4 ms·

You know, all regulations only hurt small sellers, people at the “top” always get away from all the crap they are directly responsible for, no matter they are h

You know, all regulations only hurt small sellers, people at the “top” always get away from all the crap they are directly responsible for, no matter they are hurting their own business or the society as a whole

Timon3 4y ago
It's the wrong take-away to say all regulations only hurt small sellers. Do you want to give up regulations on child labor, or worker safety, or foods and drugs? If not, how come, considering it all hurts only small sellers? The problem isn't the concept of regulation, but the follow-through on loopholes. By doing away with regulations you'll decrease quality of life for most people. Instead we have to find ways to react to loopholes in a fair way. It's not impossible, we've done it before, see the previously-mentioned examples!
- charlieyu1 4y ago
  I don't think small sellers have anything to do with child labour. And since you mentioned loopholes, it is always the big players who get away with loopholes that small business owners do not
  - akiselev 4y ago
    Small sellers aren’t worth even going after until they reach a certain size for huge swaths of the regulatory regime. See, for example, UL/CE and FCC regulations - unless they burn something down or interfere with emergency services, businesses can usually defer the regulatory cost till they can afford it. Or the FAA, which gives out slaps on the wrist like its going out of style, as long as the offender is not an airline. Case in point: many countries allows underage family members to work for family businesses and even the ones that don’t, barely enforce it. A factory hiring dozens of kids? That’s a lot less likely to go unnoticed.
  - piaste 4y ago
    > I don't think small sellers have anything to do with child labour. This is a remarkable claim. Why would you think that?
  - Jochim 4y ago
    Business owners get away with breaking violating the law. Small businesses are infamous for paying people under the table, stealing wages, not giving appropriate breaks, employing children etc.. The size of a business only affects the kind of laws they're likely to get away with breaking.
KyeRussell 4y ago
[flagged]
- charlieyu1 4y ago
  Don't want to sway away from the discussion, but it's probably the first time for ages I'm called a libertarian.
- mlyle 4y ago
  Digging into his post history to avoid refuting his point (which is overstated) is ... not appropriate? great? I can pretty easily agree with a weaker version of his statement: regulations have a disproportionate impact on small entities. They're expensive to comply with, and small entities tend not to have access to the exotic legal tricks and arms-length interaction with regulations that can make them much less effective.
  - LadyCailin 4y ago
    For the first one, if we can agree the regulation is good, then so be it. If your business can only thrive by hurting other people, you don’t get to be in business, that isn’t a more fundamental right than not being harmed by businesses. For the second, the solution is to plug loopholes that allow businesses of any size to bypass regulations. In no case is it the correct solution to get rid of good regulations.
    - mlyle 4y ago
      > For the first one, if we can agree the regulation is good, then so be it. IMO: If we can agree that the regulation has a net good effect, considering externalities and adverse effects. Having a "good regulation" that also increases concentration of control in an industry can end up being a net negative. > For the second, the solution is to plug loopholes that allow businesses of any size to bypass regulations. This is a nice thing to strive for, but in practice layers of indirection and ample legal counsel accomplishes a lot even in well-run democracies (even leaving aside how large organizations often influence how they are regulated in both direct and indirect ways).

Timon3 4y ago

It's the wrong take-away to say all regulations only hurt small sellers. Do you want to give up regulations on child labor, or worker safety, or foods and drugs? If not, how come, considering it all hurts only small sellers? The problem isn't the concept of regulation, but the follow-through on loopholes. By doing away with regulations you'll decrease quality of life for most people. Instead we have to find ways to react to loopholes in a fair way. It's not impossible, we've done it before, see the previously-mentioned examples!

charlieyu1 4y ago
I don't think small sellers have anything to do with child labour. And since you mentioned loopholes, it is always the big players who get away with loopholes that small business owners do not
- akiselev 4y ago
  Small sellers aren’t worth even going after until they reach a certain size for huge swaths of the regulatory regime. See, for example, UL/CE and FCC regulations - unless they burn something down or interfere with emergency services, businesses can usually defer the regulatory cost till they can afford it. Or the FAA, which gives out slaps on the wrist like its going out of style, as long as the offender is not an airline. Case in point: many countries allows underage family members to work for family businesses and even the ones that don’t, barely enforce it. A factory hiring dozens of kids? That’s a lot less likely to go unnoticed.
- piaste 4y ago
  > I don't think small sellers have anything to do with child labour. This is a remarkable claim. Why would you think that?
- Jochim 4y ago
  Business owners get away with breaking violating the law. Small businesses are infamous for paying people under the table, stealing wages, not giving appropriate breaks, employing children etc.. The size of a business only affects the kind of laws they're likely to get away with breaking.

KyeRussell 4y ago

[flagged]

charlieyu1 4y ago
Don't want to sway away from the discussion, but it's probably the first time for ages I'm called a libertarian.
mlyle 4y ago
Digging into his post history to avoid refuting his point (which is overstated) is ... not appropriate? great? I can pretty easily agree with a weaker version of his statement: regulations have a disproportionate impact on small entities. They're expensive to comply with, and small entities tend not to have access to the exotic legal tricks and arms-length interaction with regulations that can make them much less effective.
- LadyCailin 4y ago
  For the first one, if we can agree the regulation is good, then so be it. If your business can only thrive by hurting other people, you don’t get to be in business, that isn’t a more fundamental right than not being harmed by businesses. For the second, the solution is to plug loopholes that allow businesses of any size to bypass regulations. In no case is it the correct solution to get rid of good regulations.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    > For the first one, if we can agree the regulation is good, then so be it. IMO: If we can agree that the regulation has a net good effect, considering externalities and adverse effects. Having a "good regulation" that also increases concentration of control in an industry can end up being a net negative. > For the second, the solution is to plug loopholes that allow businesses of any size to bypass regulations. This is a nice thing to strive for, but in practice layers of indirection and ample legal counsel accomplishes a lot even in well-run democracies (even leaving aside how large organizations often influence how they are regulated in both direct and indirect ways).