6 ms·

>I’ve been shocked to find that the single biggest barrier—by far—is over-regulation from the massive depth of bureaucracy. Every regulation loving person who

>I’ve been shocked to find that the single biggest barrier—by far—is over-regulation from the massive depth of bureaucracy. Every regulation loving person who is exposed to a tiny fragment of how actually terrible most regulatory frameworks are immediately have this thought.

strictnein 1y ago
I bet it's still like the Gell-Mann amnesia effect, where they think that the regulations they're encountering are bad, but clearly all the other ones are good.
- AnthonyMouse 1y ago
  Almost but not quite. For most people, they never directly interact with government regulations because somebody else does it. They work for a large corporation and then the corporation requires them to do wasteful or nonsensical things which they ascribe to management incompetence, but it's really because the corporation's lawyers made it a requirement. Then there are the people who are actually doing the compliance paperwork, but they don't object because it's the thing that pays their salary. Moreover, it's their occupation so all the time required to figure out how to do it is now a sunk cost for them and the last thing they want is to get rid of it and make all that time they invested worthless. The people who object are the people trying to start a new business, because nobody is paying them to do things that don't make sense and all they want is to get on with what they're actually trying to accomplish instead of paying one fee after another or waiting on unaccountable regulators who have no reason to say no to something but still take excruciatingly long to say yes.
  - locknitpicker 1y ago
    > The people who object are the people trying to start a new business, because nobody is paying them to do things that don't make sense and all they want is to get on with what they're actually trying to accomplish instead of paying one fee after another or waiting on unaccountable regulators who have no reason to say no to something but still take excruciatingly long to say yes. This is an extremely disingenuous opinion, which causally omits the whole reason regulations are necessary and exist to start with. The problem with your laissez-faire fundamentalism is that it ignores the fact that what these organizations claim to "actually trying to accomplish" is actually harmful and has considerable negative impact on society in general. Regulation is absolutely necessary because these orgs either don't care or are oblivious to the harm they are causing, and either way have absolutely no motivation to right their wrongs. Look at the way you chose to frame your fundamentalist opposition to regulation: "paying them to do things that don't make sense". Why do you think that preventing you from doing harm to society "don't make sense"? Is it too much of an inconvenience? It's perfectly fine to expect regulators to streamline their processes. What is not ok is to frame regulations as whimsical rentism from bureaucrats. They are accountability mechanisms designed to proactively prevent bad actors from causing harm to society as a whole, and they work by requiring that organizations proactively demonstrate they aren't causing said harm. Why is this all necessary? Because said organizations already have a long track record of causing that very harm to society. Why is this fact ignored?
    - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
      > The problem with your laissez-faire fundamentalism is that it ignores the fact that what these organizations claim to "actually trying to accomplish" is actually harmful and has considerable negative impact on society in general. The article is about a company trying to make an electric "converter dolly" that improves the fuel efficiency of diesel trucks by essentially turning them into hybrids. What actual harm and considerable negative impact on society in general are you referring to in this context? > Look at the way you chose to frame your fundamentalist opposition to regulation: "paying them to do things that don't make sense". Why do you think that preventing you from doing harm to society "don't make sense"? Is it too much of an inconvenience? Suppose that there exist regulations that are ill considered or poorly drafted and require things that are not aligned with their ostensible purpose. > What is not ok is to frame regulations as whimsical rentism from bureaucrats. How about whimsical rentism from incumbents who want to exclude competitors or avaricious middlemen who want their services to be expensive and mandatory, and capture the regulators to make that happen? > Why is this all necessary? Because said organizations already have a long track record of causing that very harm to society. Why is this fact ignored? The subset of the rules that aren't actually necessary aren't actually necessary. Why is this fact ignored?
      - duskdozer 1y ago
        What rules "aren't actually necessary" is a matter of opinion. Just as you can come up with a few examples of things you think should be less regulated (and many people may agree), others can come up with a few examples of things they think should be more regulated (and many people may also agree).
        AnthonyMouse 1y ago
        > What rules "aren't actually necessary" is a matter of opinion. To begin with, no it isn't. There are a lot of existing regulations that serve no legitimate purpose. Some exist solely at the behest of incumbents and are enacted under a false pretext by corrupt government officials; no one supports them who isn't being disingenuous. Others aren't even wanted by anyone and are simply regulatory errors that failed to account for something that actually happens, but the people impacted don't have the political influence to correct it. Moreover, what if there are some regulations that people differ on? Should we keep the ones only a minority of people think are a good idea, just because they already exist?
  - strictnein 1y ago
    > For most people I guess I wasn't clear enough that I was referring to people who are directly encountering them, like the author of the post we're discussing. I've worked directly with them. In my case, to get things approved didn't require any concerted effort or significant cost, it was just time. The government group would sit on the requests for a long time, doing nothing with them, asking no questions about what was submitted, and then approve them. This wasn't speculation on our part either. We were told that was how it was done by one of the people involved in the approval process who was also frustrated by how long it took, but didn't have the power to change things. The end result was that we did less work in these areas, even though there would have been significant benefit to the users of our systems and the public in general.
