4 ms·

Basically everybody agrees with what you're saying which is what makes this an insidious comment. In general the pressure against regulation comes from narrow

by AdamN 8mo ago

Basically everybody agrees with what you're saying which is what makes this an insidious comment. In general the pressure against regulation comes from narrow winners (oil industry for instance) whereas the pressure for regulations generally comes from people focused on the greater good (even if they are misled by other narrow winners, for instance compliance firms).

gosub100 8mo ago
There are valid reasons to oppose regulations. They can be used to create barriers of entry for small businesses, for example. They constantly affect the poor more than the middle class.
- dfedbeef 8mo ago
  Protecting a small company's ability to pollute is not a valid reason.
- sunshinesnacks 8mo ago
  > They constantly affect the poor more than the middle class. That’s a very broad statement. I expect there are many cases where that is not true.
  - abfan1127 8mo ago
    "greater good" is arguably the most broad statement with a large history of hurting many people based on the "greater good".
    - sunshinesnacks 8mo ago
      Maybe. But the original context here is an article about removing lead from gasoline. Which I’m pretty sure that helped many people based on the “greater good”. There’s no copper sulfate in canned green beans or borax in beef. Those seem all around good. Let’s agree that impacts of regulations are nuanced, and not try to condense it down to something overly simplistic like, “regulations hurt poor people”.
    - Braxton1980 8mo ago
      For each instance did it help more than it hurt? Not to simplify but if you have to make a decision shouldn't you always decide to help the most people?
      - lowdownbutter 8mo ago
        > shouldn't you always decide to help the most people? no.
        Braxton1980 8mo ago
        Why?
        hilbert42 8mo ago
        Hundreds of book on utilitarianism have been published since Bentham (ca 1800) first argued 'why'. They argue the matter from evey perspective ad nauseam. Check your public library.
        lowdownbutter 8mo ago
        Who shall we sacrifice for the greater good? Shall we sacrifice one child for two elderly? One healthy adult for two sick?
        Braxton1980 8mo ago
        Whichever is worth more based on a subjective measurement
    - _DeadFred_ 8mo ago
      When left to their own cigaret companies tell congress cigarettes are safe and non addictive. Left alone companies pay in scrip only usable at the company store. The 'greater good' has arguably PREVENTED much more hurt of people than it has ever hurt. Meanwhile companies have PROVEN time and time again that they WILL hurt people when left to their own devices. In environmental policies. In pay policies. In employment policies. In EVERY aspect possible.
      - fuzzfactor 8mo ago
        This is the extreme, and it shows how far some (most?) people would go. There are many examples, and more being minted, it can be a drag. Yes, not just environmental, all kinds of money stuff. The more money can be how it gets on steroids. But this says a lot here: >not try to condense it down to something overly simplistic With greed involved you can follow the money to an extent, you find lobbyists on both sides of every controversy, sometimes chalking up wins, other times losses. But they stay in business and grow by compromising the greater good with as little profit loss from those paying them the most. They might switch roles when they lobby in favor of ordinary citizens one time, and squarely against in a future campaign. But they never actually switch sides, the least costly thing to compromise is the "greater good", which ideally from their point of view is intangible, versus actual money, which their clients are usually counting before they have earned any. It's politics, all regulations are hard to pass, but as lobbying has increased, the difficulty of having good legislation in favor of the greater good is becoming less possible. It just costs too much to have a seat at the table. If people want to have good things, it might become completely dependent on older regulations which were in their favor before it got too expensive to do that any more.
        _DeadFred_ 8mo ago
        Lobbyists at this point is just sports 'flood the zone' defense strategy gumming up the process everywhere so they can point and say 'look at it, government doesn't work'. Another form of the Reagan 'starve the beast' strategy to say 'look at it, government doesn't work'. I'm starting to feel the same with speech online. Capitalism and other negative social elements working to undermine the social system that impedes them just constantly flooding the systems that assume/can handle the volume of/when all interactions are in good faith but can't designed to handle malicious flooding. Our society has an IRC/USENET problem.
- prmoustache 8mo ago
  That is usually the opposite because the absence of regulations usually put the smallest players in a state of dependence of some huge monopolistic groups. Think pesticides and genetically modified plants for example.
- LiquidSky 8mo ago
  We're talking about environmental regulations. It is no more good for a small business to pollute than a large one, and it's precisely the poor who are most harmed by environmental pollution.
- Braxton1980 8mo ago
  There are valid reasons to oppose specific regulations not all. Imagine I open a auto repair center and I perform oil changes. It would cost me money to have used oil hauled away or I could dump it down the drain. You probably support a requirement that I pay for the service. I'm sure there are regulations that cause actual harm to small businesses that have little or no value but I wonder what percentage it would be of the total.
- convolvatron 8mo ago
  the largest unaccounted for victims of environmental degradation are our children and their children. given that we can't even keep from poisoning our own well water for our own uses today, it really does like on the whole we're failing to regulate sufficiently. which isn't to argue that they shouldn't make sense. or that they should be used to tilt the playing field due to corruption, but on the balance claiming that we are currently overregulated is pretty indefensible.
- busterarm 8mo ago
  Ah the old "it takes longer to learn how to cut hair than it does to become a cop".
- sagarm 8mo ago
  The poor disproportionately bore the brunt of lead pollution.

