3 ms·

Regulation in governmental policy is not a mathematical theory that can be discarded with a single undesirable result. It's a complex human interaction that isn

by dv_dt 3y ago

Regulation in governmental policy is not a mathematical theory that can be discarded with a single undesirable result. It's a complex human interaction that isn't a matter of regulate all the things or none of the things. Recently a HN post reposted a discussion that solving a problem isn't rewarded, and successful regulation suffers that exact problem. Regulation is so widely successful in so many areas, people form these naive beliefs that we can just eliminate it all and we would be fine. There are so many examples of it working fine in society in completely invisible ways because it's working. This is not to say that all regulations are perfect - more that we should be discussing how to identify failures and form working and improved regulations not discussing a frankly silly outright removal of all regulations. Regulatory capture is certainly one of the things to try to prevent.

kragen 3y ago
you, too, seem to be arguing against a strawman position that nobody actually holds or could plausibly hold: that 'regulation in governmental policy is a mathematical theory' by contrast, i was arguing against the position you actually stated, 'if you find no regulation in areas where consumers are being harmed it can often be even worse'. there is no historical case with no regulation in areas where consumers are being harmed that is 'even worse' than the great leap forward or the congo free state. you don't seem to be attempting to defend that position, or to clarify it; i suppose that means you agree that you were incorrect? you seem to be attempting to distract people by posting a bunch of wishful-thinking nonsense that isn't relevant to the issue we were discussing, thus changing the subject. while that may be a good rhetorical strategy for rallying a political base, it's a terrible way to figure out the truth of a complex matter

by dv_dt 3y ago

kragen 3y ago

you, too, seem to be arguing against a strawman position that nobody actually holds or could plausibly hold: that 'regulation in governmental policy is a mathematical theory' by contrast, i was arguing against the position you actually stated, 'if you find no regulation in areas where consumers are being harmed it can often be even worse'. there is no historical case with no regulation in areas where consumers are being harmed that is 'even worse' than the great leap forward or the congo free state. you don't seem to be attempting to defend that position, or to clarify it; i suppose that means you agree that you were incorrect? you seem to be attempting to distract people by posting a bunch of wishful-thinking nonsense that isn't relevant to the issue we were discussing, thus changing the subject. while that may be a good rhetorical strategy for rallying a political base, it's a terrible way to figure out the truth of a complex matter