6 ms·

And this just generalizes to the recurring problem of individualism vs collectivism. Government regulation is the answer, but it's not being applied efficiently

And this just generalizes to the recurring problem of individualism vs collectivism. Government regulation is the answer, but it's not being applied efficiently here

vuln 3y ago
> Government regulation is the answer, but it's not being applied efficiently here Do you have any examples of Government Regulations that are applied efficiently and do not cause harm to any individuals?
- Analemma_ 3y ago
  You are demonstrating the exact problem the OP is complaining about. "Does not cause harm to any individuals" is an impossible standard to meet, and should not be weighed against "do nothing, and eventually cause a catastrophe for which there is no clear agent to blame".
- l33t233372 3y ago
  I’m not sure where you make the leap to “do not cause harm to any individuals.” This thread is about managing and reducing harm in places where having “no harm” (whatever that means) isn’t an option.
- ncallaway 3y ago
  > and do not cause harm to any individuals Your bar for a government regulation is really “not a single individual is harmed”? That’s insane, and almost exactly the problem anonporridge was describing. Almost every government regulation harms someone, in that it almost always is limiting the actions available to someone. To answer your question: no, there is no such regulation, but it’s not relevant, because I think your metric is atrocious.
- foxyv 3y ago
  > and do not cause harm to any individuals You're moving the bar a little there. There will always be harm to individuals due to the law of unintended consequences. However, government regulation is really good at preventing a "Tragedy of the Commons." For instance, regulations on CFC emissions hurt a lot of individuals. However, they prevented a much greater tragedy. Removing lead from car exhaust marginally hurt an entire generation, while improving the lives of the next by orders of magnitude. Other examples: Building codes, Car Safety, Fair Labor Standards Act, Food and Drug Regulations.
- c54 3y ago
  Social security (has flaws but basically solved the widespread pre social security problem of poverty amongst the elderly) Food safety, leaded gas and paint, restricted chemicals lists (for safety reason, less of a fan of drug bans). Bank deposit reserve requirements. Obamacare. Antitrust legislation. Seat belts (extremely controversial at the time, people protested the loss of their freedoms etc etc). Alaska’s Permanent Fund. Norway’s government pension fund.
- anonymouskimmer 3y ago
  I'm assuming that taxes, fees, and other standardized costs are not considered harm, as well as other such incidental costs, otherwise no, nothing can be done by anyone that does not cause harm to someone else at the margin. Mandating that the US postal service deliver to every address at a single price. This results in an efficient single price, efficiencies of scale that private carriers don't even have, and does not harm anyone outside of the externalities that would already exist for mail delivery regardless of who was doing the delivering.
hcurtiss 3y ago
I don't think that's it. I think it's more a consequence of democracy versus autocracy. An autocracy could make these trade-offs without political consequence. Of course, autocracies come with other profound challenges. Most I think agree that a benevolent dictator produces the best outcomes. The problem is that human benevolence is fickle, and subject to interpretation -- invariably leading to violence.
- anonporridge 3y ago
  I think this does hit something. There's a reason by China is having no problem rolling out high speed rail across the entire country on the order of a decade while California can't even roll out a single line in the same time. China can just bulldoze entire villages while the little people have no recourse to resist. That power is incredibly useful for getting things done, but the big problem of succession makes that level of power incredibly dangerous, fickle, and fragile.
  - lazide 3y ago
    1) it’s all good until you’re one of the ‘little people’ 2) succession/plan B is always the problem with dictators/dictatorships. If you’re lucky, the interests of those in power are genuinely aligned with your best interests and they’re competent - (Singapore/PAP, at least historically), but nothing lasts forever.
    - username7282919 3y ago
      Most people in China actually want to be one of the “little people”. They get compensated way more than what they could make in their lifetime. Doing the same in California would be 10-100x more expensive though, people are just cheaper there.
      - lazide 3y ago
        It’s way easier to tie everyone up in manipulative bullshit court proceedings in the US, and no one has the incentive/interest in stopping it right now. It isn’t even about 10-100x cost, if it was straightforward cash. It would be resolved in weeks if that was the case. In many of these equivalent situations, it drags out for decades. At that point, it’s a toss up if the project even makes sense anymore, since everyone who needed it when it was voted in/started has moved on (by necessity) to something else. In China, the courts basically just say ‘which way does the CCP want this to go?’ and voila, that happens. For better or worse.

