49 ms·

I don't support state enforced "truth in labelling", but if a company can lie to the state in order to put "cancer-free" on the label, it can also lie to the st

I don't support state enforced "truth in labelling", but if a company can lie to the state in order to put "cancer-free" on the label, it can also lie to the state in order to put banned carcinogens in the product. I would support allowing companies to opt in to regulation (and pay the full cost of it) and only allow companies that have opted in to claim to be regulated by the relevant agency. That way, those who trust the state can choose to only use things the state has approved and no-one else will be harmed when the state is wrong.

Sakos 4y ago
> I would support allowing companies to opt in to regulation (and pay the full cost of it) and only allow companies that have opted in to claim to be regulated by the relevant agency. That way, those who trust the state can choose to only use things the state has approved and no-one else will be harmed when the state is wrong. Interesting idea, thanks. My original comment was more around ensuring that customers are protected from bankruptcies and other situations that severely impact them like these neurological implants. I'm not saying we should've prevented the company from selling these things. From what I've read, it's incredible what was possible and how the lives of these people were positively impacted. I was thinking more along the lines of something like the Superfund program or how nuclear power plants are legally obligated to set aside money for future decommissioning. Maybe some form of legally mandated insurance program. Or regulating support time frames or mandating how long replacement parts must be available or remain in production.
- 9864250 4y ago
  Under the "opt-in regulation" system, a requirement could be to have insurance or other contingencies, but I think the main problem here is that it's proprietary. If it was open-source, I think anyone would have been able to take over and provide updates.

Sakos 4y ago

> I would support allowing companies to opt in to regulation (and pay the full cost of it) and only allow companies that have opted in to claim to be regulated by the relevant agency. That way, those who trust the state can choose to only use things the state has approved and no-one else will be harmed when the state is wrong. Interesting idea, thanks. My original comment was more around ensuring that customers are protected from bankruptcies and other situations that severely impact them like these neurological implants. I'm not saying we should've prevented the company from selling these things. From what I've read, it's incredible what was possible and how the lives of these people were positively impacted. I was thinking more along the lines of something like the Superfund program or how nuclear power plants are legally obligated to set aside money for future decommissioning. Maybe some form of legally mandated insurance program. Or regulating support time frames or mandating how long replacement parts must be available or remain in production.

9864250 4y ago
Under the "opt-in regulation" system, a requirement could be to have insurance or other contingencies, but I think the main problem here is that it's proprietary. If it was open-source, I think anyone would have been able to take over and provide updates.