[maratd]

> Most of these licenses arise because the people practicing them wind up hurting, or even killing people.

Correction: Most of these licenses arise because those in the industry want to create a barrier to entry and use examples of morons doing their job poorly as evidence of need.

[nmrm2]

Of course it's both.

In many of these cases, the public has a strong enough interest to justify licensing requirements. E.g., it would be impractical to eliminate CDLs, licensing for food prep/barbers, etc.

Once these licensing requirements exist, it's easier to justify increasing requirements as a way of increasing the barrier to entry.

[wfo]

This "everyone is a moron we don't need regulations if everyone was a genius LIKE ME" attitude isn't particularly convincing. But it pervades this thread. It's full of people who can't imagine even the possibility that a regulation could be created for the good of people instead of with literally evil intent. If this is the new face of the anti-regulation side of the debate we've really reached a new low; it's not a debate anymore, it's rabid mindless religious extremism.

[maratd]

> But it pervades this thread. It's full of people who can't imagine even the possibility that a regulation could be created for the good of people instead of with literally evil intent.

Who writes the regulations? Ask yourself that. It's not the regulators, they just enforce the rules.

Regulations always start with the best of intentions, but are almost always co-opted by industry lobbyists to create barriers to entry in the guise of helping the common good. That hurts the common good and hurts the industry in the long run, all for the sake of lining the pockets of entrenched players.

I don't see you proposing a solution to this. I just see name calling.

[wfo]

I didn't propose a solution because it isn't a problem. Regulations protect people by forcing corporations, generally, to do something that's more expensive but better for their workers/customers/the general public because our society has decided (by voting) that we want certain standards to exist; I want to be able to walk into a restaurant and know that I won't get food poisoning and die without having to consult some privately owned and non-accountable review system. I want workers to be treated decently so they can support a family and be part of a livable civil society. These are basic, basic things that we've developed over thousands of years of civilization as expected common goods that the extremist hyper-libertarians like you see here are trying to destroy because they get in the way of someone's ability to make money by exploiting others. Because that's what deregulation does; it allows people with money to abuse the capitalist system to exploit others and make more money, since regulation is almost always used to prevent exploitation.

Sure the barrier to entry problem exists but honestly it's minor in comparison to the value the regulations have. It is HUGELY blown out of proportion by people here. Maybe it's more expensive to run your business safely and prove that you are but honestly I don't care, if you can't run a safe business society doesn't need to allow you to have one. We allow businesses to limit their liability in exchange for being good citizens; the regulations just make sure the businesses are holding up their end of the deal because we've seen through history, without them, businesses are disgustingly exploitative and destroy the lives of citizens and entire societies (see robber barons).

[maratd]

> I didn't propose a solution because it isn't a problem.

How would you know? Do you own a business? Have you ever run one? I have and do.

Are you talking from experience or are you just talking?

> Regulations protect people by forcing corporations, generally, to do something that's more expensive but better for their workers/customers/the general public

No, they don't. That's how you want them to work. It's naive to simply assume that's how it is, while having zero experience with either running a business or enforcing those same regulations.

Virtually every single regulation on the books right now was written by industry lobbyists. You don't even address this point? What do you think they're putting in those regulations?

Almost all the regulations are easy to comply for a large corporation, because they'll just throw people at it until they're compliant ... and very difficult for a small business, because they don't have the ability to jump through the hoops.

This has nothing to do with safety. Businesses which don't do a good job of whatever it is that they're doing go out of business fairly quickly or learn how to do it right. Those regulations are almost never enforced.

It's the mountain of paperwork, reporting requirements, licensing requirements, it's those sorts of things that choke the life out of a small business and they are designed to do just that.

> general public because our society has decided (by voting)

That is really naive. Your representatives don't write laws. They just sign them. And they sign whatever is put in front of them and they are told to sign. Who do you think tells them to sign those laws? Hint: It's not you.

[wfo]

In this disaster of a post you assume that all regulations are evil and conclude that all regulations are evil; there are certainly a lot of words there, it's too bad you aren't actually saying anything.

I could take your post apart piece by piece but honestly almost every claim you've made is laughably absurd; your assumption about the level of corruption that supposedly completely dominates every moment of the lives of every regulatory decision maker is a joke, super villians like that aren't as common as you seem to believe. Every discussion starts with some token of good faith; a willingness to accept that people who disagree with you are not literally Satan. Without that you cant reasonably communicate with anyone about this topic so I'd suggest you do away with the extremist rhetoric or stay out and let the adults talk.

[ekianjo]

Exactly. And I feel it's expanding rather than shrinking.