6 ms·

> '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

> '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.

PxldLtd 10mo ago
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.
- maccard 10mo ago
  https://grugbrain.dev/#grug-on-complexity https://grugbrain.dev/#grug-on-complexity I think this section on complexity sums it up really well whether you’re talking about code or laws
- purple_turtle 10mo ago
  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.
  - forgetfreeman 10mo ago
    "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.
    - tbrownaw 10mo ago
      Regulations aren't free. Say someone silly makes a rule that your need X hours of training annually to be an interior decorator. Now besides the training, you also have to know that that's required, you have to maintain records to prove you've had the training, the government needs a process for verifying that you've had the training, ...
      - rstupek 10mo ago
        Unfortunately your silly rule is something that exists (not for interior decorators of course) but for countless other trade jobs (barber, plumber, etc). Whether that's good or bad I can't say
        novok 10mo ago
        It does exist! https://occupationallicensing.com/occupation/interior-designer/ https://occupationallicensing.com/occupation/interior-design... Yes, it has gotten that bad.
        forgetfreeman 10mo ago
        It's unambiguously good, and that's coming from the perspective of someone who is routinely frustrated by regulations around residential plumbing and electrical work. It would be utterly insane to remove minimum credential and testing requirements from trades where fucking up results in catastrophic damage to a structure, fires, etc.
        johnnyanmac 10mo ago
        >Whether that's good or bad I can't say I personally see it as good. Why wouldn't I want someone I trust with my hair or pipes to not have something to vouch for them? It's only a downside if you see cost as the most important thing about all else. The clear consequence is that a trained barber/plumber will require higher compensation to make up for the training, and due to less supply since not everyone will be able to get a license.
- purple_turtle 10mo ago
  > It's not that we never need less regulation this would be going against > 'we need less regulation' is never the right answer
- bsenftner 10mo ago
  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.
  - bluGill 10mo ago
    Or will education make things worse by teaching groups how to use corruption to create even more regulations that benefits them against everything else.
    - bsenftner 10mo ago
      I tend to be in the camp that educating people in general is better than not; we've been trying the "educate people in narrow silos" approach, but that creates a really gullible population. Which is kind of why things are in such a mess.
    - johnnyanmac 10mo ago
      >by teaching groups how to use corruption to create even more regulations more people who learn corruption is massively outbalanced by more people who will be civilly active and realize "this is bad for us, let's vote him out". As it is now, they simply trick the non-active people into thinking their corruption is good. See: 2024 national US elections.
- taeric 10mo ago
  I feel this is exactly the same as efficiency. It isn't that we want inefficient solutions. But aiming for efficiency as a target often produces perverse incentives.

PxldLtd 10mo ago

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.

maccard 10mo ago
https://grugbrain.dev/#grug-on-complexity https://grugbrain.dev/#grug-on-complexity I think this section on complexity sums it up really well whether you’re talking about code or laws
purple_turtle 10mo ago
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.
- forgetfreeman 10mo ago
  "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.
  - tbrownaw 10mo ago
    Regulations aren't free. Say someone silly makes a rule that your need X hours of training annually to be an interior decorator. Now besides the training, you also have to know that that's required, you have to maintain records to prove you've had the training, the government needs a process for verifying that you've had the training, ...
    - rstupek 10mo ago
      Unfortunately your silly rule is something that exists (not for interior decorators of course) but for countless other trade jobs (barber, plumber, etc). Whether that's good or bad I can't say
      - novok 10mo ago
        It does exist! https://occupationallicensing.com/occupation/interior-designer/ https://occupationallicensing.com/occupation/interior-design... Yes, it has gotten that bad.
      - forgetfreeman 10mo ago
        It's unambiguously good, and that's coming from the perspective of someone who is routinely frustrated by regulations around residential plumbing and electrical work. It would be utterly insane to remove minimum credential and testing requirements from trades where fucking up results in catastrophic damage to a structure, fires, etc.
      - johnnyanmac 10mo ago
        >Whether that's good or bad I can't say I personally see it as good. Why wouldn't I want someone I trust with my hair or pipes to not have something to vouch for them? It's only a downside if you see cost as the most important thing about all else. The clear consequence is that a trained barber/plumber will require higher compensation to make up for the training, and due to less supply since not everyone will be able to get a license.
purple_turtle 10mo ago
> It's not that we never need less regulation this would be going against > 'we need less regulation' is never the right answer
bsenftner 10mo ago
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.
- bluGill 10mo ago
  Or will education make things worse by teaching groups how to use corruption to create even more regulations that benefits them against everything else.
  - bsenftner 10mo ago
    I tend to be in the camp that educating people in general is better than not; we've been trying the "educate people in narrow silos" approach, but that creates a really gullible population. Which is kind of why things are in such a mess.
  - johnnyanmac 10mo ago
    >by teaching groups how to use corruption to create even more regulations more people who learn corruption is massively outbalanced by more people who will be civilly active and realize "this is bad for us, let's vote him out". As it is now, they simply trick the non-active people into thinking their corruption is good. See: 2024 national US elections.
taeric 10mo ago
I feel this is exactly the same as efficiency. It isn't that we want inefficient solutions. But aiming for efficiency as a target often produces perverse incentives.