4 ms·

> what you want is WORSE than the current state. No, it isn't, because if Congress is forced to make laws itself, like the Constitution says, it will have to d

by pdonis 2y ago

> what you want is WORSE than the current state. No, it isn't, because if Congress is forced to make laws itself, like the Constitution says, it will have to drastically scale back the scope of the laws it makes so it is manageable, and that is a good thing. We have far too many laws as it is. The law needs to be drastically scaled back so it only does what it's supposed to, and is not used, as it is now, as an instrument of ideology and failed social policy.

cyberax 2y ago
> No, it isn't, because if Congress is forced to make laws itself, like the Constitution says Yes, and it can make a law saying: "I delegate the tasks within this area to this agency". > We have far too many laws as it is The US actually doesn't have too many Federal laws. Other large countries have a similar number of regulations. > The law needs to be drastically scaled back so it only does what it's supposed to, and is not used, as it is now, as an instrument of ideology and failed social policy. Can you provide examples of that? Most of the current laws deal with mundane rules and regulation. Like food safety or construction standards.
- pdonis 2y ago
  > it can make a law saying: "I delegate the tasks within this area to this agency". No, it can't. Article I of the Constitution says that all legislative power is vested in Congress. It does not allow Congress to delegate anything that involves making laws. Agency regulations have the force of law, so they are laws as far as the Constitution is concerned, and are supposed to be passed by Congress according to the process given in the Constitution. > Other large countries have a similar number of regulations. That just means other countries also have too many laws. But more than that, if other countries want to have too many laws, that's their problem. They don't have the same Constitution the US does. The US Constitution was intended for a country that did not want a large body of Federal law micromanaging all aspects of people's lives. > Can you provide examples of that? Most of the current laws deal with mundane rules and regulation. Like food safety or construction standards. Food safety and construction standards are examples of ideology and failed social policy. The fact that we all want our food to be safe and construction to be done properly does not mean the government should be making the detailed rules for how those things are done; but our government has chosen to do it anyway because of ideology and failed social policy. In fact having the government do these things is a detriment to those goals, not a help. We have huge factory farms pumping food animals full of antibiotics because of government regulations that favor that kind of farming, not because it makes our food safer; it actually makes our food less safe, but government food safety inspectors watch it happen all the time and do nothing. We have a construction industry full of outdated building techniques and with costs much higher than they need to be because of government regulations that favor builders over their customers and discourage innovations.
  - cyberax 2y ago
    > It does not allow Congress to delegate anything that involves making laws. Can you cite that article? > That just means other countries also have too many laws. Yeah. And only free-market fundamentalists know better. And when somebody points out the consequences of their actions, they always tell that the consequences are caused by "the government". And that it was not a true free market, because the True Free Market is (by definition!) always perfect. Examples: historical USA, China during 2000-2020-s, Africa right now. > Food safety and construction standards are examples of ideology and failed social policy. Yeah. No. > We have a construction industry full of outdated building techniques and with costs much higher than they need to be because of government regulations that favor builders over their customers and discourage innovations. You know, here's an anecdote for you. Wood-frame houses in Russia are almost impossible to sell, even though they are cheaper and better than houses constructed from concrete blocks. Do you know why? Because you can't easily inspect the quality of construction, as all the critical elements are hidden inside the walls. And there are no mandatory state inspections of houses in Russia, so anyone can build houses however they want. And wood-frame houses are often built by companies that are straightforwardly incompetent and/or cut corners during the construction. The end result? People are spending more money to be sure that their house does not rot in 3 years due to incorrectly installed insulation.
    - pdonis 2y ago
      Article I: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." No delegation anywhere.
      - cyberax 2y ago
        It does not prohibit delegation. For example, there's no article saying that the lawmakers don't have to write laws in their blood, either.
rtkwe 2y ago
> We have far too many laws as it is If we could count on companies to act at all for ends other than short term profits maybe we could have less but alas that's far from the case and we have endless examples of what happens the moment they find a way to rack up massive short term profits because a regulation has been loosened because "well we haven't had that kind of failure in decades!". We know what companies will do without laws around worker rights and safety protections. We know what they do without food safety rules. We know what they do without any anti-monopoly laws (and they're redoing it now under the toothless version we've been gifted by the courts). It's all bad for anyone except the owners and bosses.
- pdonis 2y ago
  > If we could count on companies to act at all for ends other than short term profits We can for many companies, because many companies are small businesses that are run by their actual owners, who have an incentive to think long term. The companies for which we can't are companies who are run by non-owners and whose owners--the shareholders--have little or no effective control. Such companies generally would not exist in an actual free market, because they are so inefficient. They exist in our current society because of the huge costs of compliance with government regulations, which protects very large companies from competition, particularly if they can get into the business of being government contractors, as most of them do. > We know what companies will do without laws around worker rights and safety protections. We know what they do without food safety rules. We do know these things, but what we know is not what you are implying. The narrative that big bad companies in a free market do all these bad things is a myth. The companies that did them were only able to do them because they were propped up by governments and insulated from competition. For example, the coal companies that exploited miners had exclusive mining rights granted by governments. The railroad companies that exploited workers had exclusive rights to key railroad routes granted by governments. > We know what they do without any anti-monopoly laws Yes, we know that too: they provide products and services of higher quality, and a lower price, than their competitors. Then their competitors complain to the government about anti-trust violations and the government breaks up the companies, resulting in higher prices and lower quality products and services. In cases where there actually is an argument for the "monopoly" company serving customers badly--for example, Microsoft--the government does not break the company up for anti-trust violations. Instead it does some show lawsuits that have no real impact.

