3 ms·

I don't have a lot of sympathy for the idea of making laws uniform for the convenience of large companies that operate across many jurisdictions. Besides the f

I don't have a lot of sympathy for the idea of making laws uniform for the convenience of large companies that operate across many jurisdictions. Besides the fact that the reduced cost of compliance you mention comes at the expense of the localities freedom to govern themselves, federal laws make it more convenient for these companies to manipulate the system to their advantage. A large company can bribe a couple hundred federal politicians to get their way instead of having to bribe many thousands across so many state legislatures or even more at a municipal level.

systems_glitch 3y ago
Indeed, diversity is resilience in many of life's categories.
duskwuff 3y ago
> I don't have a lot of sympathy for the idea of making laws uniform for the convenience of large companies that operate across many jurisdictions. What makes you think that only large companies operate across many jurisdictions?
- mikem170 3y ago
  Point taken. I can't edit my original post, but I'd be happy to apply this logic to any company, large or small. Company profits are not more important that voters.
  - DangitBobby 3y ago
    Pretty much all voters work for companies or buy from companies and are impacted by the costs which are passed on to them.
    - mikem170 3y ago
      We can imagine situations where voters place more importance on things other than money, right? Like maybe the voters would prefer human police officers as opposed to armed drones, even if the drones were cheaper. Or maybe the voters don't want to be tracked by cameras everywhere they go, given how this data can be abused, even if it costs them $x more per year to shop.
      - DangitBobby 3y ago
        I'm just saying legal costs impact everyone and giving money to legions of lawyers isn't free for John Q Voter.
        mikem170 3y ago
        But couldn't it also go the other way, where small local companies who don't need a legion of lawyers would have a competitive advantage over larger companies trying to operate across many jurisdictions? I assume this depends on the regulations being imposed. We already have large companies with legions of lawyers who have the resources to manipulate federal and state politicians in their favor, using regulatory capture and other means to avoid competition. There's a cost associated with that, too.
    - wombatpm 3y ago
      I love how costs are immediately passed on to consumers and employees, but profits remain and should never be allowed to decrease ever for shareholders
- fragmede 3y ago
  and in fact, it's only large companies that can afford to have a person or team to work through the details, keeping smaller companies out of the market and unable to compete.
  - mikem170 3y ago
    Isn't this the definition of regulatory capture? Which usually comes first, the large companies or the regulations that only large companies could keep up with? The idea of the feds choosing poorly, or being corrupted, and deciding on one set of regulations for everyone scares me sometimes. Health care didn't turn out so great, the ACA put a stop to several states that had interesting plans and implementations of their own, and is basically a subsidy for the health care industry as it currently exists, whose lobbyists apparently crafted the text of that bill. Another example is privacy rights - the feds aren't doing much, and I'm glad that some states are. Why should I care that companies get uniform laws more than I care about these issues that matter to me? I'm not saying that we can't have federal regulations, but I don't think there's anything wrong with having local regulations even if companies are inconvenienced, especially for evolving industries.
  - Dalewyn 3y ago
    Smaller businesses, and even many large corporations, consider the fines and penalties of violating local laws as a cost of doing business. That is to say: Conduct business, if you get fined or penalized for it then note it down for future reference. It's cheaper than hiring an entire legal department to trove through cryptic manuscripts only relevant to regions measured in tens of square miles. Usually. Obligatory IANAL.

systems_glitch 3y ago

Indeed, diversity is resilience in many of life's categories.

duskwuff 3y ago

> I don't have a lot of sympathy for the idea of making laws uniform for the convenience of large companies that operate across many jurisdictions. What makes you think that only large companies operate across many jurisdictions?

mikem170 3y ago
Point taken. I can't edit my original post, but I'd be happy to apply this logic to any company, large or small. Company profits are not more important that voters.
- DangitBobby 3y ago
  Pretty much all voters work for companies or buy from companies and are impacted by the costs which are passed on to them.
  - mikem170 3y ago
    We can imagine situations where voters place more importance on things other than money, right? Like maybe the voters would prefer human police officers as opposed to armed drones, even if the drones were cheaper. Or maybe the voters don't want to be tracked by cameras everywhere they go, given how this data can be abused, even if it costs them $x more per year to shop.
    - DangitBobby 3y ago
      I'm just saying legal costs impact everyone and giving money to legions of lawyers isn't free for John Q Voter.
      - mikem170 3y ago
        But couldn't it also go the other way, where small local companies who don't need a legion of lawyers would have a competitive advantage over larger companies trying to operate across many jurisdictions? I assume this depends on the regulations being imposed. We already have large companies with legions of lawyers who have the resources to manipulate federal and state politicians in their favor, using regulatory capture and other means to avoid competition. There's a cost associated with that, too.
  - wombatpm 3y ago
    I love how costs are immediately passed on to consumers and employees, but profits remain and should never be allowed to decrease ever for shareholders
fragmede 3y ago
and in fact, it's only large companies that can afford to have a person or team to work through the details, keeping smaller companies out of the market and unable to compete.
- mikem170 3y ago
  Isn't this the definition of regulatory capture? Which usually comes first, the large companies or the regulations that only large companies could keep up with? The idea of the feds choosing poorly, or being corrupted, and deciding on one set of regulations for everyone scares me sometimes. Health care didn't turn out so great, the ACA put a stop to several states that had interesting plans and implementations of their own, and is basically a subsidy for the health care industry as it currently exists, whose lobbyists apparently crafted the text of that bill. Another example is privacy rights - the feds aren't doing much, and I'm glad that some states are. Why should I care that companies get uniform laws more than I care about these issues that matter to me? I'm not saying that we can't have federal regulations, but I don't think there's anything wrong with having local regulations even if companies are inconvenienced, especially for evolving industries.
- Dalewyn 3y ago
  Smaller businesses, and even many large corporations, consider the fines and penalties of violating local laws as a cost of doing business. That is to say: Conduct business, if you get fined or penalized for it then note it down for future reference. It's cheaper than hiring an entire legal department to trove through cryptic manuscripts only relevant to regions measured in tens of square miles. Usually. Obligatory IANAL.