[MicahKV]

> If you don't like it, you move somewhere else.

Yes, and if you don't like existing regulations you can just move to another country with different laws. No big deal, right?

I do operate my own site in addition to selling on multiple marketplaces, but even with my efforts to diversify I am dependent, in part, on the sales I get from Etsy. I would be in a lot of financial pain if I lost that revenue stream, so "just move somewhere else" is not really an option.

Sometimes regulations are necessary to keep big companies (Amazon, Ebay, Etsy) from abusing their customers (including small time sellers like myself). Regulations may not be the answer in this case, but it's at least worth discussing.

[SllX]

Whenever you think about creating a new “regulation”, by which I assume you mean a new law, try to think of what the phrasing for that law would be and then think about the enforcement mechanism, the implications of the law as written, and the possible, even probable complications from the enforcement mechanism.

If you come up with something that isn’t going to unfairly penalize startups and small businesses, you might even have something there, but if you find the exercise difficult, there’s a decent chance all of Congress or your State’s legislature or your country’s Parliament and all of their aides are also going to have trouble coming up with a well written law, let alone one that will survive the political process, and the most likely result is something that entrenches existing businesses, ultimately reducing your possible future choices. Actually the most likely result is a law not even passing, and if it does, getting distorted along the way into something that will likely reduce your possible future choices.

It’s not that lawmakers should never pass laws, a new law should be judicious and necessary, something that can’t be handled by the Courts from the existing body of law, and something that ought to be handled by law rather than some other civic institution. There’s a lot of ideas for laws out there that doesn’t meet any of this criteria, but we still hold onto this idea that “regulations” are magic and will almost always have their intended effects rather than almost never.

[otterley]

All of this may be true, and yet, it’s not a very strong argument against regulation. I’m glad that we have safety regulations, despite objections such as yours, because they have demonstrably saved lives.

[SllX]

Lawmaking is an important part of a nation of laws, but that does not mean the body of law should have needless additions. This is why the process of selecting lawmakers is generally tied to a political process so that new laws are brokered and argued both for and against and modified.

The first test however for any new bill that would be law is, do we need this law? I think in cases where disputes are contractual or market-oriented, it is okay to rely on the resources of the State (the Courts specifically), especially if no other form of arbitration will resolve the dispute, but passing a new law should be a last resort and only after a case for it has been properly made, and a coalition around the new law formed.

[hellisothers]

I read their argument as against over-regulation, regulatory capture, and regulation moats like the ones Facebook is advocating for. An easier thing to imagine is if you got the regulations you wanted in place but at the end of the day they’re just preventing a thing you don’t like because it’s “new to you” and your business. Now if a startup wanted to come along and use what Etsy is doing _up front_ as part of its business mode it can’t, even if people don’t mind because they knew what they were getting.