Every regulation was enacted with specific circumstances in mind. If you think a particular regulation is bad, try to look into the history and see why it was relevant in the first place.
I have to concur with parent in some circumstances. I was looking up what are some weird regulations. I didn't find much, perhaps I was not using the right terms. But this one strikes me: License to Close a Business [1].
When it comes to protecting consumers, for example, regulations are generally not bad. Some regulations have been removed because some people want "efficiency" - and again, we have to pick the circumstance. Too much regulations (getting permits from 10 different agencies is slow) can drive up the cost (more application fees, higher construction cost due to delay), but too little or too lax can do harm. We all face this at work as software engineers...
Not saying I agree with all of the points in that article, but these strike me as a few harmful regulations:
> A U.S. District Court judge slapped a $500 fine on Massachusetts fisherman Robert J. Eldridge for untangling a giant whale from his nets and setting it free. So what was his crime? Well, according to the court, Eldridge was supposed to call state authorities and wait for them do it.
> The state of Texas now requires every new computer repair technician to obtain a private investigator's license. In order to receive a private investigator's license, an individual must either have a degree in criminal justice or must complete a three year apprenticeship with a licensed private investigator. If you are a computer repair technician that violates this law, or if you are a regular citizen that has a computer repaired by someone not in compliance with the law, you can be fined up to $4,000 and you can be put in jail for a year.
> The city of Philadelphia now requires all bloggers to purchase a $300 business privilege license. The city even went after one poor woman who had earned only $11 from her blog over the past two years.
> Computer repair or support services should be aware that if they offer to perform investigative services, such as assisting a customer with solving a computer-related crime, they must be licensed as investigators.
Sounds like the requirement applies to those who offer services that would be considered private investigation.
Those may be illegitimate, but licensure for hair cutting is absurd and damaging. Many states require it, and it is a clear-as-day example of regulatory capture and rent-seeking.
A person can be permanently disfigured or disabled through improper hair treatments. Infectious disease can be spread through improperly cleaned, or uncleaned, scissors and razors. There was a time when people would die from infections they got at the barber.
Barbers and hairstylists are tested on proper hairstyling and sanitation technique.
This is one space where regulation to ensure people follow proper technique and sanitation protocols is needed.
What actually happened is that he put nets near the whales, and then left one of them entangled in the cut off nets (so, probably killed this member of an endangered species due to his recklessness).
Again, the regulation here is that IF YOU ARE INVESTIGATING COMPUTERS, you need a PI license. If you're swapping video cards or reflowing solder or whatever, you don't.
I've found that libertarian blogs which have these stories about oppressive regulation are invariably - 100% - lying. I've never found a true story about oppressive regulation. The reality is, no one is sitting around rubbing their hands together and thinking about all the ways to oppress the public for no reason.
Similar situation happens with the examples of "ridiculous" regulations in the EU. I've checked a few of them out in the past, and each time they turned out to be some bullshit spun by UK's tabloids that later got republished as factual by the news portals on the continent.
While we’re opining on bad regs, my pet peeve for this week is Massachusetts law that requires any plumbing fixture installed in the state (that includes faucets, sinks, tubs, and toilets) be explicitly approved by the MA Board despite nationally accredited testing which would already have been performed.
Of course manufacturers need to apply for each product SKU individually and needs to resubmit every 3 years, and pay a fee of $150.00 per every 10 SKUs with a maximum of $1,500.00 with their application.
In response MA will cash their check and add a line item into a database (which they paid probably untold millions to build) and do absolutely no testing or certification of their own.
The typical solution is to simply stipulate that products must have gone through nationally accredited testing for XYZ and that the licensed plumber simply attests they have verified this is true for any fixtures they installed by checking a box on the permit form.
But you know, 100,000 product SKUs at $1.50 per SKU every 3 years is a pretty sweet money grab.
So much for ordering a $30 cold water fill from Amazon, I can pay Delta $100 for the same thing. Or, you know, install the Amazon version myself after the inspection is done.
Ditto for regs which technically make it illegal to install a light switch or new outlet with USB charging ports on in. Because, you know, screwing in 3 wires.
Ditto for regs on make-up air for over-range ventilation which doesn’t account for the actual tightness of the building envelope and type of vented gas fixtures which could conceivably backdraft. Wouldn’t want to make it too complex, let’s just cut big fucking baffled holes in the building envelope to “make-up” for every CFM over 400. I guess I can just disconnect the pressure switch after the inspector leaves.
Building codes are often quite sensible and important. But some states or even towns in particular turn it into a money grab.
Honestly, I kind of like that second one. Even if computer repair techs shouldn't need licensing/training per se, I'd be happy to see them having to obey the strictures of some sort of Private Investigator's Guild, and be made to be unable to get a job in computer repair if they commit investigative malfeasance according to said guild. (Like, say, if they take someone's data and use it to blackmail them!)
Putting someone in jail for a crime stops them from committing the same crime for exactly the length of time they spend in jail.
Barring someone from working in a given industry, meanwhile, stops them from ever having the opportunity to commit the same crime again.
If a lawyer goes to jail for fraud, you don't want them to still be a lawyer when they get out, do you? This isn't like regular crimes (e.g. crimes of passion); fraud, blackmail, etc. are extremely deliberate and intellectual acts, and the type of person who decides to do them doesn't tend to suddenly happen upon any more scruples later on in life.
