4 ms·

Clean water requirements have to do with the delivery of water to my house not bottling it. >It does not solve the overall issue. It makes it a whole lot bett

Clean water requirements have to do with the delivery of water to my house not bottling it. >It does not solve the overall issue. It makes it a whole lot better then it would be otherwise. Power companies can and do get fined for not doing what they should, a power that would be beyond the ability of an individual to do. Because of things like the USPS damn near anyone in the US can mail something to anyone else for a decent price which is a net positive for society.

rglullis 5y ago
The point that you are so unwilling to accept is that regulations only get to be enacted if they don't hurt the corporations. > Power companies can and do get fined for not doing what they should. Yet, they still manage to be profitable and in some cases even get government assistance when they fail, when the long-term, "systemically healthy" solution would be to have a framework that allows more diversity in service providers and that does not depend on the survivability of any single entity. Look at Texas and the winter brownouts. Their grid fails whenever it gets so cold to the point that generating energy is not lucrative. Paying the fines is favoring the status quo. "Being a net positive for society" is at best an accidental side effect, not the point of any regulation that gets to be enacted. And there are other ways where we can get the societal benefits without giving away power to these corrupt institutions.
- JaimeThompson 5y ago
  >The point that you are so unwilling to accept is that regulations only get to be enacted if they don't hurt the corporations. My local non-profit power company is a data point against that position. There are many others. >Look at Texas and the winter brownouts. Their grid fails whenever it gets so cold to the point that generating energy is not lucrative. The portions of Texas not on the ERCOT grid which are connected to the federally regulated grids preformed much better than the ERCOT grid because they have regulations, with punishments if they don't follow them, the government requires. >And there are other ways where we can get the societal benefits without giving away power to these corrupt institutions. How is the USPS corrupt to the scale you imply?
  - rglullis 5y ago
    > My local non-profit power company is a data point against that position. Was "your local non-profit" responsible in the elaboration of any of the regulation? Are they in any condition to threaten the status quo? Can they disrupt the market at a global scale or are they just sticking to being a "local, non-profit" entity? It seems we are talking about two different things. You want to defend regulatory action as a valid mechanism for societal progress. What I am saying is that these mechanisms historically only worked when the status quo could benefit (or at the very least not threatened) from it.
    - gpvos 5y ago
      It might be helpful for furthering the discussion if both of you actually acknowledged the parts of the other's argument that you agree with, if any.
      - rglullis 5y ago
        It would, wouldn't it? The problem is that I am feeling like I am arguing a strawman (regulations are always bad!) when my point is that calling for regulations for Big Tech will do jack-shit to actually solve any of the issues affecting society, and more likely than not it is just going to help Big Tech cement their dominance.

rglullis 5y ago

The point that you are so unwilling to accept is that regulations only get to be enacted if they don't hurt the corporations. > Power companies can and do get fined for not doing what they should. Yet, they still manage to be profitable and in some cases even get government assistance when they fail, when the long-term, "systemically healthy" solution would be to have a framework that allows more diversity in service providers and that does not depend on the survivability of any single entity. Look at Texas and the winter brownouts. Their grid fails whenever it gets so cold to the point that generating energy is not lucrative. Paying the fines is favoring the status quo. "Being a net positive for society" is at best an accidental side effect, not the point of any regulation that gets to be enacted. And there are other ways where we can get the societal benefits without giving away power to these corrupt institutions.

JaimeThompson 5y ago
>The point that you are so unwilling to accept is that regulations only get to be enacted if they don't hurt the corporations. My local non-profit power company is a data point against that position. There are many others. >Look at Texas and the winter brownouts. Their grid fails whenever it gets so cold to the point that generating energy is not lucrative. The portions of Texas not on the ERCOT grid which are connected to the federally regulated grids preformed much better than the ERCOT grid because they have regulations, with punishments if they don't follow them, the government requires. >And there are other ways where we can get the societal benefits without giving away power to these corrupt institutions. How is the USPS corrupt to the scale you imply?
- rglullis 5y ago
  > My local non-profit power company is a data point against that position. Was "your local non-profit" responsible in the elaboration of any of the regulation? Are they in any condition to threaten the status quo? Can they disrupt the market at a global scale or are they just sticking to being a "local, non-profit" entity? It seems we are talking about two different things. You want to defend regulatory action as a valid mechanism for societal progress. What I am saying is that these mechanisms historically only worked when the status quo could benefit (or at the very least not threatened) from it.
  - gpvos 5y ago
    It might be helpful for furthering the discussion if both of you actually acknowledged the parts of the other's argument that you agree with, if any.
    - rglullis 5y ago
      It would, wouldn't it? The problem is that I am feeling like I am arguing a strawman (regulations are always bad!) when my point is that calling for regulations for Big Tech will do jack-shit to actually solve any of the issues affecting society, and more likely than not it is just going to help Big Tech cement their dominance.