Mainly thinking about this because of some of the comments in this post here, but I do think while what we currently have right now is way too much regulation.
Some examples of 'good regulation' in my opinion would be the existence of drivers' licenses, 'right to repair' laws, the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and building codes.
While some notable 'bad regulation' is anything to do with 2A restrictions and the modern health care industry.
Overall, I'm just trying to gauge what is good vs bad regulation.
Drivers' licenses don't keep bad drivers off the road. And they don't keep unlicensed drivers off the road.
You're right, but this is likely of those cases where it seems like they do nothing because we're used to a status quo where they're working.
Yeah, there are plenty of bad and unlicensed drivers on the road. Now imagine that everyone of age (is there still an age limit?) was just thrown the keys w/o any instruction as to things like "right of way." Shit would probably look like India. Bad drivers exist, but they're not all bad drivers.
in theory, they do create a ticket to ride where the funds go to maintenance of said roads.
In practice it's just another tax that gets dumped into the black hole that is government budget.
I think that's usually paid for by vehicle registration, not driver's licenses. You could consider that a subscription to the road system rather than licensure regulation, assuming you got rid of smog and that other shit.
That and fuel taxes.
And they keep tacking on the arbitrary hurdles for young drivers to actually get them.
Then handing them out to illegals as fast as they can print them out
Only because I'm not in charge of handing them out and summarily executing anyone and everyone who drives without said license.
/s
...mostly.
Does something have to prevent an evil outright to be a good thing? Or is it a good thing when the good outweighs the bad, perhaps by a lot?
What if driver's licenses keep the worst drivers off the road, or at least many of them, or allow for an appropriate punishment when they do cause mayhem?
Just make 'causing mayhem' illegal and punish it appropriately then.
Driver's licenses keep the worst drivers off the road in the same way that gun laws keep guns out of the hands of the worst criminals.
It isn't about too much or too little, it is about good vs bad for purpose.
Milk can't contain lead is good regulation, farmers can't sell properly labeled raw milk to whoever wants to buy it is bad regulation.
Your example of drivers licenses is actually an example of bad regulation. Because its one that only inconveniences the law abiding. Illegals and niggers drive without licenses all the time. And it really does nothing to ensure the quality of drivers. All it does is give the government leverage over mostly working class (White) men that can be used as a cudgel when the men do something that the city elites disapprove of, like missing child support payments or daring to drive themselves home from a bar.
Right to repair is only fixable by overhauling IP law which is something that is so convoluted I wouldn't trust any remotely relevant politician to touch because they are all retarded.
"health care" is broken first because in a low trust society you can't apply reasonableness tests to anything, and second because it is intentionally bolloxed up because the confusopoly benefits the insurance industry, the investor class, and their pet politicians.
this will probably be unpopular, but I do think regulation is necessary at a base level.
in theory, regulation ensures a base level of quality for products sold on the market. For instance, the FDA ensures that the food you buy at the supermarket won't kill you or make you sick (at least, not immediately), and insures the tools are available to identify allergens for customers. building codes ensure that any house on the real estate market will at least be structurally sound.
Other regulations like speed limits ensure a baseline for public behavior, and give a metric for cops to be able to arrest people who are putting others in danger.
While we do have a ton of over regulation right now (looking at you CAFE standards!), the bigger problem is corruption within the regulating authorities. we saw with covid that there is a revolving door between big pharma executives and the FDA. with that kind of power, the pharmaceutical companies can get the regulating authorities to give them sweetheart deals, while creating regulations that destroy their competition. I'm willing to bet this issue is not unique to the pharma industry, not by a long shot.
there needs to be a mechanism within our government to eliminate conflict of interest between regulating authorities and the institution they are supposed to be regulating. if that mechanism already exists, it needs to be enforced.
The type of regulations you're talking about exist to create trust in situations where there is no preexisting relationship between the parties. However, in many cases they needn't be proactive (you must be licenced/inspected/approved beforehand) but could be reactive (if your actions cause harm you will be punished accordingly.) In most cases I think I'd prefer regulations be more reactive on a smaller scale and only be proactive when dealing with larger projects/organizations, but I don't yet have a particularly well defined idea of where the line is where you should move from reactive to proactive.
I suppose a decent example of what you mean is a basic level of bureaucratic requirements and paperwork, maybe some regular inspections as need-be, responses to consumer concerns and whistleblowers, and then of course punitive courses of action for those that are discovered for not only failing to comply with regulations but also managing to cause active harm.
