Is deregulation even possible anymore without government collapse or a "benevolent dictatorship"?

[ScatmansWorld]

The last time I could recall deregulation being prominent in first world governments was during the Reagan administration, and even then that was the same administration that prompted the so called "war on drugs" and greatly increased spending for the military and police force. The act of governance has always been a game of constantly building laws upon laws and increasing top down control over whatever you can get away with, and while the systems of representative lawmakers should in theory lead to more level headed legal decisions, the result is often a slow and grueling process where terrible laws and regulations become a permanent addition to a government's legal lexicon. Beyond that, agencies like the NSA and MI5 are constantly pushing for invasive and centralized technology to collect as much information on their own citizens as possible, and have no incentive or reason to behave differently. All of this leaves me to believe there's only two ways we'll ever see any kind of loosening of government power and bureaucracy:

1. A complete collapse of a world power's government in which various smaller governing bodies form. (and miraculously few or none of them are absorbed by another major world power.)

2. A "benevolent dictator" takes power in a country that's usually run as a representative democracy and manages to do away with a great amount of laws, regulations, and government agencies.

My question is, is there any possibility of deregulation happening in our government systems as they are now? Am I just being overly pessimistic about all of this? Or, alternatively, would we actually be worse off pursuing policies of deregulation at this point?

 

[Anasûrimbor Kellhus]

deregulation should focus on cutting waste and and unnecessary Bureaucrats, I do not want deregulation that involves all our food being not food or having sewage in my drinking water

 

[geckogoy]

Monopolistic corporations benefit from vague, draconian, difficult to follow regulations. It serves purely as a barrier to entry, they can cope with it relatively well as they get drip fed one rule at a time, whilst a new entrant is facing a wall of a thousand all at once.

Disenfranchise the corporations and we will probably claw back a degree of simpler legal code. Clawing back simpler legal code would also undermine large corporations, so could conceivably try for both at once. What is really needed is making the observation that most of these companies want to be regulated, to understand their behavior and how to push back on them.

 

[KateHikes14]

Monopolistic corporations benefit from vague, draconian, difficult to follow regulations. It serves purely as a barrier to entry, they can cope with it relatively well as they get drip fed one rule at a time, whilst a new entrant is facing a wall of a thousand all at once.

Disenfranchise the corporations and we will probably claw back a degree of simpler legal code. Clawing back simpler legal code would also undermine large corporations, so could conceivably try for both at once. What is really needed is making the observation that most of these companies want to be regulated, to understand their behavior and how to push back on them.

Without trade protectionism that's just a novel way of becoming a vassal state, a la Europe.

 

[Nekoi.Inukuma.00]

Whether regulation or deregulation, all modern government policies ratchet in the direction of political power.

Regulation benefits the incumbent actors who can afford the lawyers, compliance departments, or lobbyists, to comply with, disarm, or "tweak" the regulations or regulators.

Many forms of deregulation allow for the larger incumbents to absorb or destroy their competition. It becomes a race to the bottom. Think Walmart. Your options for recompense when you get fed that toxic waste might become limited; and don't expect the market to correct for that shit, they'll just go with the China method, bankrupt the company, shutdown, spin up new company to do the same garbage business practices. Again, race to the bottom, Amazon.com style.

This will continue this way until people burn it down, either at the ballot box (e.g. 2016 U.S., or modern day Argentina), or like a Minneapolis Target store.

 

[Omori Boy]

deregulation should focus on cutting waste and and unnecessary Bureaucrats, I do not want deregulation that involves all our food being not food or having sewage in my drinking water

You would cut down on waste and unnecessary spending by putting in laws and organizations that can dish out punishment for when those rules are broken. I think if you deregulated anything in the government you would just create bigger loopholes.

Monopolistic corporations benefit from vague, draconian, difficult to follow regulations. It serves purely as a barrier to entry, they can cope with it relatively well as they get drip fed one rule at a time, whilst a new entrant is facing a wall of a thousand all at once.

Disenfranchise the corporations and we will probably claw back a degree of simpler legal code. Clawing back simpler legal code would also undermine large corporations, so could conceivably try for both at once. What is really needed is making the observation that most of these companies want to be regulated, to understand their behavior and how to push back on them.

This would make sense if you didn't know anything about what reality has in store for you. For example, the passing of the 4R Act of 1976 and the Staggers Rail Act brought massive deregulation of the rail industry, what was the outcome of this? The rail industry recovered from their decades of decline, because their cost to operate was halved, a success for rail companies. What else did it bring? Well seeing as it was supposed to help with competition between rail companies, it's really strange that we went from 30+ rail companies pre-acts to only 7 Rail companies, which doesn't sound like that part worked. Well and then there's the problem of safety, yes it's going to go to where you think it is, the laws previous to this were 100 years old, and they were written in blood. And let's look at what this paper has to say on the effects of deregulating the safety of rail operations.

1. Safety Concerns: One of the major criticisms of railroad deregulation is the potential impact on safety standards within the industry. Prior to deregulation, the government had strict regulations in place to ensure the safety of both passengers and freight. However, with the removal of these regulations, some argue that safety standards may have been compromised in favor of increased efficiency and cost-cutting measures.

- Under deregulation, railroads are responsible for their own safety inspections, maintenance, and training programs. This shift in responsibility has raised concerns about the ability of railroads to effectively monitor and address safety issues. For example, there have been instances where inadequate maintenance practices have led to train accidents, such as derailments or collisions.

- Additionally, critics argue that the competitive nature of deregulation may incentivize railroads to prioritize profits over safety. In an effort to cut costs, railroads may be tempted to reduce the number of safety inspections or delay necessary repairs, potentially putting both employees and the public at risk.

