[potato3732842]

>Individual regulations, each reasonable in isolation...

Every single one of these rules that amounts to death by a thousand cuts preventing these sorts of businesses (as well as many others) will be rabidly defended by many/most if presented in the abstract. That sort of inability to reason about the forest based on what you're doing to the trees is the root problem. And it's a social/ideological/moral one, even if it expresses itself via governments.

It's no more "reasonable in isolation" to peddle rules than it is to justify littering in the park because they don't take effect in isolation. If everyone does it everything goes to crap and we all know it so we don't let anyone justify littering in the park using the effect in isolation.

[HPsquared]

And nobody who sells $4 lunch bowls will have enough cash left over to lobby for rule changes in their favour.

[falcor84]

I really enjoyed Lex Fridman's interview with Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson on this topic, as part of their book tour for Abundance. Even if I disagree with some of their proposals, I really liked their focus and clarification of the issue. We should be mindful of the POSIWID principle and be talking a lot more about the results of our policies.

https://youtu.be/DTPSeeKokdo

[throw0101d]

> POSIWID

* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...

[Analemma_]

This is why the "let's slash regulations and cut the size of the government to let business prosper" pitch seems so appealing, and yet never seems to work in practice. The problem is, these kinds of deregulatory pushes always imagine that there are a bunch of price-increasing regulations set up by unaccountable bureaucrats somewhere, and that we can tear those down while making the system simultaneously cheaper and more democratic. A win-win! Supposedly.

The problem is, that's not really how it works. There are a bunch of regulations made by bureaucrats, but those tend to be the pretty arcane ones which are necessary but aren't adding a lot of cost (think "what color do the flashing lights on radio towers have to be so planes don't crash into them"). And simultaneously, there are a bunch of regulations which are actually driving costs up, but those are the ones either broadly supported by the public, or supported by one particular interest group who will fight tooth-and-nail to keep it because their livelihood or home equity depends on the rent extraction.

To actually cut costs with deregulation, you need to fight ugly political battles often against sympathetic groups (homeowners, doctors, teachers, construction workers etc.), which no politician wants to do, so they instead try to pretend that "bureaucrats" (who could be less sympathetic than bureaucrats?) are to blame.

[ak217]

That's exactly right. I have so many frustrating stories from local politics that go exactly like you described.

There is hope. Scott Wiener is a California politician who saw that these problems can't be resolved at the local level and got himself elected to the state legislature. He is smart about how he sets up the battles so he has had very good results incrementally improving California's zoning - and other things - by gradually restricting local zoning authority when it's abused.

We are not yet at the "convenience store at the subdivision corner" stage, but give him time.

[floatrock]

I think you missed the whole point of the story about being able to open up a micro-eatery in front of your home. You know, where you live and want to build up a community. Back when we used to be great, didn't we idolize the local bar where everyone knows your name? That's what these neighborhood shops are.

No one wants to go where you'll be poisoned through food contamination. Food safety regulations are a good thing. But when you try to apply the same regulations to a 150-patrons-per-hour fast food operation as you do to a 4 seat neighborhood micro-eatery, well, you're claiming they all have the same 1-size-fits-all risk profile and the end result is you make an entire class of entrepreneurship unattainable. That's not freedom, that's restriction.