3 ms·
Regulatory stupidity is hardly limited to the government though. Have you never tried to implement a Microsoft "standard"? While UL is certainly nice enough, h
by mpyne 13y ago
Regulatory stupidity is hardly limited to the government though. Have you never tried to implement a Microsoft "standard"?
While UL is certainly nice enough, how many people know to look for it when they buy appliances? And how does this avoid in general the problem that if UL becomes too onerous, the affected appliance makers simply start their own voluntary licensing firm with better results?
"Oh, but people would never fall for that!" Sure they would, that was the whole point to the "Intel Inside" marketing campaign.
So while I deeply appreciate the types of examples you point out (getting to see them every day from within the bowels of Mount DoD), I worry that when people talk about the problems with "government _______" that they focus on 'government' and don't pay attention at all to the inherent problems with _______.
But just as government can't fix the issues inherent in problems, they are not always the inherent problem themselves.
(P.S. guess who is the only entity to ever tell me to 'look for UL'?... the government, that's who, during our yearly fire safety briefs).
- tjic 13y ago> Regulatory stupidity is hardly limited to the government though. Have you never tried to implement a Microsoft "standard"? Indeed, regulations can suck no matter who creates them. The great thing about the non-governmental world is that there are CHOICES. I vote with my feet (and my dollars, and my contributions). I switch from MSFT to Red Hat, from Red Hat to Debian, from Debian to Ubuntu.
- enraged_camel 13y ago>>The great thing about the non-governmental world is that there are CHOICES. I don't know about that. Where I live, the only Internet provider available is Comcast. I would guess that many people here have the exact same problem. Sometimes regulation can eliminate choices, but at other times it can enable them. For example, when the government forces cab companies (via regulation) to not discriminate based on neighborhood income, what it is doing is creating more choices for areas people can live in comfortably without worrying about whether they will have a fairly essential service (i.e. transportation). Tell me: how would libertarianism solve that problem?
- NegativeK 13y agoWhile I disagree with its premises (which makes me a devil's advocate, I suppose,) the response to something like Comcast is that the government is involved in setting up ISP monopolies/duopolies.
- mpyne 13y agoJust like government setup Standard Oil? Government is involved in regulating Comcast, for sure. But as far as I can tell the issues that make telecommunications hard for new entrants has more to do with the sheer cost of building-out a suitable network than any amount of government regulation.
- brianpgordon 13y agoNo, usually the local government actually grants a literal monopoly to a single telecom for a period of time. Their justification is that the telecom is making a big investment in building infrastructure, and there's no way a company would take that risk without some assurances of profit.
- mpyne 13y agoJust remember there's sometimes a high cost of switching. At some point the costs become so high that it's possible the costs become comparable to the costs to switch to an entirely different government, too.