Comment by RHSeeger
10 hours ago
Yeah, this whole argument sounds a lot like
company> These regulations are preventing us from selling our product
government> We have a set of standards that your type of product must meet; because we believe not meeting them is dangerous to society.
company> But, our products don't meet those standards, and we can't sell them... and since selling them is what our business plan is, we're going to go out of business
government> And? I'm not seeing the problem here.
It is part of government's job to decide what is safe for society and, where something isn't safe, decide if the harm in preventing it outweighs the good in doing so.
>It is part of government's job to decide what is safe for society and, where something isn't safe, decide if the harm in preventing it outweighs the good in doing so.
And they are quite often very wrong, trying to be seen to be acting rather than making considered changes.
That's an argument to do better, not to avoid doing at all.
That's a pretty disingenuous interpretation. It's a lot more like:
Company > we are selling something that's legal.
Government > well now you have to do X. (Testing? Certification? Reporting?)
Company > why? X industry doesn't have this reg. Europe/ the next state over doesn't have this reg?
Government> because I'm the government and its my job
Company > fine
Repeat 4x.
> Company, um we did they last 4 things you asked us to and if we have to do the next we are going to go out of business.
> Gov: get fucked, I'm just doing my job: read [I have an ideological problem with your business, my buddy is in the business and I'm giving him an exception, and/or I've got a special interest group to please].
>Public: cheers
>Public: Why is their a housing shortage? Why is our manufacturing less competitive than China? Why do we need to import rare earths?