3 ms·

Do you think that the government not taking an action can ever result in unintended consequences? Could the government, by taking no action, implicitly support

Do you think that the government not taking an action can ever result in unintended consequences? Could the government, by taking no action, implicitly support the current "winner" because that's the status quo? What do you think would happen to the prices of gasoline, electricity, etc. if the government stopped regulating any and all of it? What's your view on government regulation around things like worksite safety, meat inspections and other food safety, drug safety? Should the government prevent your neighbor from installing a radio signal jammer that prevents you from using your cell phone on your property? Or is that picking a winner/loser?

adql 4y ago
Right but in this case the actions taken were wrong, were not fixed, and still are not fixed. Like the fact only in near future it will be legal for US cars to have adaptive lights. Or how for years [1] near every car light was same ineffective design. Over-regulation is as dangerous as under-regulation. If car manufacturers have to squeeze fleet averages (which is on its own retarded idea, just tax every model separately ffs) for normal cars. Or how apparently 20MPG sportscar is "gas guzzler" but 15MPG SUV is not * [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2J91UG6Fn8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2J91UG6Fn8
- IgorPartola 4y ago
  > Over-regulation is as dangerous as under-regulation. My point exactly. Correct regulation is correct. People who take the absolutist approach on either side of this tend to quickly run into either "now I have to learn to do my own meat inspections" or "I can't buy meat because a cow needs to be exactly 7'11" tall or it isn't legally a cow".