Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Political regulation is just you and me delegating representation of interests. What you want is for corporations to decide what we can and cannot do with our money because we are not smart enough to make free choices, which is the argument behind every single corporation.

Companies do not exist for altruistic purposes. They exist to make a handy profit for the fee at the expensive of many sometimes. Regulation extends a more fair playing field in some cases. Sometimes it protects the public interest. It's why there's no Walmart in Seattle.




> Political regulation is just you and me delegating representation of interests.

Is there a way to opt out? Otherwise it sounds more like coercion than delegating.

Corporations are not made of martians, they are made of people making free choices. Should they get a special status with limited liability protected by the government? I don't think so but that's something to blame on the government, not corporations.

If your neighbor's airbnb ruins your nights you should be able to sue and the owner of the building should be free to ban airbnb. But the government deciding that airbnb should be illegal or regulated centrally is where I draw the line.


Suing someone is very inconvenient. Not only that, what are you going to sue for? Losing a couple nights sleep a week doesn't exactly have a monetary value.


Corporations are very nearly made of martians. The interests of the corporation (shareholder value, quarterly profit, market share, etc.) are not human values and frequently run totally contrary to the interests of their customers and the community they do business in.


What would be the point of environmental regulation polluters can opt out of?


The problem is, people still inexplicably think that they are delegating this representation to people who actually care or who are bound by some type of moral code which mandates acting in the person's best interests.

How has this basic falsehood persisted for so long and in the face of such damning evidence to the contrary?


> How has this basic falsehood persisted for so long and in the face of such damning evidence to the contrary?

Probably the fact that there's strong evidence to support it? Compare today versus the 1970s in air quality, car safety, waterway pollution, etc.




Consider applying for YC's Spring batch! Applications are open till Feb 11.

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: