Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Why we need less government

Why we need less government
Thread Tools
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2011, 12:48 PM
 
MINNEAPOLIS—State parks, horse-racing tracks and the state Capitol are all closed because of the government shutdown here. If the budget standoff lingers, the neighborhood watering hole could be next

More than 300 bars and liquor stores can't buy beer, wine or liquor to sell to consumers because their $20 alcohol-purchasing licenses, known as buyer's cards, have expired, a casualty of the July 1 shutdown.

Meanwhile, state officials told MillerCoors LLC, the second-largest beer maker in the U.S. behind Anheuser-Busch InBev NV, that it must remove all 39 brands of its beer from shelves statewide because its $1,170 brand-label registration fee wasn't processed before the shutdown.
Minnesota Shutdown Hits Happy Hour - WSJ.com

WTF ?

Buyer's cards ?
Brand-label registration fee ?

Is THAT what we need government for ?
This is the typical government bullshit that we have accepted as a nuisance, but thought of not worth fighting against.

This is just one of many examples how government is extremely bloated, and could be cut w/o impact (if the unnecessary laws and regulations are cut as well).

-t
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2011, 01:05 PM
 
Silly me. After the first paragraph, I was wondering why Minneapolis still maintained a watering hole for horses.
     
turtle777  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2011, 01:08 PM
 


-t
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2011, 01:20 PM
 
Of all the things to complain about, this seems like a silly one. Regulation is good in some areas, bad in others. Can't examples be found of each?
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2011, 01:23 PM
 
Whats your alternative?
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
turtle777  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2011, 01:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Of all the things to complain about, this seems like a silly one. Regulation is good in some areas, bad in others. Can't examples be found of each?
Well of course. I'm not an anarchist, saying that ALL government is bad.
Let's cut the crap (i.e. bad examples), and shrink government to the things that are necessary.

Unfortunately, lots of government is like a cancer. It grows and grows and grows, thereby destroying productive parts of the economy and society.

-t
     
Dork.
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Rochester, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2011, 02:26 PM
 
I don't get it. Licensing beer and liquor sales is an example of government waste?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2011, 02:32 PM
 
The waste (its not really waste, just stupidity and inflexibility) is that someone went to the trouble of making a fuss about a bunch of trivial licenses that expired by a day or so. They really shouldn't be enforcing sanctions so drastic, so fast.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2011, 02:36 PM
 
Yeah this situation does suck donkey balls. But as was stated earlier .... what's the alternative? Liquor licensing is handled at the state and local level. The government regulates the sale and manufacture of alcoholic beverages to ensure public health and safety. Are you suggesting that just anybody should be able to set up shop and serve whatever they want and return us to the days of Prohibition when people were dropping dead from tainted alcohol? It wasn't mentioned in the article but I imagine construction projects are being impacted because the inspection process is shutdown. Should government get out of enforcing building codes?

OAW
     
turtle777  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2011, 02:41 PM
 
Public health and safety my ass.

How does the public get safer and healthier by imposing a stupid brand-label registration fee ?

-t
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2011, 02:58 PM
 
One must ask how many people it takes to run and operate a major city. Toronto City Hall is axing 17 000 employees out of 53 000 people. That means the city employs a small town worth of people. Really makes you wonder how much waste occurs when you combine all levels of government from bottom up. Toronto alone spends 4.6 Billion dollars on salaries and benefits....
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2011, 03:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Public health and safety my ass.

How does the public get safer and healthier by imposing a stupid brand-label registration fee ?

-t
Perhaps we ought to take a look at the relevant regulation to answer that question?

7515.0820 REGISTRATION.

A written request for registration of a brand label must be filed with the commissioner, accompanied by the following items:

A. a check payable to "Director of Alcohol and Gambling Enforcement" in the amount of $30, for payment of the registration fee for each brand and for each type of product or $20 for each registration renewal;

B. a set of copies of beer cans and lids;

C. if requested by the commissioner, two labeled and sealed containers of malt beverages for analysis;

D. if requested by the commissioner, a complete, signed chemical analysis of the product and a verified statement that the product to be sold under the label will correspond in all respects to the sample and analysis;

E. a verified statement by the brand owner or an authorized representative declaring ownership of the label and identifying the United States distributor, if other than the brand owner; and

F. a set of front and back labels, and any other labels to be affixed to the containers. In the case of imported alcoholic beverages, the name and address of the importer must be shown on the label.
Minnesota Administrative Rule - 7515.0820

C and D involve conducting chemical analysis of the particular alcoholic beverage brand to ensure its safety. E identifies who owns and/or distributes a particular brand of alcoholic beverage in case these entities need to be contacted for safety purposes (i.e. inspections, recalls, etc.). F provides a mechanism for the government regulatory agency to identify a particular brand of alcoholic brand by its label ... including the name and address of the entity that imports any foreign made alcoholic beverages.

