Comment by vouwfietsman
7 hours ago
> The claim that something is hard to do properly is an argument for doing it less often
I don't even believe that you believe this.
> the benefit is unambiguously large and staying away from borderline cases
If this was easy, don't you think maybe that's what people would be doing?
> if it wants testing done then it should pay for it from general revenue
???
So if I build a car, screw it up, have to test it 500 times just to pass and be allowed to sell it, that's the governments problem? If I open a bank and take peoples money, its up to the government to take initiative on making sure I'm not screwing them over?
> instead of imposing an unfunded mandate
What? So now any test the government mandates is an unfunded mandate? Like food tests?
This is obviously getting way to political because none of the arguments are making any sense, and are completely disconnected from reality.
I don't even consider myself pro regulation but this is just the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and shouting LALALALALALA.
> I don't even believe that you believe this.
Is your position that when something is intractably easy to screw up we should do it as much as possible?
> If this was easy, don't you think maybe that's what people would be doing?
Which people? The ones with a structural incentive to not do that?
> So if I build a car, screw it up, have to test it 500 times just to pass and be allowed to sell it, that's the governments problem?
It seems like it's still your problem because you want to sell the car and therefore want it to pass.
Whereas if the test is unreasonably expensive then the government has a problem, but the problem is of its own making and it now has the incentive to fix the problem instead of burdening someone else with it.
> If I open a bank and take peoples money, its up to the government to take initiative on making sure I'm not screwing them over?
It is indeed the role of law enforcement to enforce the laws.
> What? So now any test the government mandates is an unfunded mandate? Like food tests?
Is your argument that it isn't an unfunded mandate supposed to be that the test isn't mandated or that the government is actually funding it?
> Whereas if the test is unreasonably expensive then the government has a problem
There's a matter of scale here...
A single company doing the test(s) for itself
vs
The government paying for the tests for as many companies has happen to want to try their hand in the field.
Expecting the government to pay for testing for every company is, for most cases, unreasonable.
> Is your position that when something is intractably easy to screw up we should do it as much as possible?
No, if that was my position, you would've found out by me saying that was my position.
> Which people? The ones with a structural incentive to not do that?
Why would they have such an incentive? This is all hyperbole.
> but the problem is of its own making
It really isn't. Its expensive to test cars, and its also necessary for safety.
> It is indeed the role of law enforcement to enforce the laws.
Yes, which get codified as regulation.
> Is your argument that it isn't an unfunded mandate
Again, if my argument was something you would find out.
I'm saying what I'm saying: your arguments don't make sense, they are hyperbole, I am not defending or attacking a specific take on regulation, other than the take that, guess what, its hard.
> No, if that was my position, you would've found out by me saying that was my position.
That was the contrary to the thing you were originally incredulous about.
> Why would they have such an incentive?
Why would members of the government have a structural incentive to pass laws at the behest of special interests? Because they get money for it.
> It really isn't. Its expensive to test cars, and its also necessary for safety.
If it's worth more to the public than it costs then the public should pay for it. If it isn't worth more than it costs then it shouldn't be done. Why would either of these be a problem?
> Yes, which get codified as regulation.
If the bank takes your money and loses it at the casino, they're going to be in trouble, and they're supposed to be in trouble.
If the bank takes your money and it's all still in the vault and was never at any risk, but the government wants to punish them for letting you open an account in the name of your dog, or for not filing enough suspicious activity reports even if it requires filing them against innocent people, the government is wrong and the bank should not be in trouble for that.
> Again, if my argument was something you would find out.
Apparently I wouldn't, because there are only three options and you're not revealing which one you believe. Is it:
a) an unfunded mandate
b) not mandated
c) the government is funding it
That is the entire solution space, it has to be at least one of those, so which one is your position?
1 reply →
you'll be more at home over on https://www.reddit.com
This doesn't seem constructive.
Agreed, I'd say it's on par with:
"
What? So now any test the government mandates is an unfunded mandate? Like food tests?
This is obviously getting way to political because none of the arguments are making any sense, and are completely disconnected from reality.
I don't even consider myself pro regulation but this is just the equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and shouting LALALALALALA.
"
1 reply →