4 ms·

Yeah, I was going to make this point - the consumer and employee protection laws in California are things to be emulated. I think it gets lost in the AVALANCHE

Yeah, I was going to make this point - the consumer and employee protection laws in California are things to be emulated. I think it gets lost in the AVALANCHE of ill-considered laws California makes that are pointed to as gov overreach, and rightfully so in my somewhat libertarian opinion - but it IS possible to have the one without the other, and one could argue the mountain of bad or hasty laws is doing nobody, including proponents of the rightful place of government in protecting citizens like this, any favors. edit: I should clarify I don't consider the consumer protection law in question is one of those bad laws of course, I just worry the scattershot lawmaking that California sometimes indulges in makes it harder to point to the successes of that model. I would appreciate the silent downvoters to explain, but I guess HN has gotten too far away from its roots and too close to the Reddit model of 'downvote things I disagree with'

ev1 5y ago
I didn't up or downvote, but to me, your comment sounds like generic yelling about how almost everything (other than consumer and employee protection) is overreach and a shitty law while citing no examples at all, then complaining about downvotes.
- sillyquiet 5y ago
  Well, yeah that's on me, because that's not my intent nor my point. The California lege's default position is, when in doubt, pass a law - some are good, well crafted, and effective. Many are not. This is the scattershot I mentioned. There, however is a lot of legislative 'noise' to the signal of the effective laws. That's all my point was.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
ska 5y ago
> it gets lost in the AVALANCHE of ill-considered laws California makes Citation needed, I think. It's not obviously true that California is particularly notable in this regard in terms of volume or fraction that are ill-considered. They of course have some notable unintended consequence problems, but that's not the same thing.
- sillyquiet 5y ago
  I think any glance at the legislative records of any session will prove this. Sure, the 'ill-considered' part is highly subjective, but I am not the only one that has that opinion, and that's my point - the people who would oppose a government regulating stuff points to California rightly or wrongly as a bad model because of high volume of relatively ineffective lawmaking.
  - ska 5y ago
    A glance will prove out “AVALANCHE” ? Color me sceptical, I guess.
    - sillyquiet 5y ago
      Yes, it will, as in the sheer volume of passed legislation. No need to be skeptical. The below link will have to be filtered for the passed legislation, but as you can see, it's not a minor amount. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billSearchClient.xhtml?session_year=20212022&house=Both&author=All&lawCode=All https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billSearchClient.xh...
      - ska 5y ago
        > Yes, it will, as in the sheer volume of passed legislation. But that wasn’t the claim. How do we see it is mostly ill conceived? Or indeed notable compared to similar populations ? I’m not saying you are wrong. I’m saying it doesn’t seem at all obvious.

ev1 5y ago

I didn't up or downvote, but to me, your comment sounds like generic yelling about how almost everything (other than consumer and employee protection) is overreach and a shitty law while citing no examples at all, then complaining about downvotes.

sillyquiet 5y ago
Well, yeah that's on me, because that's not my intent nor my point. The California lege's default position is, when in doubt, pass a law - some are good, well crafted, and effective. Many are not. This is the scattershot I mentioned. There, however is a lot of legislative 'noise' to the signal of the effective laws. That's all my point was.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

ska 5y ago

> it gets lost in the AVALANCHE of ill-considered laws California makes Citation needed, I think. It's not obviously true that California is particularly notable in this regard in terms of volume or fraction that are ill-considered. They of course have some notable unintended consequence problems, but that's not the same thing.

sillyquiet 5y ago
I think any glance at the legislative records of any session will prove this. Sure, the 'ill-considered' part is highly subjective, but I am not the only one that has that opinion, and that's my point - the people who would oppose a government regulating stuff points to California rightly or wrongly as a bad model because of high volume of relatively ineffective lawmaking.
- ska 5y ago
  A glance will prove out “AVALANCHE” ? Color me sceptical, I guess.
  - sillyquiet 5y ago
    Yes, it will, as in the sheer volume of passed legislation. No need to be skeptical. The below link will have to be filtered for the passed legislation, but as you can see, it's not a minor amount. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billSearchClient.xhtml?session_year=20212022&house=Both&author=All&lawCode=All https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billSearchClient.xh...
    - ska 5y ago
      > Yes, it will, as in the sheer volume of passed legislation. But that wasn’t the claim. How do we see it is mostly ill conceived? Or indeed notable compared to similar populations ? I’m not saying you are wrong. I’m saying it doesn’t seem at all obvious.