2 ms·

I know the hackernews crowd is very pro-regulation, so before downvoting please consider responding so we can have a discussion and share experience together.

by cbb330 3y ago

I know the hackernews crowd is very pro-regulation, so before downvoting please consider responding so we can have a discussion and share experience together. "It seems the regulation in New Mexico has had an impact without hurting business" Assuming that oil has some net affect on humanity -- pros and cons. Then we need to consider the net affect of oil produced by texas on humanity, and consider how that net affect is changed with more regulation. Simply saying "yeah it seems like New Mexico doin real good with more laws" is extremely dangerous, because most regulation DOES harm and destroy market affects and competitive businesses. The authors on the study here should AT LEAST report with due diligence on this before requesting for increased regulation and attempting to sway public opinion -- potentially having a net NEGATIVE affect on humanity. One possible example of not considering the net negative affect of regulation, is, for example, if there are many competing energy companies in texas, and there is a consumer demand for more responsible operations, then those competing energy companies are forcing each other to tighten their operations wrt environmental impact. However, if regulation destroys small producers and benefits big corporations, then we would see LESS competition and LESS Priority from companies to tighten their operations, negatively affecting the environment.

smolder 3y ago
I don't think "hackernews is pro-regulation" is accurate, but that might be an easy mistake if you are "anti-regulation". I'm neither thing. I like regulation that works well and dislike it if it doesn't, which I dare say is the rational POV. I'm going to repost my comment from a thread on a recent story flagged as dupe: It's not the amount of regulation that matters, it's the intent. Is it written to benefit a greater good, or written to benefit a political party's benefactor? The same applies to removing regulations. Where did the intent lie? New regulation and repeal are most often shades of grey --bad mixed with good in terms of overall consequences. Many changes disproportionately help a few at some expense to the many. That's what happens when minority interests with a lot of money are overrepresented in government, lobbyists write bills, etc.
- cbb330 3y ago
  My conclusion on hackernews being "pro-regulation" is based on observance that posts discussing the downside of regulation are often downvoted. I agree with what you said. Knowing that repealing regulation is much less frequent than producing new regulation -- we should assume all new regulation is high risk, since its' impact is known to have tradeoffs, is to some degree created from perverse incentives and minority interests, and once in place is immutable. Regulation can be good and it can be bad. So if we know that regulation carries high risk, we need to be very apprehensive to anyone calling for more regulation such as this article via "https://www.kayrros.com/ https://www.kayrros.com/". We don't know who they are, what they want, and what their suggested change in policy affects in net to humanity over time. I guess what I want is for companies like "https://www.kayrros.com/ https://www.kayrros.com/" to be held to a higher bar and be more responsible for the outcome of their research and conclusions.
kelnos 3y ago
> because most regulation DOES harm and destroy market affects and competitive businesses I don't see that as a problem, when the alternative seems to be essentially zero oversight over people who don't care if they -- through their own negligence -- release chemicals into the atmosphere that contribute to the destruction of our planet's biosphere. "Business interests" are irrelevant if our planet becomes unlivable for humans. Regardless: > Simply saying "yeah it seems like New Mexico doin real good with more laws" is extremely dangerous Is anyone actually saying that, though? Sounds like a straw man to me.
- cbb330 3y ago
  i'm not sure you fully read my comment. my example posted is an example of how business interests are relevant to how livable the planet is for humans. and then my quote is almost word for word what they said in the article. their quote: "It seems the regulation in New Mexico has had an impact without hurting business" my paraphrase: "yeah it seems like New Mexico doin real good with more laws" They need to provide much, much much more proof because as regulation can have net negative affect then the burden is on them.

by cbb330 3y ago

smolder 3y ago

I don't think "hackernews is pro-regulation" is accurate, but that might be an easy mistake if you are "anti-regulation". I'm neither thing. I like regulation that works well and dislike it if it doesn't, which I dare say is the rational POV. I'm going to repost my comment from a thread on a recent story flagged as dupe: It's not the amount of regulation that matters, it's the intent. Is it written to benefit a greater good, or written to benefit a political party's benefactor? The same applies to removing regulations. Where did the intent lie? New regulation and repeal are most often shades of grey --bad mixed with good in terms of overall consequences. Many changes disproportionately help a few at some expense to the many. That's what happens when minority interests with a lot of money are overrepresented in government, lobbyists write bills, etc.

cbb330 3y ago
My conclusion on hackernews being "pro-regulation" is based on observance that posts discussing the downside of regulation are often downvoted. I agree with what you said. Knowing that repealing regulation is much less frequent than producing new regulation -- we should assume all new regulation is high risk, since its' impact is known to have tradeoffs, is to some degree created from perverse incentives and minority interests, and once in place is immutable. Regulation can be good and it can be bad. So if we know that regulation carries high risk, we need to be very apprehensive to anyone calling for more regulation such as this article via "https://www.kayrros.com/ https://www.kayrros.com/". We don't know who they are, what they want, and what their suggested change in policy affects in net to humanity over time. I guess what I want is for companies like "https://www.kayrros.com/ https://www.kayrros.com/" to be held to a higher bar and be more responsible for the outcome of their research and conclusions.

kelnos 3y ago

> because most regulation DOES harm and destroy market affects and competitive businesses I don't see that as a problem, when the alternative seems to be essentially zero oversight over people who don't care if they -- through their own negligence -- release chemicals into the atmosphere that contribute to the destruction of our planet's biosphere. "Business interests" are irrelevant if our planet becomes unlivable for humans. Regardless: > Simply saying "yeah it seems like New Mexico doin real good with more laws" is extremely dangerous Is anyone actually saying that, though? Sounds like a straw man to me.

cbb330 3y ago
i'm not sure you fully read my comment. my example posted is an example of how business interests are relevant to how livable the planet is for humans. and then my quote is almost word for word what they said in the article. their quote: "It seems the regulation in New Mexico has had an impact without hurting business" my paraphrase: "yeah it seems like New Mexico doin real good with more laws" They need to provide much, much much more proof because as regulation can have net negative affect then the burden is on them.