←back to thread

1737 points pseudolus | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
coldpie ◴[] No.41859298[source]
Passed 3-2 along party lines. Remember this when you're going to vote. Elections matter.
replies(5): >>41859344 #>>41859355 #>>41859357 #>>41859529 #>>41860362 #
randcraw ◴[] No.41859355[source]
How could ANYBODY vote against this?
replies(5): >>41859442 #>>41859543 #>>41859615 #>>41859627 #>>41860637 #
llamaimperative[dead post] ◴[] No.41859627[source]
[flagged]
admissionsguy ◴[] No.41859794[source]
> this is the actual faithful steelman argument for the people who vote against this.

My argument is different. There should not be any regulation except where existentially necessary (e.g. you need government to manage an army, because otherwise someone else will conquer the country, this sort of thing).

Sure, most rules sound good in isolation. But in aggregate you end up with huge administration and 50% marginal tax rate and massive regulatory burden to businesses. Not able to cancel a subscription easily after you willingly enter into a relationship with some business is too tiny an issue to merit expanding the government monster.

replies(2): >>41859890 #>>41859949 #
llamaimperative ◴[] No.41859890[source]
Can you point to an example that's close to what you're describing?

Only thing that comes to mind is like de facto parts of Mexico, maybe Somalia?

replies(1): >>41860136 #
1. admissionsguy ◴[] No.41860136[source]
The US is the closest, but not close and it is getting further away. The lawless parts of the world you mention do not take care of the existentially necessary bits.
replies(1): >>41869843 #
2. llamaimperative ◴[] No.41869843[source]
> do not take care of the existentially necessary bits.

That can't be true... people exist there. Turns out your heuristic is no more defensible than anyone else's: I want the government to provide precisely the services I want.