who'd consider your financial position and what you were planning to do?
gojomo 6y ago
But none of your examples use the reductionist & discriminatory "how big is your bank account" standard as a proxy for a person's responsibility. What if you had to be rich - far beyond the sticker & insurance price - to buy a car? ("You're not a millionaire? We've decided you should only be allowed to take the bus.") Rich to buy a beer? Rich to buy a gun? Rich to buy a bunch of OTC medicines? (Poor people would still need a prescription - from a doctor, or perhaps, under the "rich makes smart" standard, just a rich sponsor.) Rich to buy fireworks? Rich to buy certain books, with dangerous knowledge? (Similar to how it is only by private investing that you get a full practical education in how such investments/firms work.)
- alasdair_ 6y ago
  A simple example: if you are poor and are on medicaid, it’s not possible to have a vasectomy without a 30 day mandatory waiting period to make sure that you are certain. If you are rich and have health insurance (or pay out of pocket) it’s completely fine to do it the same day.
  - gojomo 6y ago
    That's still not 'wealth' but rather 'ability to pay the costs'. While correlated with wealth, that's not the same bar, and ability-to-pay is far more rationally related. An entity paying – actually forgoing other possible expenditures of the same money, as in this example Medicaid or some other 3rd-party payor – should have some level-of-control. There's a budget constraint in effect - other priorities they are responsible for will suffer if this one is chosen. But anybody, regardless of wealth, for whom it's important enough to scrape up the costs can skip that hurdle, in your example. There's no extra legal burden, of thousands of dollars of costs, added by the state just because they're poor. There's no extra complications the government forces onto the counterparty – the doctor – just because the patient is poor, thus deterring the otherwise-mutually-desired activity from happening at all. (Of course, there are such complications if Medicaid actually pays – hence many doctors avoiding Medicaid-reimbursed patients/treatments.) And in the end the poor patient still gets the treatment - unlike the permanent freeze-out of unaccredited investors – unless & until they bank $1,000,000.
colordrops 6y ago
Every one of your examples are of the case of protecting the individual from hurting themselves or others. This is quite different from the question, which is to cite a law that restricts someone in order to protect them from others.
- CalChris 6y ago
  Hiring an unlicensed electrician.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- paulgb 6y ago
  I agree that some of the examples GP gave don't quite fit, but their insight about consumer protection laws is key. Say a consumer protection law that prohibits an appliance company from selling me a cheap heater that isn't up to code. That law restricts the appliance company's freedom, but it also restricts my freedom to contract with the appliance company. The law is restricting my freedom to protect me. (Personally, I'm fond of Matt Levine's "stupid investment license" proposal, but I would not be in favor of an "unsafe heater" license)
  - colordrops 6y ago
    But they aren't restricting your freedom. They would be restricting your freedom if some people could buy those appliances but not you. Saying they are restricting your freedom using your example is like saying your friend was put in jail, and thus they are restricting your freedom to hang out with that friend, which IMHO is a bad interpretation.
    - paulgb 6y ago
      They're restricting my freedom in the sense that, in the absence of government, I would be free to contract with the seller of the non-certified heater.

Ericson2314 6y ago

I'm OK with these sorts of "in defense of us all" regulation, but I think the wealth test in particular is a bit perverse. I think this "anti-classism" critique is better than the libertarian critique.

mywittyname 6y ago
Regulations are written in blood. We didn't have rules, then something extremely bad happened to make people say, "that should be illegal." So it's made illegal. A generation passes and young people look at said regulations, think, "that's a stupid rule," and they revoke it. Goto 10. Investments that require you to be accredited are often pretty bad ones. All the great opportunities get cherry-picked by those with the right networks. What most people will be investing in are the scraps that all the smart investors passed on. That's how accredited investors get burned and go back to boring old index funds. If you open these markets up to average Joes, it's going to be a bloodbath. Fox News will switch from running ads to invest in gold to ones for scam companies with fraudulent books. Elderly women will get hounded by phone salesman. We'll go back to the way it was in the 80s. The problem with caveat emptor is society as a whole gets screwed as well. We all get to live with the economic collapse brought on by the situation.
- pc86 6y ago
  This is true for something like the FAA's FARs where they're trying to save lives. It is absolutely not true of every nonsensical paternialistic nonsense Congress has passed.
- Ericson2314 6y ago
  My preferred solution is UBI + no gambling with the UBI rule. Similar effect in this area (ignoring all the other wonderful benefits a UBI has) but without the nastiness of a net worth rule.
  - beambot 6y ago
    Where do you draw the line between gambling & investment...? Example: Median returns across venture capital are net-negative, even if expected value is net-positive: https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/01/the-meeting-that-showed-me-the-truth-about-vcs/ https://techcrunch.com/2017/06/01/the-meeting-that-showed-me... The effect is even more extreme for early-stage startups given the power-law nature of returns.
    - Ericson2314 6y ago
      Yeah it's all gambling. I'm doing a 180 and saying net worth floor bad, can't spend UBI on it good. The "it" in both cases is supposed to be held constant.
- throw0101a 6y ago
  > A generation passes and young people look at said regulations, think, "that's a stupid rule," and they revoke it. Goto 10. See the concept of "Chesterton's fence": > In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.” * https://www.chesterton.org/taking-a-fence-down/ https://www.chesterton.org/taking-a-fence-down/ First determine and be able to explain why something was put in place. If you cannot explain why, you have no right to tear it down. If you can explain the original reason, you may then be able to explain why it may no longer be needed.