Again ... the situation really sucks for the people impacted. And on the surface it might appear that "brand label registration" is frivolous. But if you take a moment to dig a little deeper into WHY this regulation exists then it's quite clear that there are legitimate public health and safety issues involved. And the fee is imposed because conducting chemical analyses and processing the necessary paperwork to keep track of all the players (i.e. importers, manufacturers, wholesales, distributors, etc.) in case something goes down involves costs. If a bad batch of Coors Light was sold and distributed in Minnesota don't you think it would be a good thing for the state government to be able to quickly identify all the companies involved in the supply chain in order to rectify the situation? Wouldn't it be advantageous to have a reference sample of Coors Light at hand to be able to quickly conduct a chemical analysis of a tainted bottle to see how it differs ... thereby expediting the process of identifying the source of the contamination?

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Jul 14, 2011 at 03:21 PM. )
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2011, 03:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Perhaps we ought to take a look at the relevant regulation to answer that question?



Minnesota Administrative Rule - 7515.0820

C and D involve conducting chemical analysis of the particular alcoholic beverage brand to ensure its safety. E identifies who owns and/or distributes a particular brand of alcoholic beverage in case these entities need to be contacted for safety purposes (i.e. inspections, recalls, etc.). F provides a mechanism for the government regulatory agency to identify a particular brand of alcoholic brand by its label ... including the name and address of the entity that imports any foreign made alcoholic beverages.

Again ... the situation really sucks for the people impacted. And on the surface it might appear that "brand label registration" is frivolous. But if you take a moment to dig a little deeper into WHY this regulation exists then it's quite clear that there are legitimate public health and safety issues involved. And the fee is imposed because conducting chemical analyses and processing the necessary paperwork to keep track of all the players (i.e. importers, manufacturers, wholesales, distributors, etc.) in case something goes down involves costs. If a bad batch of Coors Light was sold and distributed in Minnesota don't you think it would be a good thing for the state government to be able to quickly identify all the companies involved in the supply chain in order to rectify the situation? Wouldn't it be advantageous to have a reference sample of Coors Light at hand to be able to quickly conduct a chemical analysis of a tainted bottle to see how it differs ... thereby expediting the process of identifying the source of the contamination?

OAW


Now I see why people have you on ignore, you are too logical
     
turtle777  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2011, 03:23 PM
 
They are lying.

two labeled and sealed containers of malt beverages for analysis;
Do you REALLY think they do an individual analysis for $30 ? Bullshit.

You pay those government employees $30 so they can enjoy a free beer.

-t
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2011, 03:33 PM
 
An individual analysis of two containers? Why is that so hard to believe that they could run two bottles through a machine for $30?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2011, 03:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
They are lying.



Do you REALLY think they do an individual analysis for $30 ? Bullshit.

You pay those government employees $30 so they can enjoy a free beer.

-t
Do you REALLY think that's what I said? I could have sworn I said that the government agency tasked with regulating alcoholic beverage sales incurs costs with respect to ensuring the public health and safety of individual brands. Conducting chemical analyses is but one. Do you think what this agency does gets done for free? Now you can b*tch and moan about $30 if you so desire. Maybe the fee is excessive .... maybe not. But that wasn't your original objection. Whether the fee is $30 or $3 is immaterial to this discussion because you objected to the regulation's very existence. All I'm saying is that there is a legitimate reason for it being in place.

In any event, there's going to be a lot of unhappy retailers blowing up the phones of Minnesota state officials if MillerCoors is forced to pull all its products off the shelf. If the people of Minnesota are lucky it might put enough pressure on the politicians involved to come up with a sensible compromise.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Jul 14, 2011 at 04:36 PM. )
     
turtle777  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2011, 04:00 PM
 
I don't get it. Are you really defending this bullshit ?

-t
     
turtle777  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2011, 04:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
An individual analysis of two containers? Why is that so hard to believe that they could run two bottles through a machine for $30?
It's the government. Even changing a light bulb will cost $1,000. Minimum.

But that's besides the point. It's unnecessary State regulation. Let the FDA take care of this for ALL of the US.

-t
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2011, 04:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
I don't get it. Are you really defending this bullshit ?

