TSMC looks to double down on U.S. chip factories as talks in Europe falter

The entire purpose of business regulation is to protect the people.

People choosing to give up this protection is the irony.

For example. Tobacco kills people. Government looks out for the interests of the people and regulates Big Tobacco. So Big Tobacco moves to a place where it is unregulated and free to distribute tobacco even to minors. People "IRONICALLY" against their own self interest follow the company because of jobs and money.

The above is just an example made really obvious. For semiconductors it's not so obvious. What exactly is the harm? It's not so evident, you need to do research to find out.

Nanny states are far worse than tobacco.

I suppose you would have the government approve every individual action you take to ensure it isn’t against the interest of “the people”. I’m just glad there’s still enough voters who don’t think like you, to be honest. That concerns me a lot more than how dangerous the products in the store are.

Before "nanny state" regulations, food used to be sold in a decomposed or rotten state, it was exposed to all sorts of contamination and merchants mixed it with all sorts of non-food such as wood. Having weird digestive illnesses was very common back in the day, as well as dying from them.

Before "nanny state" regulations, you would work as much as your employer wanted you to work, you had no sick days, no vacation, no parental leave, no anything. Kids used to work in factories. If a woman got pregnant she would get fired from her job. If you got injured or sick at work then you would get fired as well.

Before "nanny state" regulations, medications were usually snake oil. The market was full of elixirs and magical tonics for well-being that were ultimately a scam.

Before "nanny state" regulations, you were free to dump any chemical you wanted anywhere you wanted. You were free to experiment with any animal you wanted in any way you wanted without any ethical or humane consideration whatsoever. You were free to scam any investor you wanted in any way you wanted... and you get the idea. Restaurant with rats? that was perfectly too.

"Nanny state" is one of the most profoundly idiotic terms ever coined. Some regulations can be annoying, but clearly we are better off now than 100 years ago.

That things are better than they were is not particularly strong evidence supporting the “nanny state”.

I absolutely agree we are better off now than 100 years ago.

I don't think you need to argue against such a strawman. Do you think that literally all regulation is bad? Governments shouldn't exist at all?

You suppose wrong. I'm kind of moderate. Seeing that I never said anything otherwise but you made a baseless supposition out of nowhere I'm guessing you're pro business in favor of total deregulation.

Make no mistake. The purpose of business regulation is to protect the people. This is absolutely true.

Execution of such regulations has unintended consequences though.

Regulating business harms profits which harms jobs and in turn harms people who could have had the jobs. Harmed profits also harms the owners of the businesses who are also people.

So basically there's a feedback loop here. You make the law for the purpose of protecting people but you are also harming people at the same time.

I'm a moderate or undecided because this loop presents a practical and moral dilemma. There's a balance somewhere but no truly one knows where and the complexities of society make it so that civilization will never arrive at this balance. Society tends to oscillate wildly around this equilibrium point migrating between the two extremes of pro business and pro "the people."

Tobacco is just one example. A lot of people think of tobacco as cookies, so if that's too tame for you then replace that example with Big Pharma and the opioid crisis or The dumping of toxic waste into Toms River by Big Chemical.

You can never find strong evidence for this. A nanny state is just a state that is "overprotective." How protective something is to the point of being overprotective is completely a matter of opinion. Some people think the US is overprotective some people think it's under protective. It's a matter of opinion as the definition of over protective doesn't have a threshold set.

One thing is for sure though on the exact topics mentioned by the post you replied to. I am glad the United States is highly highly protective on these issues. I want these issues to be nanny'd to death and you do to unless you're down to face the consequences.

Characterizing it as "better off" is just word play. There is definitely more nuance here.