Comment by purple_turtle

5 hours ago

> 'we need less regulation' is never the right answer

Sometimes it is. For example some countries had or have regulation that only nobles can work in specific professions or wear specific clothes or live in specific places. Some had the same but race-based.

This entire class of regulation deserved to be thrown out. And yes, at least partially there are claims how it was necessary for safety or whatever else.

There are are also some dumb taxes with bad side effects like tax on windows.

Some regulation is terrible and deserves to be removed rather than replaced or improved.

I think you may be misinterpreting the point. It's not that we never need less regulation, this may be the case. We should never make 'less regulation' the target. The right regulation may be less in some cases.

  • Less regulation is a good target.

    Just not sole one.

    Harm reduction (a good reason for regulation) also needs to be balanced with it.

    But piles of regulation have costs - both in reduction of competitiveness, increasing expenses, reducing willingness of people to follow and support it and so on.

    Regulation is bad, just it is often less bad than alternatives.

    But reducing amount of regulation is a good goal.

    Otherwise you end in situation where you need lawyer to understand anything, you are not allowed to throw torn socks into garbage and general population applauds people breaking law and happily support it.

    • "Less regulation is a good target" is only true under regimes where good faith outcomes can be expected without regulation. Given the frequency with which financial incentives align with undesirable outcomes there's no evidence to support this idea.

      1 reply →

  • What we "we need" is less corruption, this means better educations, educations that actually teach the secondary considerations of why these regulations exist, and how many corruptions they prevent. Then that education should continue with how our over regulated situation is caused by not teaching critical analysis such that these corruptions look like a good idea at all, they become exploited, and the end result is over regulation.

  • > It's not that we never need less regulation

    this would be going against

    > 'we need less regulation' is never the right answer