Comment by _rm
7 months ago
Mischaracterizing the issue, which is people handing over (or having taken from them) responsibility, to the state, for something they should be taking responsibility for.
No chance your father or your joiner friend hadn't seen those ads of the saws which automatically stop on contact. But they chose not to buy one, because they decided they didn't need one. They had that choice. Or if before those existed, to use a hand saw.
Regulation is nothing more than saying "we're superior to you in making choices for you, so we'll do so". And it's made not by efficient innovative geniuses, but by the same people who run the DMV. And it's not imposed on children by parents, it's on grown adults by other grown adults with no legal accountability. And it ossifies technology by locking in certain measures which will quickly drift out of date. And, as we've seen with the FDA and Opioids, it gives a get out of jail free card to wrongdoers who game the rules, because they can point to their compliance and say "so look, we followed the rules, we shouldn't be liable".
It's just unbelievable people think regulation is in any way a good thing.
> which is people handing over (or having taken from them) responsibility, to the state, for something they should be taking responsibility for.
> It's just unbelievable people think regulation is in any way a good thing.
In general, there are many cases that most people cannot really take responsibility for. For example, if you hit a person with a car that can mean they’ll lose their income and need specialized care for decades. Such costs can run in the millions.
Now, you can argue people should take insurance against that risk. Problem is: some people won’t, and victims won’t be compensated,. If, then, you think the state should take on those costs, doesn’t the state have a say in what kinds of cars you can drive, for example that they have various safety features?
Also, this doesn’t only apply to cases where you injury others. If people get into an accident that leaves them with health costs they can’t afford to pay, we expect society to, at least partly pay up.
I think that argument applies here, too. Saw accidents can and do make lots of persons lose health and future income. In many cases, it’s the state that will have to pay up to cover that.
>but by the same people who run the DMV
I wish people would stop digging on the DMV. I have had multiple positive experiences with the DMV
> It's just unbelievable people think regulation is in any way a good thing.
I dunno man, I kinda like when there’s some sort of enforcement making sure there’s not toxic waste in my food beyond hoping I find out later and a remedy even exists to make me whole. But you do you, anarchy’s worked every other time it’s been tried right?
Anarchy isn't the only solution, but it makes a great knee-jerk reaction when trust fails. Probably the more valued (ie, safety, food, etc) the more the radical the reaction, I would guess.
I’m not even for or against this specific regulation as I haven’t read enough about the technology or the field to come to a determination. However the poster I responded to was basically arguing that regulations are definitionally bad things and that is comically incorrect even if I give some benefit of doubt to the statement
Ah yes a reply that is in no way doing any mischaracterizing itself. Great job!