-t
Am I defending the existence of the regulation? Yes.

Am I defending MillerCoors having to remove all their products out of Minnesota when their registration expires? No.

Unfortunately, that's the law which was written under the assumption that a company that allowed its registration to lapse was no longer interested in doing business in the state.

(a) A brand of intoxicating liquor or 3.2 percent malt liquor may not be manufactured, imported into, or sold in the state unless the brand label has been registered with and approved by the commissioner. A brand registration must be renewed every three years in order to remain in effect. The fee for an initial brand registration is $40. The fee for brand registration renewal is $30. The brand label of a brand of intoxicating liquor or 3.2 percent malt liquor for which the brand registration has expired, is conclusively deemed abandoned by the manufacturer or importer.
Minnesota Statute - 340A.311 BRAND REGISTRATION.

The problem here is that MillerCoors is NOT abandoning its license. It just can't get it renewed because of the government shutdown. But the legislation as its written doesn't make an exception for such a scenario. As the WSJ article indicates, MillerCoors is working with state officials to work something out. In light of the "spirit of the law" I certainly think it's appropriate to make an exception to the "letter of the law" in this case and the cases of the businesses with soon to expire "liquor buyer's cards". They should be granted a temporary extension since they are not at fault here.

OAW
( Last edited by OAW; Jul 14, 2011 at 04:48 PM. )
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2011, 04:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
But that's besides the point. It's unnecessary State regulation. Let the FDA take care of this for ALL of the US.

-t
Wow! Stop the presses!!! Did turtle777 just say that this regulation was more appropriate at the federal level? No knee-jerk, right-wing ideological, anti-federal government response?

BTW ... I totally agree with you. This ought to be regulated at the federal level. Along with insurance, building codes, drivers licensing, etc. Having 50 different agencies perform the same freaking function is beyond retarded IMO.

OAW
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2011, 04:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Wow! Stop the presses!!! Did turtle777 just say that this regulation was more appropriate at the federal level? No knee-jerk, right-wing ideological, anti-federal government response?

BTW ... I totally agree with you. This ought to be regulated at the federal level. Along with insurance, building codes, drivers licensing, etc. Having 50 different agencies perform the same freaking function is beyond retarded IMO.

OAW
Building codes are already there as of this year. Any provisions that are needed by individual states are presented as amendments to the federal building code.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2011, 06:04 PM
 
Minnesota needs less government? You know their government is shut down right now, right?
     
turtle777  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2011, 06:11 PM
 
Well, duh. RTFT

-t
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2011, 06:22 PM
 
Oops, missed the first line.
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2011, 11:15 PM
 
… .
( Last edited by el chupacabra; Jan 5, 2024 at 12:58 AM. )
     
turtle777  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 14, 2011, 11:17 PM
 
Exactly. They take the money and do shit.

-t
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 06:51 AM
 
This thread is pretty typical of conservative hysteria about gov't regulations: conservative provides an example of pointless regulation, which turns out to be totally sensible regulation. Rise. Repeat.
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
It's the government. Even changing a light bulb will cost $1,000. Minimum.
No one is gonna take you seriously when you spout ludicrous hyperbole.
But that's besides the point. It's unnecessary State regulation. Let the FDA take care of this for ALL of the US.
Sure, replace state authority with federal authority. I'm sure conservatives everywhere will love this idea.

I find it hilarious that turtle decides to mock alcohol regulations, instead of the "omg totally necessary gov't horse racing tracks"

It's also pretty clear that the conservatives who spearheaded this disaterous gov't shutdown didn't bother to think thru the consequences on private businesses, which would be ironic if conservatives actually cared about private business as much as they say they do.
( Last edited by lpkmckenna; Jul 15, 2011 at 06:59 AM. )
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 07:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
BTW ... I totally agree with you. This ought to be regulated at the federal level. Along with insurance, building codes, drivers licensing, etc. Having 50 different agencies perform the same freaking function is beyond retarded IMO.
Generally-speaking, local authority is much more responsive than federal authority. We could replace all municipal and regional authority with federal authority, but getting anything changed would become a nightmare.

Also, having parallel institutions permits variations, which allows for analysis of which variations are better. State A can look over at State B and decide if they're doing it better or worse. This is impossible with only federal authority.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 07:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
The government regulates the sale and manufacture of alcoholic beverages to ensure public health and safety.
Is this what the BOEMRE (formally MMA) did in regulating BP? Or the NHTSA in regulating Toyota? The SEC in regulating the market? etc, etc... Of course the government is not interested in ensuring OAWs health and safety, they couldn't give a rat's ass. I'll give you a perfect example at the bottom.

