I understand his comment as being against dumb regulation that only ads unnecessary bureaucracy or stops/limits progress. But he would support a regulation for this because it's a violation against the property of the buyer.

▲

datsci_est_2015 4 hours ago | parent | next [-]

> being against dumb regulation that only ads unnecessary bureaucracy or stops/limits progress

Does such strawman regulation even exist? Some regulation is intentionally designed to limit “progress”, where “progress” happens to have negative externalities.

It’s kind of a self-legitimizing opinion. Of course anyone would be against unnecessary regulations. I think the real world is not arguing about whether a regulation is necessary, but rather if the economic burden it creates is worth the positive impact it has on society, which is highly contentious, highly subjective debate.

	▲	braiamp a minute ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Only the regulation that doesn't evolve with the time or written so that it stays within the confines of a context that doesn't exists. Certain big country constitution is a prime example of that.
	▲	homer456 a minute ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		It takes 1500 hours of training to get licensed to cut hair in California.

▲

ikiris 32 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-]

dumb regulation meaning any regulation they don't understand the purpose of is the point.

	▲	airstrike 27 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It's a stretch rather than a point.

▲

Braxton1980 4 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Dumb regulation being subjective

▲

sbayg 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Subjective being subjective

▲

nfw2 3 hours ago | parent [-]

The word subjective is not itself subjective. People understand the definition of the word subjective.

	▲	thaumasiotes an hour ago \| parent [-]
		https://dilbert-viewer.herokuapp.com/2007-12-11

▲

4 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]