What If...

[sexobon]

Originally Posted by tw

Did you order a Code Red?

Sure took you long enough.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Hey Henry, this may tickle your fancy.

Idaho has 736 chapters containing 8,200 pages of rules and regulations, covering everything from fishing licences to building nuclear power plants. They also have a state constitution requiring they be renewed by the legislature yearly. But this year they didn’t and can’t until they reconvene next January. So July 1st the rules are all gone except the ones the new governor chooses to keep by emergency proclamation.

It'll be interest to see how this plays out. I'm betting the new Governor will wuss out and keep everything as is. He might drop a couple small rules his donors find annoying, but doubt a wholesale housecleaning.

[henry quirk]

"So July 1st the rules are all gone except the ones the new governor chooses to keep by emergency proclamation."

No doubt: "the new Governor will wuss out".

I wonder how many Idahoans will take advantage of what I imagine will be an exceedingly small window.

[Gravdigr]

Idahoans...I calls 'em Taters.

[henry quirk]

[Gravdigr]

No I mash the shit out of them.

[henry quirk]

[xoxoxoBruce]

I don't see why Henry is opposed to government, they're looking out for your best interests...

[Clodfobble]

Okay, but like, should we just not regulate computers today since they didn't exist back then? Should we stop regulating farm machinery now that we have to put all our attention on computers? More isn't always bad, it's just the nature of a growing society.

[henry quirk]

It's not about 'no regulation'; it's about sensible, minimal regulation.

Look at Bruce's chart: what's sensible, minimal there?

Thousands of regulations from the local/municipal all the way up to national/federal. Many serve no good purpose; many conflict with other regs; many are in place simply to hobble, not guide, serve, or protect.

"More isn't always bad"

And less isn't always good or better, but often it is.

Parsimony, frugality, caution; self-direction, -responsibility: when did these become 'bad words'?

[xoxoxoBruce]

But most of those rules and regulations stem from some person or company abusing the public.
There were many people through larceny or ineptitude wiping out the nest egg of people getting ready to or already were retired. Bernie Madoff brought it to the front page by ripping powerful people. The result was a slew of new rules. The rules came late and for the wrong reason but they are still good rules. People will still get screwed but the perps won't walk away clean anymore.

Of course some of the rules are written to help the wife's cousin's coal mine keep a stranglehold on their market. That's why the rule makers have to be babysat by the voters.

[tw]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

It's not about 'no regulation'; it's about sensible, minimal regulation.

Minimal regulation, to you, is to 'wreck things'. Regulations must exist to have free markets. It was never a question of more or less regulation. It was always about regulations that the people "who come from where the work gets done" need.

More regulation or less regulation is simply the naive looking for solutions in their emotions. Adults, thinking like adults, first learn what works and then create informed standards. These same responsible people also know the purpose of every business deal is for both counterparties to prosper.

What made the internet possible. More regulations? Yes that is what happened - not the purpose. Regulations created massive and successful free markets. Corralled so many who were stifling innovation and growth. Those regulations empowered people who make America great. That was never corrupt scumbags such as the Donald. He is the perfect example (unfortunately) of why we need regulations.

[henry quirk]

"But most of those rules and regulations stem from some person or company abusing the public."

Sure, but do we need thousands of pages of regs, just on the federal level, to address that?

No, we don't.

#

"There were many people through larceny or ineptitude wiping out the nest egg of people getting ready to or already were retired. Bernie Madoff brought it to the front page by ripping powerful people. The result was a slew of new rules. The rules came late and for the wrong reason but they are still good rules. People will still get screwed but the perps won't walk away clean anymore."

How many rules were created, Bruce? List them, please. If you do, and we go through them, one by one, I guarantee we'll find nine tenths (or more) of them are unnecessary.

#

"Of course some of the rules are written to help the wife's cousin's coal mine keep a stranglehold on their market. That's why the rule makers have to be babysat by the voters."

Yes, most of the regs are meant to serve or benefit a minority. Sensible, minimal regulation serves the majority (a majority which is expected to be self-regulating and -responsible), so -- by definition -- such regs must be sensible, minimal.

And, yes: 'we' should keep our feet on the necks of our employees. 'We' should never think of them as 'rulemakers'. They're servants, proxies, employees. They should be second-class citizens, not you or me.

[henry quirk]

"Minimal regulation, to you, is to 'wreck things'."

No, minimal, sensible regulation is just that: minimal and sensible regulation.

Wrecking things is sometimes what has to happen to get there.

Think of the 'controlled burn' as applied to politics/culture.


#

"Regulations must exist to have free markets."

Minimal, sensible regulations, yeah, mostly centered on contracts.

#

"It was never a question of more or less regulation. It was always about regulations that the people "who come from where the work gets done" need."

Agreed, and that, for the most part, means minimal, sensible regulation.

#

"Adults, thinking like adults, first learn what works and then create informed standards."

Agreed. and these standards are almost always favor sensible, minimal regulation.

[tw]

Originally Posted by henry quirk

"Minimal regulation, to you, is to 'wreck things'."

No, minimal, sensible regulation is just that: minimal and sensible regulation.

But you have been quite explicit. You only want to wreck things. You do not want to upgrade or improve anything. Your entire mantra is to only 'wreck things' since - and you said it - that is good.

Why this sudden admission that regulations can be good and are necessary. What changed? Are you alright? What happened to bombasticism? Or did you mistakenly listen to a moderate information source.

Oh those evil moderates. They will provide all perspective with the associated reasons why. Then one might be force to think for himself.