3 ms·

> If the latter, just penalize the listing agents. Trivial. It's very unlikely to be trivial though because the state typically lacks the resources required t

> If the latter, just penalize the listing agents. Trivial. It's very unlikely to be trivial though because the state typically lacks the resources required to enforce things like this at scale. You'll need to find violators, meet a burden of proof that they violated the law, notify them, give them the right to defend themsleves against the allegation, etc. They'll almost certainly spend more time and money on the process than is ever collected if this ever happens.

Calavar 3mo ago
> They'll almost certainly spend more time and money on the process than is ever collected if this ever happens. The point of regulation isn't for the state to turn a profit. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that regulations that drive a monetary profit for the state are generally bad because they create a perverse incentive. For example, municipal governments adversely affect traffic flow by lowering speed limits because those lower speed limits generate more ticket revenue.
- ElProlactin 3mo ago
  You're right that the point of regulation isn't to turn a "profit" but the laws of economics always apply. If you have a fine of $100 for a widespread practice that costs $1,000 to collect, the state isn't going to magically allocate resource to applying it. You could create a private right of action for this, but that is its own bag of worms.
  - estearum 3mo ago
    > If you have a fine of $100 for a widespread practice that costs $1,000 to collect, the state isn't going to magically allocate resource to applying it. Seems empirically false given e.g. the immense investment we make in counter-drug enforcement.
    - ElProlactin 3mo ago
      You're ignoring how much money and power is found in the drug enforcement industrial complex. The point of drug enforcement is not to stop the drug trade.
- oblio 3mo ago
  > municipal governments adversely affect traffic flow by lowering speed limits because those lower speed limits generate more ticket revenue. I don't know about the US because the US is weird, but: * at 30kmph the rate of fatalities in case of a car hitting a pedestrian is basically 0%, at 50kmph I think it's 5% or more * at 30kmph collisions are much easier to avoid due to the increased reaction time and the decreased braking distance (I don't remember the exact numbers) * at 30kmph you can hold a conversation at normal speech levels next to a moderately busy road, at 50kmph you will have to shout (and not even notice it due to the high ambient noise) Etc.
estearum 3mo ago
1. The point of laws is not to turn a profit on their enforcement 2. The burden of proof/right to defense/notifications etc are all quite a lot easier for licensed entities like real estate brokers – that's kind of the entire point of licensure

Calavar 3mo ago

> They'll almost certainly spend more time and money on the process than is ever collected if this ever happens. The point of regulation isn't for the state to turn a profit. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that regulations that drive a monetary profit for the state are generally bad because they create a perverse incentive. For example, municipal governments adversely affect traffic flow by lowering speed limits because those lower speed limits generate more ticket revenue.

ElProlactin 3mo ago
You're right that the point of regulation isn't to turn a "profit" but the laws of economics always apply. If you have a fine of $100 for a widespread practice that costs $1,000 to collect, the state isn't going to magically allocate resource to applying it. You could create a private right of action for this, but that is its own bag of worms.
- estearum 3mo ago
  > If you have a fine of $100 for a widespread practice that costs $1,000 to collect, the state isn't going to magically allocate resource to applying it. Seems empirically false given e.g. the immense investment we make in counter-drug enforcement.
  - ElProlactin 3mo ago
    You're ignoring how much money and power is found in the drug enforcement industrial complex. The point of drug enforcement is not to stop the drug trade.
oblio 3mo ago
> municipal governments adversely affect traffic flow by lowering speed limits because those lower speed limits generate more ticket revenue. I don't know about the US because the US is weird, but: * at 30kmph the rate of fatalities in case of a car hitting a pedestrian is basically 0%, at 50kmph I think it's 5% or more * at 30kmph collisions are much easier to avoid due to the increased reaction time and the decreased braking distance (I don't remember the exact numbers) * at 30kmph you can hold a conversation at normal speech levels next to a moderately busy road, at 50kmph you will have to shout (and not even notice it due to the high ambient noise) Etc.

estearum 3mo ago

1. The point of laws is not to turn a profit on their enforcement 2. The burden of proof/right to defense/notifications etc are all quite a lot easier for licensed entities like real estate brokers – that's kind of the entire point of licensure