yes, using the monopoly of force to obligate others who disagree with you to act the way you want.

laws should only exist when overwhelming majorities of the population think it's absolutely obvious that thing should be regulated in that way. and that support should be checked every once in a while (mandatory sunset clauses for all laws).

if , when you ask the vast majority of people, they don't all say "lol obviously this has to be regulated in that way, the **** you talking about", then something shouldn't be regulated in that way.

and when you do any job, the median IQ person in society should easily know ALL rules that apply to that job. The idea of needing lawyers to do your job implies too many rules exist for your job.

the totality of the rules to run a restaurant should be read in a day or day by a slow person, be easily memorized, and easily understood by a median IQ person. totality including everything from appliances to trash to work contract and so on. AT MOST

the idea of laws passing with simple majorities is insane. the idea of having literally millions of pages of rules in insane.

Speaking of insanity, the idea of vesting the power to veto any possible law in the majority of people, who are on average of average intelligence, is insane to me.

Maybe luciom “inaccurate” perception causes him to hold many controversial views ?

Here in Quebec for example :
https://fondationalphabetisation.org...y%20illiterate.


Again we fall on Lucian expecting simple solution to complex issues wishing to live in a very simple world .
To the kind of political populism I was referring earlier …

+1
But hey public education is the enemy and should be ride off shrug .

I wasn't really commenting on your apparent views on expertise.

I was thinking primarily of your overwhelming tendency to be doctrinaire.

This is a perfect example of what I mean when I say that you are doctrinaire. You believe that the median IQ person walking down the street should know all the rules that pertain to disposal of nuclear waste, even though disposal of nuclear waste is something that almost everyone believes should be closely regulated and even though disposal of nuclear waste is a highly specialized job for which most people have no reason to learn the specifics of the rules.

I can say with almost total certainty that anyone involved in the business of disposing of nuclear waste would find your position laughable, no matter their politics and no matter what they think about the current rules.

sure nuclear waste when i talk about a job. In a nuclear plant there will be plenty of different jobs, and nuclear waste itself does require many different people doing many different things. Each one of them should be able to know all the rules that apply to their specific role inside nuclear waste management.

Meanwhile actual normal people like dunno barbers are overwhelmed by an insane number of rules, 99% of which didn't exist in 1900, when barbers already existed and operated just fine.

You want "median IQ among people qualified for that job" as a refinement? sure let's refine.

Let me do it from another angle, because you claim i am "doctrinaire" while my point is we are living a collective psychosis wrt regulation.

Can we take the top20 countries for human development index and operate a "minimum common denominator" kind of thing? like if at least one of them doesn't have rule X, that proves rules X is absolutely insane? can we at least agree the optimal amount of rules is the absolute bare minimum to achieve decent results? we can discuss what "decent" means, and haggle about "optimal" and whatnot, but the approach currently from everyone on the left, and a decent amount of people on the right, is rules are a hammer to try to put society into shape the way you would like outcomes to be.

And the automatic effect of that is having 50-100x the amount of rules that would make sense. You wonna argue it would be better to remove only 85% of rules instead of the 99% i think is proper? sure.

But how can you defend the current regulatory state as being reasonable at all? there are a ton of things that we could do in 1981 and we can't today, while a good trend would be the literal opposite.

Your nuclear waste example though is telling: you must be using the idea that increased complexity justifies more rules.

Which is why it takes longer to pave a road today than it took us to build actual skyscrapers 120 years ago with infinitely worse technology than we have today.

We have buildings from 800 years ago still standing built with 0 building codes in action in my city. They incredibly didn't even have payroll taxes at the time for workers.

"how is that even possible" in your model?

If we built the building X in Y years in 1900, normal progress would be building it in a fraction of the time today, pareto efficiently with a lot of better features.

That's what happens when the regulatory insanities don't strangle progress. And we have examples in manufacturing and farming.