2. Service Quality: Another challenge associated with railroad deregulation is the potential impact on service quality. Prior to deregulation, railroads were required to provide service to all customers, regardless of profitability. However, with the removal of these mandates, railroads are now able to focus on more profitable routes and customers, potentially leaving some areas underserved.

- This issue is particularly relevant for rural communities and small businesses that heavily rely on rail transportation. Without government regulations to ensure equal access to rail services, these communities may face challenges in getting their goods to market or receiving necessary supplies. This can have a detrimental impact on their economic viability and overall development.

- Moreover, critics argue that without competition regulations, railroads may engage in anti-competitive practices, such as price discrimination or predatory pricing, which can harm smaller businesses and limit consumer choice.

3. Environmental Impact: The environmental consequences of railroad deregulation are also a cause for concern. Rail transportation is generally considered to be more environmentally friendly compared to other modes of transportation, such as trucks or planes. However, without government regulations in place to enforce environmental standards, some worry that railroads may not prioritize sustainability and environmental protection.

- For example, deregulation may lead to increased diesel emissions from older locomotives that are cheaper to operate but less fuel-efficient and more polluting. Additionally, without regulations mandating the use of cleaner technologies or imposing emissions limits, railroads may be less inclined to invest in environmentally friendly practices.

- However, it is important to note that not all railroads may choose to neglect environmental considerations. Some companies may recognize the long-term benefits of sustainable practices and voluntarily adopt greener technologies and strategies.

4. worker rights and Unionization: The impact of railroad deregulation on worker rights and unionization is another aspect that deserves attention. Prior to deregulation, unions played a crucial role in representing and protecting the rights of railroad workers. However, with the increased competition and restructuring that followed deregulation, unions have faced significant challenges.

- Deregulation has allowed railroads to implement cost-cutting measures, such as layoffs and reduced benefits, which have negatively impacted workers. Additionally, the increased competition has made it more difficult for unions to negotiate favorable contracts or maintain strong bargaining power.

That's a lot of points going against it. Of course this is from a paper that is generally positive of the acts, but, only because it's good for companies making money. Fuck the workers, and fuck anyone living near a rail line.

 

[geckogoy]

How is borderline nationalizing passenger rail 'de-regulating'

 

[Angry Alt Right Nerd]

As bad as the slow decline is, posts like this make me think that if anyone else was in charge the economy would collapse overnight

 

[des Pudels Kern]

It really is like the South Park episode. The economy is so complex that it can only be understood by throwing a headless chicken. Everything is fine. Just don't involve yourself, and you should be able to make it to your natural death alive.

 

[ScatmansWorld]

As bad as the slow decline is, posts like this make me think that if anyone else was in charge the economy would collapse overnight

It really is like the South Park episode. The economy is so complex that it can only be understood by throwing a headless chicken. Everything is fine. Just don't involve yourself, and you should be able to make it to your natural death alive.

This isn't a solely economic question, it has to do with bureaucracy and draconian government policies as a whole. There's practically zero world governments that will secede power or a precedent of power once it is established. One example everyone uses is income tax being introduced as a temporary measure before becoming a permanent and expected part of life.

 

[des Pudels Kern]

Isn't Argentina doing that right now? That new wannabe-jew-libertarian president is supposed to be cutting the government in half. Problem is that they are going to start using our dollars, and once they do that there isn't really any coming back. That's an example that could bring some good, and perhaps a lol, or 2.

 

[wtfNeedSignUp]

There are way too many jobs hinging on regulation so cutting it off is impossible, plus decades of media highlighting the few cases of it being necessary makes arguing against it far harder than it should.

 

[SpergioLeonne]

We could possibly back away from the ledge a bit if campaign finance was done away with.

I don’t mean “fixed,” I mean done away with. Everyone should just get a time slot on CSPAN to make their pitch, some video platform should have IBS style debates, and all other shit that isn’t 100% volunteer should be banned.

Also, elected offices should be made less comfortable all around.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

Sure. Lots of great rulers throughout history have attacked the bureaucracy and came out on top. You just have to be prepared to get a lot of shit flung at you for doing so since the bureaucracy is always well-connected.

But I would not confuse attacking the bureaucracy with deregulating. We could enforce all sorts of reasonable and even beneficial regulations with a much smaller bureaucracy. It's very easy to hand corporations power via deregulation and removing the bureaucracy, and that's precisely what happened thanks to so-called conservatives like Ronald Reagan.

Beyond that, agencies like the NSA and MI5 are constantly pushing for invasive and centralized technology to collect as much information on their own citizens as possible, and have no incentive or reason to behave differently

Some of this inevitably is the problems that come with technology. If terrorists can plot a bombing on the internet, someone has to sift through a lot of data to find that plot. All the CP trading is now done online and so is most of the drug dealing, prostitution, etc. They have to be able to track sales of materials which someone good at chemistry can turn into a bomb.

Problem is these sorts of groups got all sorts of perverse incentives from the minute they could tell some Muzzie schizo they'd sell him a bomb, beg him into buying the bomb, arrest him when he showed up, and get hailed as heroes in the War on Terror.

1. A complete collapse of a world power's government in which various smaller governing bodies form. (and miraculously few or none of them are absorbed by another major world power.)

And said smaller governing bodies will maintain all their own bureaucracies or rapidly build them. Look at how much state level red tape there is, it's pretty bad. The only thing I like about it is that state bureaucrats are theoretically more responsive to voters plus they theoretically can offer me a job (in practice they won't because even red states love affirmative action).