3 ms·
Yeah, it's just not an effective means to change small behavior like this. They could have instead banned loud noise making machines and/or machines with high p
by proc0 6y ago
Yeah, it's just not an effective means to change small behavior like this. They could have instead banned loud noise making machines and/or machines with high pollution, and this would reduce the supply, and shift the demand to the alternatives, which by definition should now optimize for the proper features (silent and green).
The way things happening now, especially in CA, is laws for everything such that it specifies behavior, not incentives. This then makes enforcement target individuals instead of market suppliers.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- jrochkind1 6y ago> They could have instead banned loud noise making machines and/or machines with high pollution Isn't that what they did? Oh, are you saying they should ban the sale or posession, not just the use? Or you're saying they should ban more kinds of noise-making or polluting machines, not just leaf-blowers? Are you arguing for more expansive ban? Or I may be missing it.
- proc0 6y agoI'm saying ban something that targets the supply, in a way that is both general but at the same time addresses the specific immediate need. It's hard to expand here, but IMHO the system/process of Law is not meant to target things at such "level of detail". If the system was extremely fast at revising existing laws, I would have a different opinion, but with how much power it has plus how slow it is, why are lawmakers designing laws that punish such specific activities? As a crude analogy it's like a bunch of programmers are adding a ton of bloat to the code just for a tiny feature, that maybe should have been part of a bigger feature to begin with. To summarize, every law needs to be extremely well thought out, but results have shown otherwise (although that's a different thread).