The absolute hellhole disaster we are in wrt infrastructure and real estate development in general (regulatory wise) is just an example

Most of those rules are to do with health and safety. A lot more people got seriously injured and died on the job 100 years ago than do now, but I'm guessing you probably think that's a good thing - if they weren't strong/smart/lucky enough to make it out of the mine, we probably don't want their genes polluting our pool anyway.

Do you think there should be some rules against the below, or do you think that it should be allowed?

What are the insane rules that you believe apply to barbers? As far as I can tell, barbers operate today in exactly the same way they did in 1980, and probably in the same way they did in 1950, although I obviously wasn't alive in 1950. You sit in a chair. They use clippers and scissors. They hold up a mirror so you can confirm that the back looks OK. They brush the hair off your neck and collar when they are done. They sweep the floor periodically. They prefer that you pay in cash.

How does it work in Italy?

0 people died in the building of the Chrysler building in 1928. 0 people died building the Tour Eiffel.

/

HOW MANY WORKERS DIED BUILDING SKYSCRAPERS IN NEW YORK?
Although the Chrysler building stands out for having no fatalities, there were far fewer skyscraper worker deaths than you would expect in the early years, given the historical photos and footage of workers without safety equipment hundreds of feet in the air.

For example, how many people died building the Empire State Building? Five (5) workers died in slip-and-fall or struck-by accidents over the 13 months of construction (1929-1930). With 3400 workers total, that's a rate of 1.47 deaths per thousand.

Compare that to the World Trade Center in 1973, which had a similar total workforce but was a dozen times more deadly. The WTC is New York's most lethal construction project, with 60 fatalities.

I think in general the government shouldn't have (legally) a say in anything doing voluntarily among adults. There can be exceptions but personal risk in a job is clearly a private matter with no huge externalities so the state shouldn't be legally allow to even discuss the possibility of regulating it in any way

A total of 39 workers died constructing the Golden Gate bridge and the Bay Bridge in the 1930s.

I think he's objecting that they have to put up the "wet floor" signs every time they mop up. Regulation gone mad.

Ok, but most reasonable people would disagree. Does your principled stance on adhering to the wishes of the majority also apply when you're not part of it?

Adults just making decisions. All good. Right, Luciom?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triang...t_Factory_fire

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls

Are you serious? the rules that apply to them are insanely more convoluted today than in 1980 or 1950.

In california they have a government board of barbering jfc.

Check the regulations

https://www.barbercosmo.ca.gov/laws_regs/act_regs.shtml

Then ofc you have fiscal regulations as a barber, local city regulations, labour law regulations if you hire help.

In italy outside of luxury ones in expensive cities, they just all disregard regulations which is how we survive.

I wouldn't listen to what Rococo has to say about barbers, he hasn't had the need for one since 1985.

Within constitutional limits ; as i said i would like the constitution to ban that approach.

I am not saying it is illegal today to regulate as they do, but i am saying it should, i am expressing a preference about what i would like to see protected in the constitution.

I thought i made it clear that most leftist preferences should actually be banned constitutionally

Seems like you just want a constitution that prohibits any sort of legislative activity short of changing the constitution itself.

hm no? property rights and body autonomy have to be protected, contracts enforced, some taxation collected for the judicial system, jails, police, militaries, diplomatic presence outside the border and so on

I can't speak to California, but in NYC, there are a million barbers shops. I've never observed a barber shop being closed for regulatory violations. And the people who run your average barber shop don't strike me as regulatory experts.

So, laws are fine, as long as they are laws you personally agree with, and laws you personally disagree with should be constitutionally barred. I don't see any problems at all with this approach, other than perhaps, how does one know a priori which potential laws you would personally agree when drafting this document?

you know how the 1a works? if a majority wants to ban speech they dislike for whatever reason, they can't.

That's the model i propose to extend simply to all individual freedoms. How you work, who you hire, what substances you want to consume, what you want to do with your own building and so on.

Severely limiting the perimeter of what the state can do wrt individual freedom.

You know what, barber shops work pretty well in America in my experience. Whatever regulations are in place are working fine imo.

Nope.

Yup.