4 ms·

> IMO, it's not the government's job to protect people from their own failure to identify a fraud. I really don't understand this stance. If it isn't a governm

> IMO, it's not the government's job to protect people from their own failure to identify a fraud. I really don't understand this stance. If it isn't a governments job to protect people from fraud, and people should learn on their own, why stop there? Why have any food standards, learn to check every item of food you consume? Why protect from violence when people should just learn where not to go, what not to say...

jongjong 3y ago
I also agree with this. Regulations don't work and tend to serve the interests of incumbents who can afford to work around them. I would prefer it if governments would get rid of all regulations entirely and, instead, they would remove the concept of 'limited liability' entities - That way if a company harms people, the directors could be pursued legally and could potentially even be held criminally liable. IMO, the most effective form of regulation is self-regulation; it needs to start in the mind of the person who is making product decisions (they are best placed to understand their product and their customers after all) - The way to do that is by making sure that people are held fully responsible for any harm that they cause. Even if someone is partially responsible for causing harm, they need to be held liable. Note that this does not require the government to create new laws; it merely requires that the government remove old ineffective laws which protect people from being held fully liable for their actions. This level of liability will make it impossible for corporations to exist... But that would be a good thing. How many times have corporations like JP Morgan been fined for violating regulations? The fact is that they are simply not equipped to be responsible for their own actions at the scale that they're operating. The modern idea of governments trying to prevent harm before it happens instead of merely punishing it after the fact is deeply flawed. The best way to prevent crime is by punishing it relentlessly and making an example out of the perpetrators. It has always worked that way. Let producers know that they're responsible, that they're the ones taking the risk and that the penalties are harsh. What modern governments are doing with regulations is essentially taking responsibility away from the people who are causing harm. Then instead of fostering a mindset of "We don't want to put sucralose in our product because we don't want to risk going to jail or being sued if some of our customers get cancer and a causal link is established in the future", we foster a mindset of "Look, sucralose is legal, if we put sucralose in our products within the allowed guidelines and people get cancer, it's the government's fault because they said it was safe."

jongjong 3y ago

I also agree with this. Regulations don't work and tend to serve the interests of incumbents who can afford to work around them. I would prefer it if governments would get rid of all regulations entirely and, instead, they would remove the concept of 'limited liability' entities - That way if a company harms people, the directors could be pursued legally and could potentially even be held criminally liable. IMO, the most effective form of regulation is self-regulation; it needs to start in the mind of the person who is making product decisions (they are best placed to understand their product and their customers after all) - The way to do that is by making sure that people are held fully responsible for any harm that they cause. Even if someone is partially responsible for causing harm, they need to be held liable. Note that this does not require the government to create new laws; it merely requires that the government remove old ineffective laws which protect people from being held fully liable for their actions. This level of liability will make it impossible for corporations to exist... But that would be a good thing. How many times have corporations like JP Morgan been fined for violating regulations? The fact is that they are simply not equipped to be responsible for their own actions at the scale that they're operating. The modern idea of governments trying to prevent harm before it happens instead of merely punishing it after the fact is deeply flawed. The best way to prevent crime is by punishing it relentlessly and making an example out of the perpetrators. It has always worked that way. Let producers know that they're responsible, that they're the ones taking the risk and that the penalties are harsh. What modern governments are doing with regulations is essentially taking responsibility away from the people who are causing harm. Then instead of fostering a mindset of "We don't want to put sucralose in our product because we don't want to risk going to jail or being sued if some of our customers get cancer and a causal link is established in the future", we foster a mindset of "Look, sucralose is legal, if we put sucralose in our products within the allowed guidelines and people get cancer, it's the government's fault because they said it was safe."