|
Absurd Alhazred posted:In any country where rule of law is accepted (like the US, ostensibly), the onus of proof that a regulation should be changed is on the person asking to change it. In most of those countries, however, the onus of justifying regulations that limit what you can do rests with the state. Because technically every such regulation impacts the freedoms of the people.
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 06:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 04:17 |
|
|
silence_kit posted:Dude, I think Spazzle's post is pretty reasonable. Spazzle is just explaining why this thread's knee-jerk ideology is naïve. There's a big difference between "marijuana should be legal" and "i will pay you to sell marijuana in states where i know that is illegal, and start crying about regulation when you get caught and go to prison (i will pocket millions)".
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
haha wow so public safety regulations and worker protection and rights are now something d&d in general is against what world do you live in. 'I thought you were anti-establishment so that must mean you are anti all government'? People loving died for these regulations to be put in place after much wailing and gnashing of teeth and now all of a sudden it's a good idea to throw them away for the right of the 'honest entrepreneur' to make money? Taking the honky-bus straight back to the 1920s that seems like a grand idea. edit: health and safety regulations and workers rights laws are paved on the bodies and miseries of ordinary people. 'Disrupting' them is morally reprehensible. NLJP fucked around with this message at 07:35 on Jun 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 07:29
|
|
|
Does this thread ever talk about what the topic is supposed to be?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 07:45
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:Does this thread ever talk about what the topic is supposed to be? Be the change you want to see, friend.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 07:50
|
|
|
Coolness Averted posted:Be the change you want to see, friend. Disrupt the thread.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 07:53
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:Does this thread ever talk about what the topic is supposed to be? I dunno man, I mean it seems at least 50% of these unicorns are where they are because they tried to ignore laws, regulations and, often, facts so it seems somewhat relevant especially when people go to bat for them for doing so for whatever reason. edit: sorry, I'm very tired and was just a bit blindsided by those posts. NLJP fucked around with this message at 08:42 on Jun 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 08:00
|
|
|
Randler posted:In most of those countries, however, the onus of justifying regulations that limit what you can do rests with the state. Because technically every such regulation impacts the freedoms of the people. The justifications are implicitly recognized when the laws are passed, legislatures don't just pass laws "because". Now if you believe that the justifications are no longer valid, or never were in the first place then it should be trivial for you to provide evidence. If you can't then shut the gently caress up.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 13:04
|
|
|
It got all tense in here.  NLJP posted:I dunno man, I mean it seems at least 50% of these unicorns are where they are because they tried to ignore laws, regulations and, often, facts so it seems somewhat relevant especially when people go to bat for them for doing so for whatever reason. edit: sorry, I'm very tired and was just a bit blindsided by those posts. 50% seems pretty high. Other than Lyft and Uber, what $1B+ company is building a business around flouting the law? Many (several) companies have indeed said "hey, nobody's doing X!" without reflecting on the fact that it's because X is illegal, but I can't think of any other than the two above who have achieved significant valuation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 13:08
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:It got all tense in here. AirBnB comes to mind immediately.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 13:10
|
|
|
rscott posted:AirBnB comes to mind immediately. Yes, good call.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 13:10
|
|
|
Let's include Theranos, too.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 13:12
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Let's include Theranos, too. I don't think Theranos was saying "nobody is doing X" but was rather saying "we'll promise X but so much better that it would violate the laws of physics."
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 13:50
|
|
|
ToxicSlurpee posted:I don't think Theranos was saying "nobody is doing X" but was rather saying "we'll promise X but so much better that it would violate the laws of physics." I think they were exactly saying "nobody is doing fast, minimally-invasive testing", but sure. It's a fine line, I agree, but I don't think the difference is material to my argument.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 13:56
|
|
|
MickeyFinn posted:In addition to what others have said, there is a world of difference between saying that X government law is bad for whatever reason and start-ups (or companies in general) can just do whatever they want without regard for the law. I tend to just lurk this thread, but I actually do believe it can be reasonable to operate illegally in the face of unjust/irrelevant/stupid/anti-competitive/etc. laws. I imagine there are many people here that would disagree with that idea... but despite that, I rarely if ever see posters in here taking a "lawfulness above all" stance. People almost always argue on the merits of the law, e.g. "food safety regulations are a good idea, and shouldn't be skirted."
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 14:50
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:I tend to just lurk this thread, but I actually do believe it can be reasonable to operate illegally in the face of unjust/irrelevant/stupid/anti-competitive/etc. laws. I imagine there are many people here that would disagree with that idea... but despite that, I rarely if ever see posters in here taking a "lawfulness above all" stance. People almost always argue on the merits of the law, e.g. "food safety regulations are a good idea, and shouldn't be skirted." The unstated assumption is that the laws are so obviously good that it's not necessary to defend their merit beforehand. Like, not having random people in random kitchens cook your food with no inspections on quality is not a situation anyone wants to be in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 14:53
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:I tend to just lurk this thread, but I actually do believe it can be reasonable to operate illegally in the face of unjust/irrelevant/stupid/anti-competitive/etc. laws. I imagine there are many people here that would disagree with that idea... but despite that, I rarely if ever see posters in here taking a "lawfulness above all" stance. People almost always argue on the merits of the law, e.g. "food safety regulations are a good idea, and shouldn't be skirted."
