[AnthonyMouse]

Suppose that the status quo is the worst option, the second worst is enforcing the bad laws against the big guys, the best is getting rid of those laws.

Now, that might not be the case. Given the existence of bad laws, having someone who is able to break out of the bad cage might be better than if no one can, but let's consider what happens if we assume that it's worse.

Regardless of how they're ranked relative to each other, you would only pick either of the two worse options over the best if it was easier to do it. But getting bad laws enforced against well-heeled players is actually the hardest thing to do because they're doing something sympathetic and have the resources to fight, which is harder to do than repealing the bad laws.

[BrenBarn]

I don't agree. Getting more comprehensive enforcement of laws in general against well-heeled players is a good thing. We would have a lot less bad law if laws were enforced more evenly, because people would more quickly see their true effects, rather than having to wait until companies exploited the loopholes in enforcement so egregiously.

(I also don't agree that the only problem here is bad laws. Yes, some of the laws that big players break are bad; some are fine. I'm not just talking about Uber here.)

[AnthonyMouse]

> Getting more comprehensive enforcement of laws in general against well-heeled players is a good thing.

Whether something is good independent of what it takes to achieve it is a separate question from whether that's where you should focus your efforts.

> We would have a lot less bad law if laws were enforced more evenly, because people would more quickly see their true effects, rather than having to wait until companies exploited the loopholes in enforcement so egregiously.

Which is exactly why it's so hard to do it. The status quo is: Pass lots of laws that make everything illegal so that anyone without resources can be brought up on charges if they ruffle the wrong feathers. If you wanted to actually enforce all of those laws, they would immediately have to be repealed or everyone would be in jail. Which isn't in the interests of the people who want to keep them on the books to use for selective enforcement, so they don't enforce them that way in order to keep them on the books.

The consequence is that it takes even more political capital to have those laws rigorously enforced than to have them repealed, because then you have to fight both the big guys who don't want short-term enforcement against themselves and the autocrats who don't want to long-term have the laws repealed, instead of only the latter.

> I also don't agree that the only problem here is bad laws.

When laws are enforced against the little guys but not the big guys, it's usually because they're bad laws, because letting the rich openly get away with literal murder is highly unpopular.

The most significant category of good laws that big companies regularly violate with impunity is antitrust laws, but those also don't often get enforced against the little guy because the little guy isn't even in a position to violate them.

[ok_dad]

So I get your argument, but by that logic the only bad laws that get repealed will be those that affect big business, and the laws against individuals without resources will still be in place. I think we all agree that it’s unfair there’s a very large difference in enforcement of law between those with resources and those without, but I think to prevent that we need to figure out how to prevent the capture of the government by those with large resources. I could agree in concept that less laws are better for that overall, but also then there’s the question of who benefits from less laws and I bet those with resources will still benefit.

It’s almost like we need to ensure no one has much more resources than anyone else (ya know, workers owning the means of production) so there’s a more level field!

[AnthonyMouse]

> So I get your argument, but by that logic the only bad laws that get repealed will be those that affect big business, and the laws against individuals without resources will still be in place.

Quite the opposite.

You have a bad law which is only enforced against the little guy. Right now, when it's not enforced against the big guy, stories are written about it to get people riled up, but that's the wrong target.

Right now, when those laws are enforced against the little guy, people say "well they broke the law". Which is true, because everyone is breaking the law all the time, because there are so many bad laws. So what should be happening is, every time they try to enforce a bad law against the little guy, that should be the thing that gets people ruled up -- even if they're guilty. Because everyone is guilty, because the laws are crazy. So get people worked up about that so that the laws can be changed. Don't accept that people guilty of violating bad laws deserve to be punished. Drag the prosecutors through the mud. Flood the legislators with complaints whenever it happens. Use jury nullification and publicize to everyone that it's their right. Get those laws repealed.

> I think to prevent that we need to figure out how to prevent the capture of the government by those with large resources.

This was supposed to be checks and balances and limited government. As soon as you unchain legislators to micromanage the economy, anyone who captures them can shape the law to their advantage and then become rich and use the money to make sure the government stays captured.

The government needs to be constrained from making laws that inhibit competition.

> It’s almost like we need to ensure no one has much more resources than anyone else (ya know, workers owning the means of production) so there’s a more level field!

The words you're looking for are "antitrust enforcement".

[BrenBarn]

> It’s almost like we need to ensure no one has much more resources than anyone else (ya know, workers owning the means of production) so there’s a more level field!

Heh, yeah, I was going to post to add this as well. That is the underlying problem. I don't necessarily think it has to mean "workers owning the means of production" per se, more like "the richest person's wealth cannot be more than X times the poorest" and "the largest participant in a market cannot have more than Y% market share", but the idea is similar. :-)