3 ms·

Piracy illustrates the fact that it's not possible to regulate 3D printing, but even if it were possible, it would be 100% wrong. I don't know how it ever beca

by gnu8 14y ago

Piracy illustrates the fact that it's not possible to regulate 3D printing, but even if it were possible, it would be 100% wrong. I don't know how it ever became generally accepted that every possible object and action must be regulated by the nanny state. Pretty soon that idea will be dead forever.

yareally 14y ago
It's quite funny that people generally dislike how their government works (regardless of country), but have less issue with it passing new laws and regulations that help to perpetuate that general dislike.
brazzy 14y ago
> I don't know how it ever became generally accepted that every possible object and action must be regulated by the nanny state. Strawman. That's not generally accepted, not even seriously suggested by anyone except strawmen-builders. The generally accepted idea is that it's the job of any state to regulate actions that cause serious harm to people. Disagreements abound about what actions exactly count as causing harm, and what form the regulations should take; specifically how far they should go in preventing such actions instead of just punishing them.
- yareally 14y ago
  I agree that it can be a strawman to say that in certain contexts. My general issue with regulations and laws is not that they're passed and used as a preventative, but that much of the time they're generally "kneejerk reactions" to whatever the hot topic is in the news at the moment. Usually means they're rarely well thought out as to what the consequences of such regulation will be in the future and tend to be full of self-interests that go against what the law/regulation is supposed to prevent in the first place. Such laws are also time-sensitive to politicians, since they feel they need to push it out while the issue is still interesting to the majority of voters. All of that just makes for what will most likely be a bad law/regulation more than a good one. Politicians end up viewing new laws on top of old laws as an easy way to make people shut up about an issue for the time being instead of making people take responsibility and deal with the reason the law is supposidly needed in the first place. Makes them look good and something concrete they can point to that they did something while elected when elections come around. If there were more discussion about whether a law is needed and the consequences, there would probably be less complaining about such laws and regulations further down the road and make everyone a bit less disgruntled even if everyone cannot be happy.
- nirvana 14y ago
  " it's the job of any state to regulate actions that cause serious harm to people." Shooting someone is already a crime and always has been. Posessing a magazine with more than 7 rounds is not an action at all, and does not harm anyone. The reason the parent used the word "nanny state" is because he's describing laws that prohibit things for which there is no victim. Possessing a magazine does not cause harm to anyone. There are already laws against causing harm to people.
  - brazzy 14y ago
    >Shooting someone is already a crime and always has been. However, punishing people who do it does not make those they shot come back to life. Preventing harm is generally much more desirable than punishing those who cause it afterwards. And no, punishment does not do much to prevent mass shootings. Not having a large magazine IS it least somewhat effective to limit the damage one person can do. Now the question is what preventive regulations are effective and whether their side effects are accceptable. I do have to wonder what exactly are the unacceptable side effects of disallowing large magazines.
Nrsolis 14y ago
IIRC in Texas, they regulate the sale of Erlenmeyer flasks: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RegulatoryServices/narcotics/narcprecursor.htm http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RegulatoryServices/narcotics/na... http://www.crscientific.com/texas-glassware.html http://www.crscientific.com/texas-glassware.html Keep in mind that TX generally has a pro-gun population.

by gnu8 14y ago

yareally 14y ago

It's quite funny that people generally dislike how their government works (regardless of country), but have less issue with it passing new laws and regulations that help to perpetuate that general dislike.

brazzy 14y ago

> I don't know how it ever became generally accepted that every possible object and action must be regulated by the nanny state. Strawman. That's not generally accepted, not even seriously suggested by anyone except strawmen-builders. The generally accepted idea is that it's the job of any state to regulate actions that cause serious harm to people. Disagreements abound about what actions exactly count as causing harm, and what form the regulations should take; specifically how far they should go in preventing such actions instead of just punishing them.

yareally 14y ago
I agree that it can be a strawman to say that in certain contexts. My general issue with regulations and laws is not that they're passed and used as a preventative, but that much of the time they're generally "kneejerk reactions" to whatever the hot topic is in the news at the moment. Usually means they're rarely well thought out as to what the consequences of such regulation will be in the future and tend to be full of self-interests that go against what the law/regulation is supposed to prevent in the first place. Such laws are also time-sensitive to politicians, since they feel they need to push it out while the issue is still interesting to the majority of voters. All of that just makes for what will most likely be a bad law/regulation more than a good one. Politicians end up viewing new laws on top of old laws as an easy way to make people shut up about an issue for the time being instead of making people take responsibility and deal with the reason the law is supposidly needed in the first place. Makes them look good and something concrete they can point to that they did something while elected when elections come around. If there were more discussion about whether a law is needed and the consequences, there would probably be less complaining about such laws and regulations further down the road and make everyone a bit less disgruntled even if everyone cannot be happy.
nirvana 14y ago
" it's the job of any state to regulate actions that cause serious harm to people." Shooting someone is already a crime and always has been. Posessing a magazine with more than 7 rounds is not an action at all, and does not harm anyone. The reason the parent used the word "nanny state" is because he's describing laws that prohibit things for which there is no victim. Possessing a magazine does not cause harm to anyone. There are already laws against causing harm to people.
- brazzy 14y ago
  >Shooting someone is already a crime and always has been. However, punishing people who do it does not make those they shot come back to life. Preventing harm is generally much more desirable than punishing those who cause it afterwards. And no, punishment does not do much to prevent mass shootings. Not having a large magazine IS it least somewhat effective to limit the damage one person can do. Now the question is what preventive regulations are effective and whether their side effects are accceptable. I do have to wonder what exactly are the unacceptable side effects of disallowing large magazines.

Nrsolis 14y ago

IIRC in Texas, they regulate the sale of Erlenmeyer flasks: http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RegulatoryServices/narcotics/narcprecursor.htm http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/RegulatoryServices/narcotics/na... http://www.crscientific.com/texas-glassware.html http://www.crscientific.com/texas-glassware.html Keep in mind that TX generally has a pro-gun population.