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Like, not having random people in random kitchens cook your food with no inspections on quality is not a situation anyone wants to be in. It's interesting that scale is so important here, though. Every church potluck works as you describe, but the law doesn't care because, AIUI, it's non-commercial. It's not clear to me how the presence of money makes the health issues different.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:Does this thread ever talk about what the topic is supposed to be? They try to but typically what happens is that some rear end in a top hat or some rear end in a top hat with a long-standing gimmick comes in and goes "BLURP! I'M A loving IDIOT! WHY DON'T THINGS WORK IN AN IDIOT WAY?! THINGS SHOULD!" Then most folks, rather than just hitting the ignore button, spend the next several days or hours trying to convince them that they are, in fact, an idiot and that, no, things should not work in an idiotic way. D&D should just be renamed to "Arguing with idiots who think they are smart." That would be too on-the-nose, though.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 14:59
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:It's interesting that scale is so important here, though. Every church potluck works as you describe, but the law doesn't care because, AIUI, it's non-commercial. It's not clear to me how the presence of money makes the health issues different.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:00
|
|
|
twodot posted:At a minimum the church potluck has a shared goal of promoting a healthy community and not murdering each other. A commercial operation has a motive of "make money, who cares if someone gets sick". Ignoring the eye-rolling simplification of business, are you saying that the food standards are lessened for non-commercial cases because they believe that non-professional cooks are more careful out of benevolence? Do you believe that a school bake sale is benevolent and therefore should be exempt from the food safety standards that currently, AIUI, apply to them as a commercial operation? Do they become less benevolent as they scale up? Subjunctive fucked around with this message at 15:04 on Jun 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:02
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:It's interesting that scale is so important here, though. Every church potluck works as you describe, but the law doesn't care because, AIUI, it's non-commercial. It's not clear to me how the presence of money makes the health issues different. Yeah that's how probability works. You making a single dish (even a big one) is still incredibly unlikely to be bad in any way. You making a couple hundred meals in a month, that makes issues a lot more likely to occur. And even beyond that, there's an idea that food (or really anything) available to the public should be of higher quality than food that isn't. If you want to poison yourself in your kitchen, go ahead. Just don't have other people do it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:04
|
|
|
computer parts posted:And even beyond that, there's an idea that food (or really anything) available to the public should be of higher quality than food that isn't. If you want to poison yourself in your kitchen, go ahead. Just don't have other people do it. So how do you feel about bake sales?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:05
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:So how do you feel about bake sales? You don't bake thousands of cookies every week.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:06
|
|
|
Remember when Austin voted down the ordinance that Uber and Lyft wrote that was basically a blank check for them to ignore all city regulations? Remember when Uber and Lyft left, and various tech and financial media outlets (the ones most used to sucking VC cock) posted about how Austin would no longer be a tech hub because we dared to scorn those dear sweet unicorns? Well, basically the exact opposite is happening. quote:With Uber and Lyft Gone, Ride-Hailing Startups Swarm Austin The whole article is a pro-read, but basically Uber and Lyft helped sow the seeds of their new competition by throwing a fit and leaving Austin. It'll be interesting to see if they are dumb enough to stay out by the time SXSW rolls around, because if they don't then that means tens of thousands of tech-savvy people from around the country are going to be downloading and installing their competitors' apps to be able to get around during the event. This will really reinforce the fact that Uber and Lyft don't really have as much of a moat as people think, and their network effects aren't going to be as insurmountable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:So how do you feel about bake sales? They are lower risk because the goods sold don't need refrigerated to avoid poisoning people.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
computer parts posted:The unstated assumption is that the laws are so obviously good that it's not necessary to defend their merit beforehand. re: CA food safety law, both the CA legislature and CA public health authorities are on board with changing CA's cottage food production law to incorporate the sort of production the company is facilitating. The bill will (probably) be passed in 2017. computer parts posted:Like, not having random people in random kitchens cook your food with no inspections on quality is not a situation anyone wants to be in. Not even the company people are criticizing wants to be in that situation.  Subjunctive posted:It's interesting that scale is so important here, though. Every church potluck works as you describe, but the law doesn't care because, AIUI, it's non-commercial. It's not clear to me how the presence of money makes the health issues different. Because capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:07
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You don't bake thousands of cookies every week. Josephine's individual kitchens don't either. They're producing food at best on the scale of like a church pasta dinner.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:It's interesting that scale is so important here, though. Every church potluck works as you describe, but the law doesn't care because, AIUI, it's non-commercial. It's not clear to me how the presence of money makes the health issues different. It's a clear incentive to ignore issues that might come up. "Hmm, this can of beans seems kinda... bloaty, I guess? But I'm not going to be able to fulfill the chilli orders without it, so in it goes and hope for the best!"