- protocolture 1y ago
  Theres a lot of that. Its just people need a first exposure to the thing to realise its terrible. Like the other commenter says, most people are completely shielded. I know a few local people who have only been impacted for the first time by regulations preventing the sale of vapes, and local regulations preventing the resale of used tyres to motorsport enthusiasts. Its the first spark for a lot of people.
  - locknitpicker 1y ago
    > I know a few local people who have only been impacted for the first time by regulations preventing the sale of vapes, and local regulations preventing the resale of used tyres to motorsport enthusiasts. Its the first spark for a lot of people. Please point out what regulations you speak of, and why they are in place. For example, vape pen regulation imposes requirements such as maximum nicotine concentration and minimum acceptable purity, and must be child-resistant. Regulation prevents you from trying to sell hazardous vape pens that can and will pose a health risk. What spark does this fire in you? Or would you prefer to blindly resell things that harm the people around you without being bothered about consequences?
    - protocolture 1y ago
      >For example, vape pen regulation imposes requirements such as maximum nicotine concentration and minimum acceptable purity, and must be child-resistant. Regulation prevents you from trying to sell hazardous vape pens that can and will pose a health risk. What spark does this fire in you? Over a period of ~8 months, they were subjected to like 4 different levels of restriction over here, culminating in them only being provided by pharmacies to prescription holders. An entire cottage industry of compliant vape selling businesses were forced to close, and significant numbers of users have been deprived access to the commodity. Honestly its been a goldmine for discussing law/regulation with the up and coming generation. >Regulation prevents you from trying to sell hazardous vape pens that can and will pose a health risk. Regulation forces the non prescription having user to the black market where no safety or quality checks are conducted. And they did this on the basis that the health risk is unknown, having already banned the vape juices that we know can in a small number of cases cause complications. >Or would you prefer to blindly resell things that harm the people around you without being bothered about consequences? I think you internalise the standard fallacy. I explain in another post that all regulations need to justify themselves, not simply have a stated cause. You seem to believe as most people who are unimpacted, that one can simply write law like code, and the execution proceeds flawlessly. There need be no thought given to the negative case, to the behaviour changes outside of your scope. Its quite a suffocating arrogance. Not to mention you also immediately fall into "OH YOU ARE AGAINST X, WELL YOU MUST LOVE Y", which is telling.
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
KaiserPro 1y ago
THe problem is that the main argument for this assertion is: "we are trying to dispose of large amount of industrial waste, the regulator is slowing us down" Now, we are told that this waste is actually going to benefit us, as its taking all of those nasty CO2 and PM2 emissions and locking them away. Great. but what's the chemical make up of those captured emissions? When you inject them into old wells, are they sealed against leakage? I assume its capturing raw exhaust from things, and that has a non-negligible heavy metal content. Can you guarantee that those aren't going to leak into the ground water? So yeah that kind of regulation probably is quite onerous, mainly because for the last ~60 years people have been taking the piss.
contagiousflow 1y ago
On the other hand, there are thousands of invisible interaction points in your day that are the result of regulation, and your life is better for it. You only get to see the bad in current regulation, not in the bad that could have been caused without it.
- protocolture 11mo ago
  >On the other hand, there are thousands of invisible interaction points in your day that are the result of regulation, and your life is better for it. You only get to see the bad in current regulation, not in the bad that could have been caused without it. Right but thats no reason to try and protect all regulation from criticism. The problem is that most people assume it is all good, but if you ever get a bunch of people together from a specific industry you will get a sense on how bad regulation of that industry is. Often in places laughably bad. But no one generally cares enough outside of that group to change it. You need to expose people to bad regulation enough that they develop some empathy, to the extent that they can turn a critical eye to the rest of it. Thats the only way to develop an informed voting base these days. To put it in context, I love to joke with people in wireless about how bad different regulatory frameworks are. I have never once in my entire life heard anyone complain about working at heights/ rope and rescue requirements in any jurisdiction. They are smart requirements and directly save lives. If a tower climber ever tells me "No I am not climbing that", that's basically gospel for me.
  - contagiousflow 11mo ago
    We don't disagree at all. I was disagreeing with the notion that regulation as an idea is bad. I completely agree that people and experts should have a democratic voice in the regulation that governs them
superxpro12 1y ago
On the other hand, how many regulations are written in blood or cancer?
dennis_jeeves2 11mo ago
>Every regulation loving person who is exposed to a tiny fragment of how actually terrible most regulatory frameworks are immediately have this thought. The problem is that such people often have no (original) thoughts. As the old saying going about bring the horse to the water etc.

strictnein 1y ago

I bet it's still like the Gell-Mann amnesia effect, where they think that the regulations they're encountering are bad, but clearly all the other ones are good.