millettjon 6y ago

How about if we insisted you have 1,000,000 USD to buy guns or alcohol?

toby 6y ago

Most of your examples are designed to prevent unqualified people from hurting others, the main exception being the regulated drugs one. This raises the question of whether a similar system could exist for investments. Do you think there could be a "prescription" investment where you'd need a sign-off from someone with certain qualifications who'd consider your financial position and what you were planning to do?

gojomo 6y ago

But none of your examples use the reductionist & discriminatory "how big is your bank account" standard as a proxy for a person's responsibility. What if you had to be rich - far beyond the sticker & insurance price - to buy a car? ("You're not a millionaire? We've decided you should only be allowed to take the bus.") Rich to buy a beer? Rich to buy a gun? Rich to buy a bunch of OTC medicines? (Poor people would still need a prescription - from a doctor, or perhaps, under the "rich makes smart" standard, just a rich sponsor.) Rich to buy fireworks? Rich to buy certain books, with dangerous knowledge? (Similar to how it is only by private investing that you get a full practical education in how such investments/firms work.)

alasdair_ 6y ago
A simple example: if you are poor and are on medicaid, it’s not possible to have a vasectomy without a 30 day mandatory waiting period to make sure that you are certain. If you are rich and have health insurance (or pay out of pocket) it’s completely fine to do it the same day.
- gojomo 6y ago
  That's still not 'wealth' but rather 'ability to pay the costs'. While correlated with wealth, that's not the same bar, and ability-to-pay is far more rationally related. An entity paying – actually forgoing other possible expenditures of the same money, as in this example Medicaid or some other 3rd-party payor – should have some level-of-control. There's a budget constraint in effect - other priorities they are responsible for will suffer if this one is chosen. But anybody, regardless of wealth, for whom it's important enough to scrape up the costs can skip that hurdle, in your example. There's no extra legal burden, of thousands of dollars of costs, added by the state just because they're poor. There's no extra complications the government forces onto the counterparty – the doctor – just because the patient is poor, thus deterring the otherwise-mutually-desired activity from happening at all. (Of course, there are such complications if Medicaid actually pays – hence many doctors avoiding Medicaid-reimbursed patients/treatments.) And in the end the poor patient still gets the treatment - unlike the permanent freeze-out of unaccredited investors – unless & until they bank $1,000,000.

colordrops 6y ago

Every one of your examples are of the case of protecting the individual from hurting themselves or others. This is quite different from the question, which is to cite a law that restricts someone in order to protect them from others.

CalChris 6y ago
Hiring an unlicensed electrician.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
paulgb 6y ago
I agree that some of the examples GP gave don't quite fit, but their insight about consumer protection laws is key. Say a consumer protection law that prohibits an appliance company from selling me a cheap heater that isn't up to code. That law restricts the appliance company's freedom, but it also restricts my freedom to contract with the appliance company. The law is restricting my freedom to protect me. (Personally, I'm fond of Matt Levine's "stupid investment license" proposal, but I would not be in favor of an "unsafe heater" license)
- colordrops 6y ago
  But they aren't restricting your freedom. They would be restricting your freedom if some people could buy those appliances but not you. Saying they are restricting your freedom using your example is like saying your friend was put in jail, and thus they are restricting your freedom to hang out with that friend, which IMHO is a bad interpretation.
  - paulgb 6y ago
    They're restricting my freedom in the sense that, in the absence of government, I would be free to contract with the seller of the non-certified heater.