3 ms·
One of the things I'm starting to notice from cases like this, is that it seems like the current state of things is: - State & local government is a preemptive
by KoftaBob 4y ago
One of the things I'm starting to notice from cases like this, is that it seems like the current state of things is:
- State & local government is a preemptively over-regulated system, putting up tons of obstacles before you can get something accomplished. Examples: flurry of permits, NIMBYism, etc
- Federal government is a retroactively under-regulated system, where the actual regulation occurs after some/much of the damage has already been done. Examples: regulation of antitrust/anti-competitive practices that come sometimes years after the acts began.
In the 1st case, accomplishing beneficial things is too slow. In the 2nd case, preventing bad things is too slow.
- Hermel 4y agoI would say both are over-regulated, but maybe not as overregulated as Europe. An interesting thing to note is that European countries tend to make rules to outlaw risky behavior in the first place, but have limited fines in case the risk materializes, whereas the United States tends to allow more risk taking, but imposes exorbitant fines if something goes wrong. Both systems have their advantages.
- usrn 4y agoThis is by design. Most of the laws are supposed to be state/local in the US and the federal government is only supposed to help coordinate/defend them.
- pfdietz 4y agoThere are those the law protects but does not bind, and those the law binds but does not protect.