Comment by stego-tech
12 hours ago
While I am firmly in the “de-regulation is bad, because every single one of those is written in blood” camp, I also sympathize with startups and businesses desperately trying to innovate in a regulated market and being stymied by said bureaucracy.
What I’ve come around to is the exact opposite of most de-regulation stans: bigger government. The tradeoff for regulations from the government is having said government shoulder the burden of helping new businesses successfully navigate said regulations quickly and efficiently. It shouldn’t be on the small business owner or startup founder to trawl through thousands of pages of texts and attempt to figure out where their business sits within them, the government should instead have an ombudsman or agent - paid with by tax dollars from successful businesses - work full-time with that business to figure things out.
Want to start a bar? Here’s the application for a liquor license, here’s the plain-language requirements for accessibility and hygiene, here’s a taxpayer-supported payroll system to ensure labor law compliance, and here’s the map of areas where you can setup shop without requiring a separate permit process.
Of course, the problem with said approach is that it requires funding, which requires more tax revenue, which means higher taxes. Under the current neoliberal, laissez-faire Capitalism system in the USA, that simply isn’t happening at present, if for no other reason than established players have captured regulatory agencies and government officials to deliberately hamstring new businesses.
Selling deregulation in business, especially “hardtech”, is exactly what those ghouls want. Don’t take the bait. Be better, even if it’s harder.
The reality is that many, many regulations are not in fact written in blood.
And many, many of them are written in Lawful Good/Neutral/Evil people trying to enact their will in the system; however,
in all cases, Chesterton's Fence is a good reminder.
Liquor licenses shouldn't exist, and private payroll systems are perfectly functional, so I have no interest in paying for it.
Private payroll systems are expensive, and all the risk remains with the purchaser. Why are they expensive? There is limited competition (often through acquisition) and the product is sold just below the price that the majority of companies would find an alternative. What results is no development and improvement of payroll, but instead companies incentivised to create complexity moats through regulation.
If the government is forced to provide at least one working payroll system for free or reasonable cost then private companies compete with specific verticals and ease of use. And when the government wants to change how payroll works for some third benefit... they just can.
There is no meaningful improvement to be made in payroll systems. They just have to get it right, and they almost always do. And they aren't expensive. When I ran a business the payroll system wasn't even expensive enough to even be on the radar for ways to cut costs.
If the accessibility and hygiene laws can be explained in plain language, why not just write them in plain language?
If labor laws can be automated by software why not just make them simpler?
If you can make a map to explain the permitting process why not just simplify the process?
If you made the regulations less complex and excessive you wouldn’t need to add another layer of bureaucracy to explain them.
It's a stopgap measure until such time that an entire country's bureaucracy can be rewritten to meet the needs of its populace, rather than its legislators and elites.
Aside from laws being written the way they are (because the legal system is highly verbose and incredibly specific, which necessitates said language), I'm generally in agreement with you! Maps should be publicly available and kept up-to-date so citizens can quickly glance at them to identify potential business locations that have lower permitting requirements, and said permitting processes should be handled by the government rather than forcing new business owners to shell out for expensive attorneys and compliance officers right off the bat.
It's about balancing the needs of small business for flexibility and adaptability with limited resources, with the regulations needed to keep larger business interests from exploiting and monopolizing markets to the point of harming third-parties (consumers, small businesses, governments, the environment, etc). Striking that balance is hard, and maintaining it over time harder still, but it can be done without resorting to either extreme.
How do any of the examples you gave keep larger business interests from exploiting and monopolizing markets?