AnthonyMouse 1y ago
Almost but not quite. For most people, they never directly interact with government regulations because somebody else does it. They work for a large corporation and then the corporation requires them to do wasteful or nonsensical things which they ascribe to management incompetence, but it's really because the corporation's lawyers made it a requirement. Then there are the people who are actually doing the compliance paperwork, but they don't object because it's the thing that pays their salary. Moreover, it's their occupation so all the time required to figure out how to do it is now a sunk cost for them and the last thing they want is to get rid of it and make all that time they invested worthless. The people who object are the people trying to start a new business, because nobody is paying them to do things that don't make sense and all they want is to get on with what they're actually trying to accomplish instead of paying one fee after another or waiting on unaccountable regulators who have no reason to say no to something but still take excruciatingly long to say yes.
- locknitpicker 1y ago
  > The people who object are the people trying to start a new business, because nobody is paying them to do things that don't make sense and all they want is to get on with what they're actually trying to accomplish instead of paying one fee after another or waiting on unaccountable regulators who have no reason to say no to something but still take excruciatingly long to say yes. This is an extremely disingenuous opinion, which causally omits the whole reason regulations are necessary and exist to start with. The problem with your laissez-faire fundamentalism is that it ignores the fact that what these organizations claim to "actually trying to accomplish" is actually harmful and has considerable negative impact on society in general. Regulation is absolutely necessary because these orgs either don't care or are oblivious to the harm they are causing, and either way have absolutely no motivation to right their wrongs. Look at the way you chose to frame your fundamentalist opposition to regulation: "paying them to do things that don't make sense". Why do you think that preventing you from doing harm to society "don't make sense"? Is it too much of an inconvenience? It's perfectly fine to expect regulators to streamline their processes. What is not ok is to frame regulations as whimsical rentism from bureaucrats. They are accountability mechanisms designed to proactively prevent bad actors from causing harm to society as a whole, and they work by requiring that organizations proactively demonstrate they aren't causing said harm. Why is this all necessary? Because said organizations already have a long track record of causing that very harm to society. Why is this fact ignored?
  - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
    > The problem with your laissez-faire fundamentalism is that it ignores the fact that what these organizations claim to "actually trying to accomplish" is actually harmful and has considerable negative impact on society in general. The article is about a company trying to make an electric "converter dolly" that improves the fuel efficiency of diesel trucks by essentially turning them into hybrids. What actual harm and considerable negative impact on society in general are you referring to in this context? > Look at the way you chose to frame your fundamentalist opposition to regulation: "paying them to do things that don't make sense". Why do you think that preventing you from doing harm to society "don't make sense"? Is it too much of an inconvenience? Suppose that there exist regulations that are ill considered or poorly drafted and require things that are not aligned with their ostensible purpose. > What is not ok is to frame regulations as whimsical rentism from bureaucrats. How about whimsical rentism from incumbents who want to exclude competitors or avaricious middlemen who want their services to be expensive and mandatory, and capture the regulators to make that happen? > Why is this all necessary? Because said organizations already have a long track record of causing that very harm to society. Why is this fact ignored? The subset of the rules that aren't actually necessary aren't actually necessary. Why is this fact ignored?
    - duskdozer 1y ago
      What rules "aren't actually necessary" is a matter of opinion. Just as you can come up with a few examples of things you think should be less regulated (and many people may agree), others can come up with a few examples of things they think should be more regulated (and many people may also agree).
      - AnthonyMouse 1y ago
        > What rules "aren't actually necessary" is a matter of opinion. To begin with, no it isn't. There are a lot of existing regulations that serve no legitimate purpose. Some exist solely at the behest of incumbents and are enacted under a false pretext by corrupt government officials; no one supports them who isn't being disingenuous. Others aren't even wanted by anyone and are simply regulatory errors that failed to account for something that actually happens, but the people impacted don't have the political influence to correct it. Moreover, what if there are some regulations that people differ on? Should we keep the ones only a minority of people think are a good idea, just because they already exist?
- strictnein 1y ago
  > For most people I guess I wasn't clear enough that I was referring to people who are directly encountering them, like the author of the post we're discussing. I've worked directly with them. In my case, to get things approved didn't require any concerted effort or significant cost, it was just time. The government group would sit on the requests for a long time, doing nothing with them, asking no questions about what was submitted, and then approve them. This wasn't speculation on our part either. We were told that was how it was done by one of the people involved in the approval process who was also frustrated by how long it took, but didn't have the power to change things. The end result was that we did less work in these areas, even though there would have been significant benefit to the users of our systems and the public in general.
protocolture 1y ago
Theres a lot of that. Its just people need a first exposure to the thing to realise its terrible. Like the other commenter says, most people are completely shielded. I know a few local people who have only been impacted for the first time by regulations preventing the sale of vapes, and local regulations preventing the resale of used tyres to motorsport enthusiasts. Its the first spark for a lot of people.
- locknitpicker 1y ago
  > I know a few local people who have only been impacted for the first time by regulations preventing the sale of vapes, and local regulations preventing the resale of used tyres to motorsport enthusiasts. Its the first spark for a lot of people. Please point out what regulations you speak of, and why they are in place. For example, vape pen regulation imposes requirements such as maximum nicotine concentration and minimum acceptable purity, and must be child-resistant. Regulation prevents you from trying to sell hazardous vape pens that can and will pose a health risk. What spark does this fire in you? Or would you prefer to blindly resell things that harm the people around you without being bothered about consequences?
  - protocolture 1y ago
    >For example, vape pen regulation imposes requirements such as maximum nicotine concentration and minimum acceptable purity, and must be child-resistant. Regulation prevents you from trying to sell hazardous vape pens that can and will pose a health risk. What spark does this fire in you? Over a period of ~8 months, they were subjected to like 4 different levels of restriction over here, culminating in them only being provided by pharmacies to prescription holders. An entire cottage industry of compliant vape selling businesses were forced to close, and significant numbers of users have been deprived access to the commodity. Honestly its been a goldmine for discussing law/regulation with the up and coming generation. >Regulation prevents you from trying to sell hazardous vape pens that can and will pose a health risk. Regulation forces the non prescription having user to the black market where no safety or quality checks are conducted. And they did this on the basis that the health risk is unknown, having already banned the vape juices that we know can in a small number of cases cause complications. >Or would you prefer to blindly resell things that harm the people around you without being bothered about consequences? I think you internalise the standard fallacy. I explain in another post that all regulations need to justify themselves, not simply have a stated cause. You seem to believe as most people who are unimpacted, that one can simply write law like code, and the execution proceeds flawlessly. There need be no thought given to the negative case, to the behaviour changes outside of your scope. Its quite a suffocating arrogance. Not to mention you also immediately fall into "OH YOU ARE AGAINST X, WELL YOU MUST LOVE Y", which is telling.