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You don't bake thousands of cookies every week. Are you saying that you think Josephine should be exempt from food regulations if they limited their cooks to, say, two meals/day each? I don't see how having N meals produced by 1 person or by N people changes the calculus, other than to perhaps favour the fewer, more-practiced cooks. Many households cook 2 meals/day without foodborne illness issues for years at a stretch, so the probabilities seem viable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:10
|
|
|
computer parts posted:You don't bake thousands of cookies every week. Let me tell you about my GF's grandmother...
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:11
|
|
|
Also an important note: any bakesale I know has gotten authority from the proper authorities before setting up. You aren't just allowed to plop your thing down on the sidewalk and make money. (Yes, little kids do this and yes they are in violation of the law but you know why cops don't arrest them)
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:12
|
|
|
BRAKE FOR MOOSE posted:I tend to just lurk this thread, but I actually do believe it can be reasonable to operate illegally in the face of unjust/irrelevant/stupid/anti-competitive/etc. laws. I imagine there are many people here that would disagree with that idea... but despite that, I rarely if ever see posters in here taking a "lawfulness above all" stance. People almost always argue on the merits of the law, e.g. "food safety regulations are a good idea, and shouldn't be skirted." Who gets to decide which laws are unjust/ irrelevant / anti-competitive ? You are surely not suggesting that businesses should be able to ignore laws purely on the basis that they will make more money by doing that ? Safety gear is expensive, who cares if we kill a few workers - ignore Disposing of toxic waste properly , expensive - ignore Maintaining buses / trucks to a safe standard , expensive - ignore
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:13
|
|
|
Noam Chomsky posted:They try to but typically what happens is that some rear end in a top hat or some rear end in a top hat with a long-standing gimmick comes in and goes "BLURP! I'M A loving IDIOT! WHY DON'T THINGS WORK IN AN IDIOT WAY?! THINGS SHOULD!" Pro tier post / name combo.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:14
|
|
|
Don't get too hung-up on "non-commercial," because yes, scale is specifically taken into account. Non-profit cafeterias and soup kitchens also have food safety regulations.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:15
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Ignoring the eye-rolling simplification of business, are you saying that the food standards are lessened for non-commercial cases because they believe that non-professional cooks are more careful out of benevolence? No they become less benevolent when they change their focus, from for example "Make tasty food for my friends" to "Make as much money possible by selling food to strangers"
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:16
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Also an important note: any bakesale I know has gotten authority from the proper authorities before setting up. They have the kitchens inspected and the cooks certified? Maybe it's stricter now, but in my youth parents just baked up a bunch of whatever and brought it in. I'm certain I never saw anyone testing the temperature of my mom's fridge. Similarly, I've never seen any inspections of the burger-and-dog shack at the local school's family carnival, though I've only helped with it once. I certainly wasn't given any instruction beyond "wash your hands after handling money"; we didn't even wear gloves. I suspect that they give them a pass on that part because they're at small scale, but that seems a political ("war on bake sales!") rather than health-and-safety principled hole cut in the law. The Real Foogla posted:No they become less benevolent when they change their focus, from for example "Make tasty food for my friends" to "Make as much money possible by selling food to strangers" Then why does it matter how many meals are prepared? The "1000 cookies/week" specter has been raised a few times.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:18
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Ignoring the eye-rolling simplification of business, are you saying that the food standards are lessened for non-commercial cases because they believe that non-professional cooks are more careful out of benevolence? quote:Do you believe that a school bake sale is benevolent and therefore should be exempt from the food safety standards that currently, AIUI, apply to them as a commercial operation? Do they become less benevolent as they scale up?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:20
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Are you saying that you think Josephine should be exempt from food regulations if they limited their cooks to, say, two meals/day each? I don't see how having N meals produced by 1 person or by N people changes the calculus, other than to perhaps favour the fewer, more-practiced cooks. Many households cook 2 meals/day without foodborne illness issues for years at a stretch, so the probabilities seem viable. A dangerous cook cooking for their own family might poison 2 or 3 people, while bad it's not possible to have every home kitchen inspected. A dangerous cook cooking 100 meals a day could easily badly poison 20 or thirty people before they worked out where it came from which is why its worth the effort to inspect larger operations. There are also very different practicalities when making enough food for just your family and enough food to sell, the main being storing the food safely until it reaches the customer.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 04:17 |
|
|
Have we reached a consensus about how many hotdogs a hotdog vendor needs to sell before food safety rules apply? It is critical to my new Hotdogr app.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:22
|
|
