37 ms·
>It is much more accurate to say that a law is like a stationary cannon, which is captured by those with the deepest pockets and aimed at those who would pose m
by majika 15y ago
>It is much more accurate to say that a law is like a stationary cannon, which is captured by those with the deepest pockets and aimed at those who would pose market threats to those deep pockets.
Every law? Antitrust laws? Data privacy laws? Laws that require hotels to be licensed?
If you take issue with a law, then that law is the problem; not the enforcing of it.
Startups should not be exempt from the law simply because they're a startup. There are better ways to spur wealth creation via small businesses than to allow small businesses to flaunt the law when they see fit.
- dantheman 15y agoWhat do you like about antitrust laws? Without government intervention there are no monopolies. How did breaking up standard oil help anyone? They ended whaling, drove the price of kerosene from 100$ to 2$ -- how was this bad for the consumer? How did all the microsoft antitrust stuff help us? How is hassling google helping us? I think we're in agreement with respect to the law, the point of the parent post was that instead of hair-brained schemes to increase the number of startups we should reduce useless laws and regulations so that they can thrive.
- AlisdairO 15y ago> Without government intervention there are no monopolies Can you really justify that statement?
- Hyena 15y agoUsually the law that gets broken is obscure and not intended for business in the first place. Social has a risk of running up against privacy laws whose intent is actually to prevent random 7-Eleven or Super 8 employee from recording you and then selling the video or distributing it among friends. These aren't really intended as "business regulations" so much as "ant-douche laws".