Comment by electrograv | Hacker News Reader

Comment by electrograv | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I just googled "bad regulations" and this was the first result:

http://www.businessinsider.com/ridiculous-regulations-big-go...

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.

It's always worth digging into the source material:

1) http://www.capecodtimes.com/article/20091001/NEWS/910010317

> illegally untangling a humpback whale caught in his fishing gear.

> ... violating the federal Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act.

Humpback whales were considered endangered species as the time. Certainly doesn't seem crazy to give extra care when handling endangered species

2) https://www.dps.texas.gov/RSD/PSB/Laws/psb_opin_sum.htm

> 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.

3) https://www.wired.com/2010/08/five-myths-about-philadelphias... provides a decent contemporaneous rebuttal.

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.

> Eldridge

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).

http://www.capecodtimes.com/article/20091001/NEWS/910010317

> Texas

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.

> Philadelphia

There isn't any blogging tax. https://www.wired.com/2010/08/five-myths-about-philadelphias...

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.

Sigh, first world problems.

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!)

Blackmail is already a crime, why would we need an extra rent-seeking organization to ban it?

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.

1. It’s hard to imagine a lawyer going to jail.

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.

Do you think police officers fired for misconduct should be hired in another precinct?

This is a very good question.

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.

Great discussion as always on econtalk: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2018/01/dick_carpenter.html

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com