Of course, you could just say that we can make it part of the legal punishment of the criminal that they can never work in a given industry again (like we do for e.g. hackers). But is the government setting the terms of what is or isn't "work in that industry" better than actual industry-members setting those terms? Right now, people convicted of "hacking" aren't even allowed to own computers, for the most part. Doesn't seem like the government really knows what it's doing there.
Plus, allowing industries to self-regulate using guild licensing allows for enforcement of things besides strict legal criminal penalties. For example, the Society of Engineers can kick you out if you intentionally sign off on something as safe when you know it's not. That's not illegal—you'll go to jail if the building/bridge/etc. falls down; but if it doesn't, you're "safe" from criminal prosecution. But if the Society of Engineers finds out, then you're not a capital-E Engineer any more, and now all your signed-off-on documents will have to be rechecked.
2. Why wouldn’t I want them to still be a lawyer? I do not believe that everyone who commits a crime (and is caught, and convicted) is morally corrupt for the rest of her life.
My issue with police misconduct is that it is institutionalized and practically protected and normalized.
Is this the case with malpractice?
I’d think that the army-like bonding of police officers is a part of the reason for letting a lot of issues slide. Is there a similar phenomenon with lawyers?
Occupational licencing has grown into one of my pet peeves. I at this point cannot come up with a single example that would've get regulated by the market itself. For example nobody would go to a "surgeon" who never received actual training, no hospital would employ them and no insurance cover them. At this point I believe it's mainly a vehicle for incumbents to keep competitors out.
That is incredibly naive. How would someone know with any certainty that the "surgeon" had any actual training if not for the regulation of the industry. Would there even be insurance? Your argument is based on a system that has benefited greatly from regulation. Without the regulation the system would fall apart.
Turns out the doctor has a university degree. Also turns out that you already can practice as a surgeon if you have any medical license. Your kids pediatrician is allowed to perform heart surgery. Yet none of that happens.
That regulation sounded outlandish, so I read the article. The article is obviously anti-regulation, but even in context it's obvious that a) this is possible not a license to close a business but instead b) is quite possibly a regulation intended to prevent stores from having fake "GOING OUT OF BUSINESS" sales every couple of quarters, misleading consumers into making suboptimal decisions.
Based solely on what's in the article, it wouldn't apply to businesses that don't carry inventory, notably services businesses.
Hehe, I haven't looked, so it may be apocryphal, but I believe there is a WAC (Washington (state) Administrative Code), that mandates that a business (possibly limited to furniture stores) may only have a "Going Out Of Business" sale once per calendar year.
Well, it is a regulation to ensure the business is intended to close. Instead of "going out of business" sign, what happen "big sale" sign every quarters? FWIW, I am not sure if that big sale is really a big sale with discounts. In fact, I have seen mattress stores claiming a price drop on the flyer for $850 but the regular price never stays - basically I am calling out certain stores lying about the regular price and promotional price.
I agree with you. I think it's also worth reviewing regulations periodically to see if they still make sense.
For example, a few years ago when Uber moved into Sarasota, the taxi companies complained. The city did something remarkable - they eliminated the regulations that Uber wasn't complying with. AFAIK, there really haven't been any negative consequences.
You mean other than the externalities of running the business that Uber places on its drivers through them being contractors, using their own cars (no benefits, drivers pay for wear & tear and gas).
What?! Don't you just blindly trust bureaucrats and politicians?! Say it ain't so dexterdog!
More seriously, there are loads of bad regulations that were never good to begin with. Of course there would be. Motivations vary from do-gooding to incompetence to corruption, and if you believe this is impossible then I've got a bridge to sell you. And there are loads of bad regulations that are bad just because they are no longer necessary or relevant. Of course there would be.
So many problems are caused by the paradox of the human predator. Tools to protect against the human predator are always eventually used as a tool OF the human predator.
Day 1: you create a regulation to stop some company from forcing employees to put their hands in a running wood chipper. Hurray, one predatory person has been stopped.
Day 2: A predator by hook and crook lobbies for a regulation to give them a competitive advantage.
Day 50: We've got 50 sincerely conceived regulations and 50 predatory regulations. Regulatory work has accelerated as the state has gotten better at it. Quite a few of the sincerely created regulations are meant to mitigate problems caused by the predatory ones! A call is sounded for deregulation.
Day 51: 35 regulations are thrown out based on lobbyist pressure and "grass root" campaigns.
Day 52: A company sends out a memo: "Due to the extra maintenance costs of hard stopping our wood chipper, we ask you now always leave it running. If it stalls on something the policy remains unchanged otherwise: pull it out."
It's an eternal arms race and I think the predators win almost always. We can't recognize or disarm them as faster than they can use our own methods and tools against us. As far as I can tell, oppose consolidation of power and work to never surrender leverage over yourself.
Are you a lobbyist? You realize regulations are created all the time because a company pushed for it to benefit the most, right? Some are good. Some are bad. Like everything in this world.
I'm the incumbent business in some area, I lobby for regulations that I can afford to pay, but makes it too expensive for potential competitors to get into the business.
I doubt you vocalize your goal of driving competitors out of business when lobbying for some new regulation.
You don't personally enact regulations... those who do are the ones with the good intentions. To them, the regulations seem sensible and net-good... no matter how misguided it might happen to be.
I can also imagine that the same regulations enacted under a different administration, region, historical or technological context can have different consequences.
It's natural to imagine that for such large systems, it's controlled by a little more than a few simple variable. But unfortunately, the levers and knobs that the population sees is something along the lines of low / high government and taxes.
This seems like a really good one :)