4 ms·

Because the purpose of regulation is not simply “stop people from doing things I don’t like.” Why is it that the default response of so many adults today is to

by avalys 5y ago

Because the purpose of regulation is not simply “stop people from doing things I don’t like.” Why is it that the default response of so many adults today is to demand that an authority figure impose their own will on someone else?

goldenchrome 5y ago
As a society we’ve mostly regulated away the truly dangerous threats to a safe and healthy life. Now the wealthy among us have too much anxious energy that gets spent decrying things that merely bother them. Without a realistic frame of reference, these annoyances balloon into huge threats in their mind’s eye. I think rich people have always thought this way, but nowadays there’s more people who live a rich life thanks to technological developments.
- stainforth 5y ago
  > to a safe and healthy life. Huxley was right, we have come to love the world we live in
root_axis 5y ago
Every faction across the political spectrum has interest in using authority to impose their will on others, that's the only purpose of politics. What I'm asking is why so much attention is given to impositions that would do nothing to diminish big tech dominance rather than addressing aspects that would not only curtail their dominance, but also move us away from the ad riddled dystopia that is unanimously reviled.
wanderer2323 5y ago
I live in a downtown of a medium-size city and right now when I look out of my window I don't see a single ad. This is because the advertizing is banned. Unregulated capitalism would NEVER allow that. A view without ads is not for sale without regulations. Same for 'a clean air', 'a clear water' and million other things where an unregulated enterprise would happily shit its externalities all over the commons to make an extra cent. That is why advertising should be regulated far more heavily than it is right now. As for why 'default response of so many adults today is to demand that an authority figure blah blah blah', as you have asked -- it's not, stop building strawmen.
johnday 5y ago
> Because the purpose of regulation is not simply “stop people from doing things I don’t like.” Of course it is. What does regulation do if not prevent an undesirable class of actions?
- rcoveson 5y ago
  You're not disagreeing, or the way you think you are disagreeing doesn't fit the original statement. Your exchange is analogous to this one: A: A square is not simply "a quadrilateral whose every angle is 90 degrees." B: Of course it is. What is a square if not a four-sided figure with all right angles?
  - johnday 5y ago
    It's a fair point, I should have been more precise in my response. What I meant to say was, "what does regulation do, other than prevent an undesirable class of actions?"
    - rcoveson 5y ago
      I think, like with the square, the question is: "What are the characteristics that make the set of actions which should be prevented by regulation narrower than the set of all undesirable actions." We know there are a huge number of undesirable actions which we don't think should be regulated. Some of them are minor things, like petty insults or inconsequential dishonesty. Others are major, but are protected by other ideals. For example, choosing to spend a million dollars on gold to bury in a private crypt. Those are some examples that come to mind when I hear that the purpose of regulation is not simply to prevent undesirable actions. It's not that regulation does things other than that. It's that it must have some other attributes in addition to that. Determining those attributes is what makes it not simple.

by avalys 5y ago

goldenchrome 5y ago

As a society we’ve mostly regulated away the truly dangerous threats to a safe and healthy life. Now the wealthy among us have too much anxious energy that gets spent decrying things that merely bother them. Without a realistic frame of reference, these annoyances balloon into huge threats in their mind’s eye. I think rich people have always thought this way, but nowadays there’s more people who live a rich life thanks to technological developments.

stainforth 5y ago
> to a safe and healthy life. Huxley was right, we have come to love the world we live in

root_axis 5y ago

Every faction across the political spectrum has interest in using authority to impose their will on others, that's the only purpose of politics. What I'm asking is why so much attention is given to impositions that would do nothing to diminish big tech dominance rather than addressing aspects that would not only curtail their dominance, but also move us away from the ad riddled dystopia that is unanimously reviled.

wanderer2323 5y ago

I live in a downtown of a medium-size city and right now when I look out of my window I don't see a single ad. This is because the advertizing is banned. Unregulated capitalism would NEVER allow that. A view without ads is not for sale without regulations. Same for 'a clean air', 'a clear water' and million other things where an unregulated enterprise would happily shit its externalities all over the commons to make an extra cent. That is why advertising should be regulated far more heavily than it is right now. As for why 'default response of so many adults today is to demand that an authority figure blah blah blah', as you have asked -- it's not, stop building strawmen.

johnday 5y ago

> Because the purpose of regulation is not simply “stop people from doing things I don’t like.” Of course it is. What does regulation do if not prevent an undesirable class of actions?

rcoveson 5y ago
You're not disagreeing, or the way you think you are disagreeing doesn't fit the original statement. Your exchange is analogous to this one: A: A square is not simply "a quadrilateral whose every angle is 90 degrees." B: Of course it is. What is a square if not a four-sided figure with all right angles?
- johnday 5y ago
  It's a fair point, I should have been more precise in my response. What I meant to say was, "what does regulation do, other than prevent an undesirable class of actions?"
  - rcoveson 5y ago
    I think, like with the square, the question is: "What are the characteristics that make the set of actions which should be prevented by regulation narrower than the set of all undesirable actions." We know there are a huge number of undesirable actions which we don't think should be regulated. Some of them are minor things, like petty insults or inconsequential dishonesty. Others are major, but are protected by other ideals. For example, choosing to spend a million dollars on gold to bury in a private crypt. Those are some examples that come to mind when I hear that the purpose of regulation is not simply to prevent undesirable actions. It's not that regulation does things other than that. It's that it must have some other attributes in addition to that. Determining those attributes is what makes it not simple.