by pdonis 2y ago

cyberax 2y ago

> No, it isn't, because if Congress is forced to make laws itself, like the Constitution says Yes, and it can make a law saying: "I delegate the tasks within this area to this agency". > We have far too many laws as it is The US actually doesn't have too many Federal laws. Other large countries have a similar number of regulations. > The law needs to be drastically scaled back so it only does what it's supposed to, and is not used, as it is now, as an instrument of ideology and failed social policy. Can you provide examples of that? Most of the current laws deal with mundane rules and regulation. Like food safety or construction standards.

pdonis 2y ago
> it can make a law saying: "I delegate the tasks within this area to this agency". No, it can't. Article I of the Constitution says that all legislative power is vested in Congress. It does not allow Congress to delegate anything that involves making laws. Agency regulations have the force of law, so they are laws as far as the Constitution is concerned, and are supposed to be passed by Congress according to the process given in the Constitution. > Other large countries have a similar number of regulations. That just means other countries also have too many laws. But more than that, if other countries want to have too many laws, that's their problem. They don't have the same Constitution the US does. The US Constitution was intended for a country that did not want a large body of Federal law micromanaging all aspects of people's lives. > Can you provide examples of that? Most of the current laws deal with mundane rules and regulation. Like food safety or construction standards. Food safety and construction standards are examples of ideology and failed social policy. The fact that we all want our food to be safe and construction to be done properly does not mean the government should be making the detailed rules for how those things are done; but our government has chosen to do it anyway because of ideology and failed social policy. In fact having the government do these things is a detriment to those goals, not a help. We have huge factory farms pumping food animals full of antibiotics because of government regulations that favor that kind of farming, not because it makes our food safer; it actually makes our food less safe, but government food safety inspectors watch it happen all the time and do nothing. We have a construction industry full of outdated building techniques and with costs much higher than they need to be because of government regulations that favor builders over their customers and discourage innovations.
- cyberax 2y ago
  > It does not allow Congress to delegate anything that involves making laws. Can you cite that article? > That just means other countries also have too many laws. Yeah. And only free-market fundamentalists know better. And when somebody points out the consequences of their actions, they always tell that the consequences are caused by "the government". And that it was not a true free market, because the True Free Market is (by definition!) always perfect. Examples: historical USA, China during 2000-2020-s, Africa right now. > Food safety and construction standards are examples of ideology and failed social policy. Yeah. No. > We have a construction industry full of outdated building techniques and with costs much higher than they need to be because of government regulations that favor builders over their customers and discourage innovations. You know, here's an anecdote for you. Wood-frame houses in Russia are almost impossible to sell, even though they are cheaper and better than houses constructed from concrete blocks. Do you know why? Because you can't easily inspect the quality of construction, as all the critical elements are hidden inside the walls. And there are no mandatory state inspections of houses in Russia, so anyone can build houses however they want. And wood-frame houses are often built by companies that are straightforwardly incompetent and/or cut corners during the construction. The end result? People are spending more money to be sure that their house does not rot in 3 years due to incorrectly installed insulation.
  - pdonis 2y ago
    Article I: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." No delegation anywhere.
    - cyberax 2y ago
      It does not prohibit delegation. For example, there's no article saying that the lawmakers don't have to write laws in their blood, either.

rtkwe 2y ago

> We have far too many laws as it is If we could count on companies to act at all for ends other than short term profits maybe we could have less but alas that's far from the case and we have endless examples of what happens the moment they find a way to rack up massive short term profits because a regulation has been loosened because "well we haven't had that kind of failure in decades!". We know what companies will do without laws around worker rights and safety protections. We know what they do without food safety rules. We know what they do without any anti-monopoly laws (and they're redoing it now under the toothless version we've been gifted by the courts). It's all bad for anyone except the owners and bosses.

pdonis 2y ago
> If we could count on companies to act at all for ends other than short term profits We can for many companies, because many companies are small businesses that are run by their actual owners, who have an incentive to think long term. The companies for which we can't are companies who are run by non-owners and whose owners--the shareholders--have little or no effective control. Such companies generally would not exist in an actual free market, because they are so inefficient. They exist in our current society because of the huge costs of compliance with government regulations, which protects very large companies from competition, particularly if they can get into the business of being government contractors, as most of them do. > We know what companies will do without laws around worker rights and safety protections. We know what they do without food safety rules. We do know these things, but what we know is not what you are implying. The narrative that big bad companies in a free market do all these bad things is a myth. The companies that did them were only able to do them because they were propped up by governments and insulated from competition. For example, the coal companies that exploited miners had exclusive mining rights granted by governments. The railroad companies that exploited workers had exclusive rights to key railroad routes granted by governments. > We know what they do without any anti-monopoly laws Yes, we know that too: they provide products and services of higher quality, and a lower price, than their competitors. Then their competitors complain to the government about anti-trust violations and the government breaks up the companies, resulting in higher prices and lower quality products and services. In cases where there actually is an argument for the "monopoly" company serving customers badly--for example, Microsoft--the government does not break the company up for anti-trust violations. Instead it does some show lawsuits that have no real impact.