4 ms·
So you're saying that existing regulations don't work, so we should fix it by adding more regulations? What if they also won't work?
by StrLght 1y ago
So you're saying that existing regulations don't work, so we should fix it by adding more regulations? What if they also won't work?
- bee_rider 1y agoI don’t know much about the legal code. But when my computer code doesn’t work I don’t think of fixing it in terms of “add more code or don’t,” but rather “remove the bad code (if necessary) and add some good code (if necessary).”
- hnbad 1y agoIs that how you think about fixing software bugs too? "You're saying the existing code is broken so we should fix it by writing more code?" EDIT: Regulations are simply laws. Laws structure legal (this includes financial) interactions. The idea that you can always fix problems just by removing regulations is no less absurd than the idea that you can always fix problems just by removing code. "Good" isn't defined by having less or more, it's defined by what you have being good or bad at doing what it's meant to do. Parent is wording their question in such a way that it can only be interpreted to mock the idea of fixing a bad law by passing a new law (whether that involves replacing the existing law or not is irrelevant).
- StrLght 1y agoNo, I don't think so and I honestly don't see how this is relevant. I am not saying that regulations are bad. It just that governments are accepting insane laws, and often they don't have mechanisms to undo what they've previously done. Or maybe they're not willing to use these mechanisms, it depends on the country. This is just another example of that — law that sounds good on the paper and that doesn't make any sense in real life. I really doubt that mindlessly amending this regulation will make it better.