And this just generalizes to the recurring problem of individualism vs collectivism. Government regulation is the answer, but it's not being applied efficiently here

vuln 3y ago

> Government regulation is the answer, but it's not being applied efficiently here Do you have any examples of Government Regulations that are applied efficiently and do not cause harm to any individuals?

Analemma_ 3y ago
You are demonstrating the exact problem the OP is complaining about. "Does not cause harm to any individuals" is an impossible standard to meet, and should not be weighed against "do nothing, and eventually cause a catastrophe for which there is no clear agent to blame".
l33t233372 3y ago
I’m not sure where you make the leap to “do not cause harm to any individuals.” This thread is about managing and reducing harm in places where having “no harm” (whatever that means) isn’t an option.
ncallaway 3y ago
> and do not cause harm to any individuals Your bar for a government regulation is really “not a single individual is harmed”? That’s insane, and almost exactly the problem anonporridge was describing. Almost every government regulation harms someone, in that it almost always is limiting the actions available to someone. To answer your question: no, there is no such regulation, but it’s not relevant, because I think your metric is atrocious.
foxyv 3y ago
> and do not cause harm to any individuals You're moving the bar a little there. There will always be harm to individuals due to the law of unintended consequences. However, government regulation is really good at preventing a "Tragedy of the Commons." For instance, regulations on CFC emissions hurt a lot of individuals. However, they prevented a much greater tragedy. Removing lead from car exhaust marginally hurt an entire generation, while improving the lives of the next by orders of magnitude. Other examples: Building codes, Car Safety, Fair Labor Standards Act, Food and Drug Regulations.
c54 3y ago
Social security (has flaws but basically solved the widespread pre social security problem of poverty amongst the elderly) Food safety, leaded gas and paint, restricted chemicals lists (for safety reason, less of a fan of drug bans). Bank deposit reserve requirements. Obamacare. Antitrust legislation. Seat belts (extremely controversial at the time, people protested the loss of their freedoms etc etc). Alaska’s Permanent Fund. Norway’s government pension fund.
anonymouskimmer 3y ago
I'm assuming that taxes, fees, and other standardized costs are not considered harm, as well as other such incidental costs, otherwise no, nothing can be done by anyone that does not cause harm to someone else at the margin. Mandating that the US postal service deliver to every address at a single price. This results in an efficient single price, efficiencies of scale that private carriers don't even have, and does not harm anyone outside of the externalities that would already exist for mail delivery regardless of who was doing the delivering.

hcurtiss 3y ago

I don't think that's it. I think it's more a consequence of democracy versus autocracy. An autocracy could make these trade-offs without political consequence. Of course, autocracies come with other profound challenges. Most I think agree that a benevolent dictator produces the best outcomes. The problem is that human benevolence is fickle, and subject to interpretation -- invariably leading to violence.

anonporridge 3y ago
I think this does hit something. There's a reason by China is having no problem rolling out high speed rail across the entire country on the order of a decade while California can't even roll out a single line in the same time. China can just bulldoze entire villages while the little people have no recourse to resist. That power is incredibly useful for getting things done, but the big problem of succession makes that level of power incredibly dangerous, fickle, and fragile.
- lazide 3y ago
  1) it’s all good until you’re one of the ‘little people’ 2) succession/plan B is always the problem with dictators/dictatorships. If you’re lucky, the interests of those in power are genuinely aligned with your best interests and they’re competent - (Singapore/PAP, at least historically), but nothing lasts forever.
  - username7282919 3y ago
    Most people in China actually want to be one of the “little people”. They get compensated way more than what they could make in their lifetime. Doing the same in California would be 10-100x more expensive though, people are just cheaper there.
    - lazide 3y ago
      It’s way easier to tie everyone up in manipulative bullshit court proceedings in the US, and no one has the incentive/interest in stopping it right now. It isn’t even about 10-100x cost, if it was straightforward cash. It would be resolved in weeks if that was the case. In many of these equivalent situations, it drags out for decades. At that point, it’s a toss up if the project even makes sense anymore, since everyone who needed it when it was voted in/started has moved on (by necessity) to something else. In China, the courts basically just say ‘which way does the CCP want this to go?’ and voila, that happens. For better or worse.