5 ms·

> 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

> 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 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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?
    - locknitpicker 11mo ago
      > To begin with, no it isn't. There are a lot of existing regulations that serve no legitimate purpose. Citation needed. Specially referring to TFA. You know what there is a lot of? Organizations trying to push onto the public hazardous and subpar products. Those are the ones mostly affected by regulation, because that's precisely what regulation is designed to shield society from. So it comes as no surprise that there are companies complaining that regulation prevents them from doing business. That's by design, and represents a much needed market pressure to prevent bad actors from screwing everything and everyone around them.
      - AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
        > Citation needed. Specially referring to TFA. Explain the legitimate purpose of requiring a device that runs on batteries to be tested for emissions, not just once but for every subspecies of truck you want to use it with. > You know what there is a lot of? Organizations trying to push onto the public hazardous and subpar products. Those are the ones mostly affected by regulation, because that's precisely what regulation is designed to shield society from. You're confusing the nominal intention of the regulations with their actual effect. The map is not the territory.
protocolture 11mo 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 problem with blind government maximalism is that it ignores the fact that what these governments claim to actually be trying to accomplish can actually be harmful and have considerable negative impact on society in general.
- komali2 11mo ago
  Sure, but the fundamental premise is that good corporations are seeking to generate profits, and good governments are seeking to provide for their constituents. A corporation that doesn't prioritize profits isn't a good corporation. You wouldn't buy stock in it. A government that isn't prioritizing its constituents is a bad one, you wouldn't vote for it. Everything else is implementation detail but it's obvious that governments need to check corporate power because otherwise the inevitable end game is a corpotocracy ruling over factory towns of debt slaves.
  - AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
    I would challenge both of those. Corporations exist to do whatever their directors or shareholders want them to do. For publicly-traded corporations that's typically to generate profits, but not all corporations are listed on a stock exchange and even the public ones could in principle have their shareholders vote to do something else. If a corporation wants to build electric cars to fight climate change or build housing to reduce housing scarcity, that doesn't make it "bad" -- it's good, and you don't want the government impeding that when somebody wants to do it. Or even when they want to do the same thing to make money, because it can be both things at once. And just because a government that doesn't prioritize its constituents is bad doesn't mean that the government we have is good, or that every existing regulation is benefiting constituents rather than harming them. > Everything else is implementation detail Which is kind of the part that matters.
    - komali2 11mo ago
strictnein 11mo 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. We were trying to make our weather monitoring systems better, at minimal or no cost to our customers and the public. > What is not ok is to frame regulations as whimsical rentism from bureaucrats In our case it was, and we were told that it was from one of the people involved in the approval process.

AnthonyMouse 11mo 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 11mo 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 11mo 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?
  - locknitpicker 11mo ago
    > To begin with, no it isn't. There are a lot of existing regulations that serve no legitimate purpose. Citation needed. Specially referring to TFA. You know what there is a lot of? Organizations trying to push onto the public hazardous and subpar products. Those are the ones mostly affected by regulation, because that's precisely what regulation is designed to shield society from. So it comes as no surprise that there are companies complaining that regulation prevents them from doing business. That's by design, and represents a much needed market pressure to prevent bad actors from screwing everything and everyone around them.
    - AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
      > Citation needed. Specially referring to TFA. Explain the legitimate purpose of requiring a device that runs on batteries to be tested for emissions, not just once but for every subspecies of truck you want to use it with. > You know what there is a lot of? Organizations trying to push onto the public hazardous and subpar products. Those are the ones mostly affected by regulation, because that's precisely what regulation is designed to shield society from. You're confusing the nominal intention of the regulations with their actual effect. The map is not the territory.

protocolture 11mo 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 problem with blind government maximalism is that it ignores the fact that what these governments claim to actually be trying to accomplish can actually be harmful and have considerable negative impact on society in general.

komali2 11mo ago
Sure, but the fundamental premise is that good corporations are seeking to generate profits, and good governments are seeking to provide for their constituents. A corporation that doesn't prioritize profits isn't a good corporation. You wouldn't buy stock in it. A government that isn't prioritizing its constituents is a bad one, you wouldn't vote for it. Everything else is implementation detail but it's obvious that governments need to check corporate power because otherwise the inevitable end game is a corpotocracy ruling over factory towns of debt slaves.
- AnthonyMouse 11mo ago
  I would challenge both of those. Corporations exist to do whatever their directors or shareholders want them to do. For publicly-traded corporations that's typically to generate profits, but not all corporations are listed on a stock exchange and even the public ones could in principle have their shareholders vote to do something else. If a corporation wants to build electric cars to fight climate change or build housing to reduce housing scarcity, that doesn't make it "bad" -- it's good, and you don't want the government impeding that when somebody wants to do it. Or even when they want to do the same thing to make money, because it can be both things at once. And just because a government that doesn't prioritize its constituents is bad doesn't mean that the government we have is good, or that every existing regulation is benefiting constituents rather than harming them. > Everything else is implementation detail Which is kind of the part that matters.
  - komali2 11mo ago

strictnein 11mo 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. We were trying to make our weather monitoring systems better, at minimal or no cost to our customers and the public. > What is not ok is to frame regulations as whimsical rentism from bureaucrats In our case it was, and we were told that it was from one of the people involved in the approval process.