7 ms·

It's not insane. It's perhaps not perfect, but definitely not insane. Considering: * We have 50 states * ... and if you're doing business online, add 50 count

It's not insane. It's perhaps not perfect, but definitely not insane. Considering: * We have 50 states * ... and if you're doing business online, add 50 countries to that... * ... with their own sub-regions which may have their own laws (see the comment about Quebec above) * Each of these local jurisdictions tends to have a LOT of laws on the books; * Many of which are poorly written and unclear * Many of which have been inconsistently, infrequently or unclearly applied as the internet has grown (you can very easily find examples of even giant companies, with corporate legal teams, running into unexpected issues) Finally, there's the kicker: * Even lawyers will end up telling you that, due to lack of clarity around laws applying to the internet and their enforcement, you might engage in a practice now only to find out later that it was more risky than you thought Granted, OP's case is not the most complicated out there. It has a fairly clear answer: California is extremely aggressive about taxation and will grab any money it can. Hence the nickname "Taxifornia". And, be aware that employment is a particularly risky area. But interstate commerce is really not as simple an issue as you're making it out to be. I've asked my accountant about issues where the answer was "well, you could technically be fined $50,000 and nobody really knows whether the state could successfully apply the fine, but right now they're not doing it sooooo..."

vkou 4y ago
So? If you are doing business in 50 states, you need to be complaint with the laws of all of them. If you don't like it, you should move to a country with a more homogenized regulatory environment. Just because you are doing things with computers doesn't change anything. If I operated a franchise with 50 different locations, I'd also need to be complaint with 50 different regulatory environments. You can't have 'states rights' (which, for better or worse, is how America claims to govern itself) and also have a single law of the land. If you aren't sure that you're breaking a state law, don't do business in that state. Or do, and live with the consequences.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > You can't have 'states rights' (which, for better or worse, is how America claims to govern itself) No, it's not. “States rights” didn't really enter the political lexicon until it was injected there by the proponents of permanent institutionalization and expansion of slavery, who eventually revolted over it, lost, and whose ideological successors keep raising as a motto for their (usually unsuccessful, beyond the short term) attempts to resist progress on equal civil rights. It is not “how America claims to govern itself”, it's how reactionary dissidents against the way America governs itself complain that they would prefer America to govern itself. In the way America claims to govern itself, people have rights and governments, including those of states, have powers. You probably mean “federalism” or “dual sovereignty” or something like that.
  - brewdad 4y ago
    Have you read the 10th Amendment? State's rights are literally enshrined in the Constitution.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > Have you read the 10th Amendment? Yes, have you? > State's rights are literally enshrined in the Constitution. Find the word “right” or “rights” in the 10th Amendment. “Rights” are nowhere associated with governments (state or federal) except in being protected against them in the Constitution (either base, bill of rights, or later Amendments); in the Constitutional model, people have both rights and powers, the latter of which they endow selectively to various governments. “States rights” is a slogan created much later than the BoR by the pro-slavery faction that continues to be an anti-civil-rights slogan.
    - gamblor956 4y ago
      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people Doesn't say anything about state's rights. But it does suggest that any powers not already reserved by the Federal government belong as much to the people (i.e., citizens) as they do to the states.
  - seti0Cha 4y ago
    State's rights have been an issue since before the signing of the constitution, as can be seen by how long it took to get all the states on board. Many were reluctant to cede that much power. It was only in the early 19th century that the preeminence of the federal government was established, culminating in a ruling that states did not have the right to ignore the fugitive slave act right before the civil war. It's true that the slave states really embraced that position a their core justification, but that's not how it originated.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > State's rights have been an issue since before the signing of the constitution The general issue of the relative distribution of power between states and the central government has. That's not what “State’s rights” historically refers to. As I explained, in detail.
- telchior 4y ago
  The point is that it's not insane to not have omniscient awareness of all laws in 50 states. It's tough running a very small business. If someone doesn't have enough funding to hire a team of lawyers, should they just fuck off and never do business anywhere? Your answer seems to be "yes". You also completely ignored my point on the legal uncertainty factors. Businesses break laws every day that are just not enforced. Even a lawyer or accountant is occasionally blindsided by a state or federal authority choosing to selectively apply a law. My sympathies lie with the small business owner here. It's very difficult to make sure that you've got every angle covered at all times, especially at the scale he's running at.
  - vkou 4y ago
    Yes, it's difficult to run a small business that wants to behave like large business, but doesn't want to do the necessary work to be in compliance.
    - telchior 4y ago
      "Small business that wants to behave like large business" You mean, exist in the 21st century and sell or conduct any kind of business online? Is that a big business? It's a well recognized fact that legal and accounting complexity, aka red tape, is an inhibitor of small business growth. Derisively sneering at anyone who doesn't want to do the "necessary work" or "behave" is a troll opinion, and not particularly rational.
      - vkou 4y ago
        No, I mean doing business in 50 different states, or, as mentioned higher up in this thread, >50 different countries. Any business that has ever tried to do something at that scale at any point in human history needed to deal with compliance in all of them. Just because Stripe or the Apple Store provides payment processing as a service doesn't mean that you can just shrug your shoulders, and claim that none of the other regional distinctions and local laws apply to you. > Derisively sneering at anyone who doesn't want to do the "necessary work" or "behave" is a troll opinion, and not particularly rational. Claiming that the law doesn't apply to you because you're a small business and you can't be bothered to follow it what isn't particularly rational, here. If you think this is an excessive burden, you should work to invest more power in the federal government, or in international unions like the EU. You don't just get to do a run-around of sovereignty because you're a foreigner and it's a lot of work.
salawat 4y ago
Our legal system is fully optimized around Availibility in CAP or PACELC theorem terms. Leave any delusions of consistency at the door. :)