by AdamN 8mo ago

gosub100 8mo ago

There are valid reasons to oppose regulations. They can be used to create barriers of entry for small businesses, for example. They constantly affect the poor more than the middle class.

dfedbeef 8mo ago
Protecting a small company's ability to pollute is not a valid reason.
sunshinesnacks 8mo ago
> They constantly affect the poor more than the middle class. That’s a very broad statement. I expect there are many cases where that is not true.
- abfan1127 8mo ago
  "greater good" is arguably the most broad statement with a large history of hurting many people based on the "greater good".
  - sunshinesnacks 8mo ago
    Maybe. But the original context here is an article about removing lead from gasoline. Which I’m pretty sure that helped many people based on the “greater good”. There’s no copper sulfate in canned green beans or borax in beef. Those seem all around good. Let’s agree that impacts of regulations are nuanced, and not try to condense it down to something overly simplistic like, “regulations hurt poor people”.
  - Braxton1980 8mo ago
    For each instance did it help more than it hurt? Not to simplify but if you have to make a decision shouldn't you always decide to help the most people?
    - lowdownbutter 8mo ago
      > shouldn't you always decide to help the most people? no.
      - Braxton1980 8mo ago
        Why?
        hilbert42 8mo ago
        Hundreds of book on utilitarianism have been published since Bentham (ca 1800) first argued 'why'. They argue the matter from evey perspective ad nauseam. Check your public library.
        lowdownbutter 8mo ago
        Who shall we sacrifice for the greater good? Shall we sacrifice one child for two elderly? One healthy adult for two sick?
        Braxton1980 8mo ago
        Whichever is worth more based on a subjective measurement
  - _DeadFred_ 8mo ago
    When left to their own cigaret companies tell congress cigarettes are safe and non addictive. Left alone companies pay in scrip only usable at the company store. The 'greater good' has arguably PREVENTED much more hurt of people than it has ever hurt. Meanwhile companies have PROVEN time and time again that they WILL hurt people when left to their own devices. In environmental policies. In pay policies. In employment policies. In EVERY aspect possible.
    - fuzzfactor 8mo ago
      This is the extreme, and it shows how far some (most?) people would go. There are many examples, and more being minted, it can be a drag. Yes, not just environmental, all kinds of money stuff. The more money can be how it gets on steroids. But this says a lot here: >not try to condense it down to something overly simplistic With greed involved you can follow the money to an extent, you find lobbyists on both sides of every controversy, sometimes chalking up wins, other times losses. But they stay in business and grow by compromising the greater good with as little profit loss from those paying them the most. They might switch roles when they lobby in favor of ordinary citizens one time, and squarely against in a future campaign. But they never actually switch sides, the least costly thing to compromise is the "greater good", which ideally from their point of view is intangible, versus actual money, which their clients are usually counting before they have earned any. It's politics, all regulations are hard to pass, but as lobbying has increased, the difficulty of having good legislation in favor of the greater good is becoming less possible. It just costs too much to have a seat at the table. If people want to have good things, it might become completely dependent on older regulations which were in their favor before it got too expensive to do that any more.
      - _DeadFred_ 8mo ago
        Lobbyists at this point is just sports 'flood the zone' defense strategy gumming up the process everywhere so they can point and say 'look at it, government doesn't work'. Another form of the Reagan 'starve the beast' strategy to say 'look at it, government doesn't work'. I'm starting to feel the same with speech online. Capitalism and other negative social elements working to undermine the social system that impedes them just constantly flooding the systems that assume/can handle the volume of/when all interactions are in good faith but can't designed to handle malicious flooding. Our society has an IRC/USENET problem.
prmoustache 8mo ago
That is usually the opposite because the absence of regulations usually put the smallest players in a state of dependence of some huge monopolistic groups. Think pesticides and genetically modified plants for example.
LiquidSky 8mo ago
We're talking about environmental regulations. It is no more good for a small business to pollute than a large one, and it's precisely the poor who are most harmed by environmental pollution.
Braxton1980 8mo ago
There are valid reasons to oppose specific regulations not all. Imagine I open a auto repair center and I perform oil changes. It would cost me money to have used oil hauled away or I could dump it down the drain. You probably support a requirement that I pay for the service. I'm sure there are regulations that cause actual harm to small businesses that have little or no value but I wonder what percentage it would be of the total.
convolvatron 8mo ago
the largest unaccounted for victims of environmental degradation are our children and their children. given that we can't even keep from poisoning our own well water for our own uses today, it really does like on the whole we're failing to regulate sufficiently. which isn't to argue that they shouldn't make sense. or that they should be used to tilt the playing field due to corruption, but on the balance claiming that we are currently overregulated is pretty indefensible.
busterarm 8mo ago
Ah the old "it takes longer to learn how to cut hair than it does to become a cop".
sagarm 8mo ago
The poor disproportionately bore the brunt of lead pollution.