The FDA, at least as it pertains to the food industry, is a reasonably decent example to what's sort of ideal, like Heretic indicated. Although the FDA has been massively dropping the ball on things like baby food and baby formula in recent years, by not actively pursuing reports and instead responding to concern with pure skepticism...
Most regulations these days are being used by mega corps to squash competition. Coke can pay a 100k a month nuisance fee for using unregulated x y z. Mom & Pop Soda Co. can't even sell their stuff at a farmer's market without the state coming down on them.
It's why you'll see big business doing PR ads, lobbying for things you would think would harm their bottom line, but it keeps out competition. It's corrupt.
Not that I'm a smoker or a vaper, but that is a great example. Big Tobacco demonized the vaping market with 'Think of the children!" nation-wide ads / regulation, until they caught up with their own product.
I'm in favor of minimal regulation. I want the state bureaucracy as small and less intrusive as possible. Make common sense regulations that give judges/juries wider powers. Just basic shit like, don't put poison in products. Don't clear cut without variety replanting. Don't make lake/river/soil/air toxic. Then don't allow the big corps to hire their own 'scientists'. The FDA has this bizarre system where Big Corps (looking at you pharma and aggriculture) get to submit their own research and they just go, 'ok'. When they are funded ridiculous amounts to be able to discover their own facts.
Who regulates the regulators?
In a high trust society, reasonable regulations can be agreed upon and enforced fairly. In our current corrupt low trust hellscape, I don't trust the government to regulate a damn thing. They have shown over and over again that our wellbeing is the very last thing they care about.
In a "high trust" (homogeneous) society regulations are largely unnecessary because violating societal standards results naturally in some sort of exclusion from that society. Regulations/laws are only necessary to deal with situations where people disagree.
How much poison is too much poison?
When it starts killing you.
It is the dose that makes the poison.
Ignorant and incorrect, as per your usual. Quite a few things are lethal at any dose, or else something you don't want to intake. Dimethyl mercury for example, or iodine 131.
They can have uses, but it doesn't make them not inherently poisonous.
And some toxic chemicals build up in the system over time, while the body's unable to clean it out fast enough.
Fun fact: Higher doses of I-131 can be less dangerous than low does because the high dose kills cell while the lower doses mutate them into cancer. So Antonio is right, in that case sort of. Just probably not for the right reasons.
Iodine in this instance being one of those things "you don't want to intake", as I said in the last part of the sentence.
If somebody said you could fund roads by making everyone in the town take a shot of iodine 131 once a year, you'd hang the fucker.
Do you not know well-known proverbs? Regardless, even something that is not poison, like olive oil, can kill you if you consume enough of it.
Do you not know highschool chemistry?
Do... you even read your own posts or just downvote his automatically? That is a restatement of the same concept and you just lash out automatically
My original statement clearly wasn't sarcastic enough, although I thought my following posts made it clear. Whoosh nonetheless I suppose, can't really convey tone on the internet.
This is a spin on the "how many poison M&Ms would you eat?" meme, although that was posited about immigration.
Because liberals answer the immigration question, and basically every other question in the same vein, by essentially saying they'll keep eating and making others eat even after somebody dies.
Regulations are poisonous. You shouldn't eat any amount of poison, even if you think you have it figured out to not die. Particularly in this extended metaphor of society, because society works more slowly than the body does. You can poison society to death way before the obvious symptoms arise visibly.
There, I've ruined the joke. Make sense now?
A prohibition on murder is a regulation. The composition of currency is a regulation. You're just full retard
I think a lot of issues in the modern world which have become the remit of the state used to be managed by religious bodies instead. Having the church as a balancing force for the state allows for another mechanism of enforcement of order in society. You don't have to make laws for everything when people broadly agree on what is considered good and evil.
The best kind of regulation is, of course, self-regulation, but in my opinion the only way that you will even get close to this for the majority of people is some kind of guilt or shame culture. That relies on people being raised with the same myths, and the same belief in divine judgement.
It also requires a racially homogeneous society. Dieversity and societal trust have a correlation that's close to -1.
I think a lot of regulation exists because in modernity it's extremely difficult to punish large actors who cause harm. Because of that, we have a lot of regulation so as to make it extremely difficult to cause harm. Because ultimately it's the only tool we have at our disposal to reduce the probability of occurrence.
With the most recent vaccine we saw the effects of getting rid of a lot of the regulations: it's not as safe/effective as most vaccines are, and since it's impossible to punish the manufacturers for that we probably need to bring that regulation back.
