7 ms·

>Individual regulations, each reasonable in isolation... Every single one of these rules that amounts to death by a thousand cuts preventing these sorts of bus

>Individual regulations, each reasonable in isolation... Every single one of these rules that amounts to death by a thousand cuts preventing these sorts of businesses (as well as many others) will be rabidly defended by many/most if presented in the abstract. That sort of inability to reason about the forest based on what you're doing to the trees is the root problem. And it's a social/ideological/moral one, even if it expresses itself via governments. It's no more "reasonable in isolation" to peddle rules than it is to justify littering in the park because they don't take effect in isolation. If everyone does it everything goes to crap and we all know it so we don't let anyone justify littering in the park using the effect in isolation.

HPsquared 8mo ago
And nobody who sells $4 lunch bowls will have enough cash left over to lobby for rule changes in their favour.
mothballed 8mo ago
[flagged]
- floatrock 8mo ago
  I think you missed the whole point of the story about being able to open up a micro-eatery in front of your home. You know, where you live and want to build up a community. Back when we used to be great, didn't we idolize the local bar where everyone knows your name? That's what these neighborhood shops are. No one wants to go where you'll be poisoned through food contamination. Food safety regulations are a good thing. But when you try to apply the same regulations to a 150-patrons-per-hour fast food operation as you do to a 4 seat neighborhood micro-eatery, well, you're claiming they all have the same 1-size-fits-all risk profile and the end result is you make an entire class of entrepreneurship unattainable. That's not freedom, that's restriction.
  - mothballed 8mo ago
    Having lived in 3rd world I do find food safety regulations to be a bad thing. You can get sick as rarely as you do in regulated countries by following some simple rules in places without regulations. I go to places where I can watch the food being prepared. And make sure it is hot when you eat it. Simple things like this. I have not gotten sick in places like Syria, Iraq, Philippines, etc any more than I do in the US by following simple rules. Yes you have to pay attention but to be honest, you should be applying these rules in USA too, because food inspector and zoning mostly there to protect big business through barrier of entry; they don't actually do that good a job of inspecting or enforcing the rules. The plus here is in places without these regulation the street is full of these tasty food vendors, even more than Japan. It is well worth the lack of safety regulations.
falcor84 8mo ago
I really enjoyed Lex Fridman's interview with Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson on this topic, as part of their book tour for Abundance. Even if I disagree with some of their proposals, I really liked their focus and clarification of the issue. We should be mindful of the POSIWID principle and be talking a lot more about the results of our policies. https://youtu.be/DTPSeeKokdo https://youtu.be/DTPSeeKokdo
- throw0101d 8mo ago
  > POSIWID * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...
Analemma_ 8mo ago
This is why the "let's slash regulations and cut the size of the government to let business prosper" pitch seems so appealing, and yet never seems to work in practice. The problem is, these kinds of deregulatory pushes always imagine that there are a bunch of price-increasing regulations set up by unaccountable bureaucrats somewhere, and that we can tear those down while making the system simultaneously cheaper and more democratic. A win-win! Supposedly. The problem is, that's not really how it works. There are a bunch of regulations made by bureaucrats, but those tend to be the pretty arcane ones which are necessary but aren't adding a lot of cost (think "what color do the flashing lights on radio towers have to be so planes don't crash into them"). And simultaneously, there are a bunch of regulations which are actually driving costs up, but those are the ones either broadly supported by the public, or supported by one particular interest group who will fight tooth-and-nail to keep it because their livelihood or home equity depends on the rent extraction. To actually cut costs with deregulation, you need to fight ugly political battles often against sympathetic groups (homeowners, doctors, teachers, construction workers etc.), which no politician wants to do, so they instead try to pretend that "bureaucrats" (who could be less sympathetic than bureaucrats?) are to blame.
- ak217 8mo ago
  That's exactly right. I have so many frustrating stories from local politics that go exactly like you described. There is hope. Scott Wiener is a California politician who saw that these problems can't be resolved at the local level and got himself elected to the state legislature. He is smart about how he sets up the battles so he has had very good results incrementally improving California's zoning - and other things - by gradually restricting local zoning authority when it's abused. We are not yet at the "convenience store at the subdivision corner" stage, but give him time.

HPsquared 8mo ago

And nobody who sells $4 lunch bowls will have enough cash left over to lobby for rule changes in their favour.

mothballed 8mo ago

[flagged]

floatrock 8mo ago
I think you missed the whole point of the story about being able to open up a micro-eatery in front of your home. You know, where you live and want to build up a community. Back when we used to be great, didn't we idolize the local bar where everyone knows your name? That's what these neighborhood shops are. No one wants to go where you'll be poisoned through food contamination. Food safety regulations are a good thing. But when you try to apply the same regulations to a 150-patrons-per-hour fast food operation as you do to a 4 seat neighborhood micro-eatery, well, you're claiming they all have the same 1-size-fits-all risk profile and the end result is you make an entire class of entrepreneurship unattainable. That's not freedom, that's restriction.
- mothballed 8mo ago
  Having lived in 3rd world I do find food safety regulations to be a bad thing. You can get sick as rarely as you do in regulated countries by following some simple rules in places without regulations. I go to places where I can watch the food being prepared. And make sure it is hot when you eat it. Simple things like this. I have not gotten sick in places like Syria, Iraq, Philippines, etc any more than I do in the US by following simple rules. Yes you have to pay attention but to be honest, you should be applying these rules in USA too, because food inspector and zoning mostly there to protect big business through barrier of entry; they don't actually do that good a job of inspecting or enforcing the rules. The plus here is in places without these regulation the street is full of these tasty food vendors, even more than Japan. It is well worth the lack of safety regulations.

falcor84 8mo ago

I really enjoyed Lex Fridman's interview with Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson on this topic, as part of their book tour for Abundance. Even if I disagree with some of their proposals, I really liked their focus and clarification of the issue. We should be mindful of the POSIWID principle and be talking a lot more about the results of our policies. https://youtu.be/DTPSeeKokdo https://youtu.be/DTPSeeKokdo

throw0101d 8mo ago
> POSIWID * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_what_it_does https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...

Analemma_ 8mo ago

This is why the "let's slash regulations and cut the size of the government to let business prosper" pitch seems so appealing, and yet never seems to work in practice. The problem is, these kinds of deregulatory pushes always imagine that there are a bunch of price-increasing regulations set up by unaccountable bureaucrats somewhere, and that we can tear those down while making the system simultaneously cheaper and more democratic. A win-win! Supposedly. The problem is, that's not really how it works. There are a bunch of regulations made by bureaucrats, but those tend to be the pretty arcane ones which are necessary but aren't adding a lot of cost (think "what color do the flashing lights on radio towers have to be so planes don't crash into them"). And simultaneously, there are a bunch of regulations which are actually driving costs up, but those are the ones either broadly supported by the public, or supported by one particular interest group who will fight tooth-and-nail to keep it because their livelihood or home equity depends on the rent extraction. To actually cut costs with deregulation, you need to fight ugly political battles often against sympathetic groups (homeowners, doctors, teachers, construction workers etc.), which no politician wants to do, so they instead try to pretend that "bureaucrats" (who could be less sympathetic than bureaucrats?) are to blame.

ak217 8mo ago
That's exactly right. I have so many frustrating stories from local politics that go exactly like you described. There is hope. Scott Wiener is a California politician who saw that these problems can't be resolved at the local level and got himself elected to the state legislature. He is smart about how he sets up the battles so he has had very good results incrementally improving California's zoning - and other things - by gradually restricting local zoning authority when it's abused. We are not yet at the "convenience store at the subdivision corner" stage, but give him time.