vkou 4y ago

So? If you are doing business in 50 states, you need to be complaint with the laws of all of them. If you don't like it, you should move to a country with a more homogenized regulatory environment. Just because you are doing things with computers doesn't change anything. If I operated a franchise with 50 different locations, I'd also need to be complaint with 50 different regulatory environments. You can't have 'states rights' (which, for better or worse, is how America claims to govern itself) and also have a single law of the land. If you aren't sure that you're breaking a state law, don't do business in that state. Or do, and live with the consequences.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> You can't have 'states rights' (which, for better or worse, is how America claims to govern itself) No, it's not. “States rights” didn't really enter the political lexicon until it was injected there by the proponents of permanent institutionalization and expansion of slavery, who eventually revolted over it, lost, and whose ideological successors keep raising as a motto for their (usually unsuccessful, beyond the short term) attempts to resist progress on equal civil rights. It is not “how America claims to govern itself”, it's how reactionary dissidents against the way America governs itself complain that they would prefer America to govern itself. In the way America claims to govern itself, people have rights and governments, including those of states, have powers. You probably mean “federalism” or “dual sovereignty” or something like that.
- brewdad 4y ago
  Have you read the 10th Amendment? State's rights are literally enshrined in the Constitution.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Have you read the 10th Amendment? Yes, have you? > State's rights are literally enshrined in the Constitution. Find the word “right” or “rights” in the 10th Amendment. “Rights” are nowhere associated with governments (state or federal) except in being protected against them in the Constitution (either base, bill of rights, or later Amendments); in the Constitutional model, people have both rights and powers, the latter of which they endow selectively to various governments. “States rights” is a slogan created much later than the BoR by the pro-slavery faction that continues to be an anti-civil-rights slogan.
  - gamblor956 4y ago
    The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people Doesn't say anything about state's rights. But it does suggest that any powers not already reserved by the Federal government belong as much to the people (i.e., citizens) as they do to the states.
- seti0Cha 4y ago
  State's rights have been an issue since before the signing of the constitution, as can be seen by how long it took to get all the states on board. Many were reluctant to cede that much power. It was only in the early 19th century that the preeminence of the federal government was established, culminating in a ruling that states did not have the right to ignore the fugitive slave act right before the civil war. It's true that the slave states really embraced that position a their core justification, but that's not how it originated.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > State's rights have been an issue since before the signing of the constitution The general issue of the relative distribution of power between states and the central government has. That's not what “State’s rights” historically refers to. As I explained, in detail.
telchior 4y ago
The point is that it's not insane to not have omniscient awareness of all laws in 50 states. It's tough running a very small business. If someone doesn't have enough funding to hire a team of lawyers, should they just fuck off and never do business anywhere? Your answer seems to be "yes". You also completely ignored my point on the legal uncertainty factors. Businesses break laws every day that are just not enforced. Even a lawyer or accountant is occasionally blindsided by a state or federal authority choosing to selectively apply a law. My sympathies lie with the small business owner here. It's very difficult to make sure that you've got every angle covered at all times, especially at the scale he's running at.
- vkou 4y ago
  Yes, it's difficult to run a small business that wants to behave like large business, but doesn't want to do the necessary work to be in compliance.
  - telchior 4y ago
    "Small business that wants to behave like large business" You mean, exist in the 21st century and sell or conduct any kind of business online? Is that a big business? It's a well recognized fact that legal and accounting complexity, aka red tape, is an inhibitor of small business growth. Derisively sneering at anyone who doesn't want to do the "necessary work" or "behave" is a troll opinion, and not particularly rational.
    - vkou 4y ago
      No, I mean doing business in 50 different states, or, as mentioned higher up in this thread, >50 different countries. Any business that has ever tried to do something at that scale at any point in human history needed to deal with compliance in all of them. Just because Stripe or the Apple Store provides payment processing as a service doesn't mean that you can just shrug your shoulders, and claim that none of the other regional distinctions and local laws apply to you. > Derisively sneering at anyone who doesn't want to do the "necessary work" or "behave" is a troll opinion, and not particularly rational. Claiming that the law doesn't apply to you because you're a small business and you can't be bothered to follow it what isn't particularly rational, here. If you think this is an excessive burden, you should work to invest more power in the federal government, or in international unions like the EU. You don't just get to do a run-around of sovereignty because you're a foreigner and it's a lot of work.

salawat 4y ago

Our legal system is fully optimized around Availibility in CAP or PACELC theorem terms. Leave any delusions of consistency at the door. :)