So I guess my answer to that question is "we probably have as much as we need, but if we want to need less we need to tip the scales toward being more able to punish wrongdoing/harm"
Percent revenue fines with hard minimums would hurt any firm and larger firms with more overhead the most. The reason why that isn't done is because it would actually hurt. Banks regularly break the law because the penalties for getting caught are lower than the benefits of shiy like signing people up for accounts without their knowledge. If bad behavior brings in more than it costs then the fines are just a cost of doing business, not a punishment.
Floggings would also hurt.
You cannot flog an incorporeal entity
You can flog the executives in charge of it.
Then you just guarantee we get masochistic sociopaths in charge. The kind that REALLY don't understand why people got mad at them for torturing cats as a kid, after all they were just showing them a good time.
Virtually none. I'm coming close to being borderline on law enforcement existing at all for criminal matters.
The only regulations that make sense to me are enforcement of contract and environmental concerns. Everything else functions just fine on its own OR regulation is far more destructive than just letting things be.
Ideally everyone should self-regulate
do you mean laws? without is anarchy.
Looking at regulations purely from the perspective of 'not enough' vs 'too much' is missing a huge chunk of the picture. There is a very limited set of regulations which are universally applicable, and they tend to be a little harder to enforce legally (can you imagine a government trying to enforce 'love your neighbor as yourself'?) Regulations need to fit the circumstances and people they are regulating, and without specifying exactly who is being regulated you can't really have his discussion.
I have more thoughts on this that I might post later, when I'm not out and about.
The ideal amount of regulation is the least amount of regulation possible.
Driver's licenses are terrible regulations by the way.
Right to repair laws are also terrible regulations.
Building codes and warranty acts are also terrible regulations.
You are right about the bad regulations.
For the ideal amount of regulation take whatever the average person thinks is good regulation and cut it down by about 90% then we're closer to the ideal.
Why?
Everything you cite as a bad regulation is the opposite. Expand on why you want people who can't answer simple written questions and pass a basic practical exam to be allowed to command tons of metal at over a mile a minute through your town.
Edit: handshake account and most posts are removed as a result of being banned from communities. Okay.
That means what I'm posting is truth. Don't you remember 2015 and 2020? If the mods are banning you when you aren't spamming or posting anything illegal then what you're saying is the right thing and it's highly effective.
Wrong
Driver's license - As you pointed out, it's a bunch of simple questions anyone can answer. That means it's worthless at creating any sort of standard. All it is, is needless red-tape and costs to the public for 0 gain. If someone can't drive, they're going to get pulled over by the cops for violating laws anyhow or into accident as you suggest, though not necessarily dangerous ones. Most people actually do care about their own life too and aren't just going to immediate hop in a car and kill someone. The dangerous drivers are going to drive regardless of having a license or not. Just reduce immigration to 0 and deport all non-Whites from your country. That will improve the average driving quality with or without any licensing.
Right to repair - If you don't like the seller making it impossible to repair their product then don't buy their product. Simple. It's completely and utterly unneeded regulation which in the end will only stifle innovation and add additional unforeseen costs without gain.
Building codes and warranty acts - Again, if you don't like the product, don't buy it. Building codes add significant additional costs to buildings for gains that many people may not necessarily need. Better to have a larger discrepancy in quality of housing and thus a larger price range from low-high than it is to set a minimum standard for housing thus raising the minimum cost for housing and making housing more unaffordable. The public would eventually learn how to understand warranties themselves and the government doesn't need to intervene. There's already legislation around misrepresentation/fraud and the warranties act is unneeded.
Nice try pajeet.
Conservatives used to argue against driver's licenses. I guess you can make an argument against them. But requiring insurance, even if it's an insurance with a 100% payment, is reasonable so you don't go around wrecking other people and their cars without compensation.
Building codes. Can be good or bad. In Europe, our excessive regulations have made building so expensive that it's almost impossible, and in many places, homes are almost unaffordable.
The interesting thing is that even as regulation has gone too far in some areas, it has been sorely lacking in places where even people like Hayek advocated for a state role, namely the prevention of monopolies.
I'll still argue against driver's licenses. And insurance.
Because you know what they used to do to determined menaces like that? Kill them, or enslave them if they couldn't make recourse.
And that worked better than what we have right now in modern times. Because it actually punished wrongdoing instead of heaping a burden onto the rest of the population.
cars only cost as much as they do because the government can't stop sticking their dick where it doesn't belong.
Instead what is has done is have people treat cars as expensive toys with a load of scams helped along by the legal industry to push up prices.
When people speak of a driving loicence they really mean the person has been trained or tested to drive properly instead of something that lets the state fuck about with peoples rides.