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]

KaiserPro 1y ago

THe problem is that the main argument for this assertion is: "we are trying to dispose of large amount of industrial waste, the regulator is slowing us down" Now, we are told that this waste is actually going to benefit us, as its taking all of those nasty CO2 and PM2 emissions and locking them away. Great. but what's the chemical make up of those captured emissions? When you inject them into old wells, are they sealed against leakage? I assume its capturing raw exhaust from things, and that has a non-negligible heavy metal content. Can you guarantee that those aren't going to leak into the ground water? So yeah that kind of regulation probably is quite onerous, mainly because for the last ~60 years people have been taking the piss.

contagiousflow 1y ago

On the other hand, there are thousands of invisible interaction points in your day that are the result of regulation, and your life is better for it. You only get to see the bad in current regulation, not in the bad that could have been caused without it.

protocolture 11mo ago
>On the other hand, there are thousands of invisible interaction points in your day that are the result of regulation, and your life is better for it. You only get to see the bad in current regulation, not in the bad that could have been caused without it. Right but thats no reason to try and protect all regulation from criticism. The problem is that most people assume it is all good, but if you ever get a bunch of people together from a specific industry you will get a sense on how bad regulation of that industry is. Often in places laughably bad. But no one generally cares enough outside of that group to change it. You need to expose people to bad regulation enough that they develop some empathy, to the extent that they can turn a critical eye to the rest of it. Thats the only way to develop an informed voting base these days. To put it in context, I love to joke with people in wireless about how bad different regulatory frameworks are. I have never once in my entire life heard anyone complain about working at heights/ rope and rescue requirements in any jurisdiction. They are smart requirements and directly save lives. If a tower climber ever tells me "No I am not climbing that", that's basically gospel for me.
- contagiousflow 11mo ago
  We don't disagree at all. I was disagreeing with the notion that regulation as an idea is bad. I completely agree that people and experts should have a democratic voice in the regulation that governs them

superxpro12 1y ago

On the other hand, how many regulations are written in blood or cancer?

dennis_jeeves2 11mo ago

>Every regulation loving person who is exposed to a tiny fragment of how actually terrible most regulatory frameworks are immediately have this thought. The problem is that such people often have no (original) thoughts. As the old saying going about bring the horse to the water etc.