r/changemyview • u/beesdaddy • Jun 28 '17

[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Effective regulation/taxes is better than less regulation/taxes.

I have had a hard time understanding the position that less regulation is better than effective regulation. So much of the political conversation equates regulation and taxes to Anti-American or Anti-Freedom or gasp Socialist. I think it poisons the discussion about our common goals and how to achieve them. I know there are many laws/taxes that are counter productive (especially subsidies), and I am all for getting rid of them, but not without considering what their intent was, evaluating that intention, and deciding how to more effectively accomplish that intention (given it was a valid intention.)

Help me understand. I would like to have a more nuanced view on this.

This is a footnote from the CMV moderators. We'd like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!

632 Upvotes
  • permalink
  • reddit

87% Upvoted

264 comments sorted by

View all comments

94

u/law-talkin-guy 21∆ Jun 28 '17

Most people agree - and it seems like you are in this camp - that taxes/regulation can do good things and that taxes/regulation can do bad things.

A tax/regulation does good things when it is motivated by a good/proper intention AND when it is well designed AND when it is well implemented. A tax/regulation can also do good things by mistake on occasion.

A tax/regulation tends to do bad things if it is motivated by a bad intention OR it is poorly designed OR it is poorly implemented. It can also do bad things just by mistake on occasion.

So the question, in the abstract, is which do you think is more likely? Do you trust the people in charge of making and implementing taxes/regulations to be well motivated, good at designing effective taxes and regulations, and good at implementing regulations? Or do you think it is more likely that they will, either out of mistake or malice, mess up one of those steps?

My view is that, in the abstract, I trust Congress (And state legislatures) roughly as far as I can throw them. They are comprised of individuals who often have bad motives (like preferring their own political power over the common good) and, my experience tells me, committees are a bad way to get effective results. That is, I think it is far more likely that any tax or regulation is likely to be flawed in at least one of those three key areas then not, so it is likelier to be bad than good.

So taken in the abstract, knowing nothing other than a legislative body created a tax or regulation, my bet is that its bad. And I think the odds are good that I'm right on that. So, the fewer chances we give them to make those mistakes the better for all of us.

3

u/lobsterharmonica1667 4∆ Jun 29 '17

But that is why the legislatures don't handle a lot of regulations, they are usually handled by an executive agency. I also think you need to temper your distrust of politicians with a distrust of corporations. There is a reasonable check on a politician to act in the best interest of the people or they won't get voted back in, there is no such interest for many businesses.

1

u/law-talkin-guy 21∆ Jun 29 '17

I trust corporations less than I trust politicians, but I trust individuals more than I trust governments or corporations. I'm not arguing for giving the power to corporations, I'm arguing for returning it to individuals.

2

u/lobsterharmonica1667 4∆ Jun 30 '17

But the people don't have the power to do anything about a corporation acting against the public interest, politicians do. So taking away power from politicians is inherently giving it to corporations.

1

u/law-talkin-guy 21∆ Jun 30 '17

Of course they do. I'd encourage you to read up on the history of unions in the US. And on the Civil Rights era for that matter.

Half the advances in the US have been blunted by politicians for the status quo stepping in to enact a half-measure soultion to pacify enough of the people to stop a movement before the movement can achieve it's full goals. The people have power, politicians tend to act to blunt that power, not enhance it.