[purple_turtle]

> '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]

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.

[purple_turtle]

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]

"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]

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, ...

[cogman10]

That's the point of regulations.

If correct/moral/societally beneficial behavior was the most profitable then no regulation would be needed.

Lacking regulation also has a cost, it's just not to the unregulated. Dumping waste into a river is cheap for the business doing the dumping, but has environmental impacts on everyone downstream. It's more expensive to properly dispose of or recycle waste material, that's why a regulation that you must do that is needed.

The market simply does not hold bad actors accountable in any meaningful way. As a result, it pays to be a bad actor.

It's simply not a black and white issue. There are bad regulations to be sure. But it's not nearly as simple as saying that less regulation is better or that more regulation is better. The right amount is good and the wrong amount is bad. What that amount is is up for debate.

[purple_turtle]

Sadly, sometimes people are wrong.

This applies also to enacting monstrously stupid regulations. Or even ones that were introduced entirely as revenge or to create opportunity for corruption.

[johnnyanmac]

That all sounds good, we just need to make sure "X" is reasonable. Having reassurance that any licensed decorator had an amount of training/testing is good for the customer.

[rstupek]

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]

It does exist! https://occupationallicensing.com/occupation/interior-design...

Yes, it has gotten that bad.

[johnnyanmac]

>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.

[forgetfreeman]

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.

[purple_turtle]

Note that I am not saying that "throw away regulation, always less regulation is better".

That would be asking to drop all regulations.

I am saying that regulations have cost so you should have as little as regulation as possible to achieve wanted effect.

And wanted effect often should not be literally zero of accidents or bribery or corruption. As it may be either impossible to achieve or extra side effects not worth it past certain point.

In other words minimisation of how much regulations you have should be one of targets.

[bsenftner]

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]

Or will education make things worse by teaching groups how to use corruption to create even more regulations that benefits them against everything else.

[johnnyanmac]

>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.

[bsenftner]

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.

[taeric]

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.

[maccard]

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]

> It's not that we never need less regulation

this would be going against

> 'we need less regulation' is never the right answer