Are you suggesting that just anybody should be able to set up shop and serve whatever they want and return us to the days of Prohibition when people were dropping dead from tainted alcohol?
First of all, prohibition was government intervention that turned a pastime into gang warfare. Second of all, the day someone drops dead from tainted alcohol is the day that business goes belly up. These aren't the days of Upton Sinclair. The consumer is more than vigilant enough to handle tainted alcohol.

Should government get out of enforcing building codes?
Has the sun been deemed unhealthy or unsafe that the government would require the usage of low-E windows?
ebuddy
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 07:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Well of course. I'm not an anarchist, saying that ALL government is bad.
Let's cut the crap (i.e. bad examples), and shrink government to the things that are necessary.
I think this is something most people can agree on. Problem is that people disagree on what is and isn't necessary. To simply say `let's do away with government agency X' where X can be anything from the FCC to the EPA to the IRS to the military means that people usually forget about all the unintended consequences such a move may have. To conclude from examples of (seemingly) non-sensical rights and regulations the uselessness of a government agency is usually populist BS and a result of oversimplification.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 08:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Is this what the BOEMRE (formally MMA) did in regulating BP? Or the NHTSA in regulating Toyota? The SEC in regulating the market? etc, etc... Of course the government is not interested in ensuring OAWs health and safety, they couldn't give a rat's ass. I'll give you a perfect example at the bottom.
I've always wondered where you're going with these sort of statements.

So my understanding is that you're saying:

Originally Posted by What I think you're saying
1. The government set up regulatory standards
2. Private companies did not meet those standards, ostensibly because they were cheap/lazy/mistaken/unscrupulous
3. The government did not have an effective enough regime in place to monitor the regulatory standards.
4. Therefore, there should not be regulatory standards because government is evil.
....what?

Now, I understand that you'll immediately give me all sort of qualifications about how this is actually not what you're saying, but, well, what is it, exactly? It's pretty clear that if there were no regulatory standards, companies would immediately "race to the bottom" of the "minimum cheapest level required to not get sued more than we profit."

Essentially, you're blaming the government because the private companies failed to live up to the required standards. It confuses me.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 08:26 AM
 
I'm with turtle; the sale of alcohol should not be regulated. I've always thought that restricting people's right to drink alcohol until after they turned 21 was rather far-reaching.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 08:54 AM
 
ShortcutToMoncton's analysis of ebuddy is perfect and concise.

I have nothing to add except this: Starve the Beast. Government in the States is having trouble enforcing laws because they are being brutally denied adequate operating budgets. Complaining that they don't do their job when they are unable do their job is dishonest posturing.
     
turtle777  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 08:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
I have nothing to add except this: Starve the Beast. Government in the States is having trouble enforcing laws because they are being brutally denied adequate operating budgets. Complaining that they don't do their job when they are unable do their job is dishonest posturing.
More laws and money to enforce those laws is a self-perpetuating cycle. It will grow and grow and grow like cancer.

If you give money to the government, they're gonna find ways to use it for more regulation, necessary or not.
Running government as a cost center (with unlimited funds just to get done whatever they deem necessary) is a stupid idea.

-t
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 08:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Second of all, the day someone drops dead from tainted alcohol is the day that business goes belly up. These aren't the days of Upton Sinclair. The consumer is more than vigilant enough to handle tainted alcohol.
Holy fnck, this is some seriously demented utopia bullsh!t. Any other industries you wanna completely deregulate in the blind fantasy that the invisible hand magically protects us all from any harm?
     
turtle777  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 09:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Holy fnck, this is some seriously demented utopia bullsh!t. Any other industries you wanna completely deregulate in the blind fantasy that the invisible hand magically protects us all from any harm?
How about giving bars the OPTION to be certified and regulated, and let the consumers decide if they are willing to pay more to get a drink at a regulated facility ?

Since you lefties claim that the cost of all this regulation is sooooo small, there shouldn't be a significant cost difference, so the consumers would of course chose the regulated bars.

-t
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 09:03 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
If you give money to the government, they're gonna find ways to use it for more regulation, necessary or not.
Running government as a cost center (with unlimited funds just to get done whatever they deem necessary) is a stupid idea.
Adequate funds doesn't require "unlimited" funds. And you don't need to give the gov't more money: cut the bloated defence budget, let the temporary tax break stimulus for the rich expire, and claw back subsidies for tax-sucking private industries. Wow, look at all the money available to do actual, useful work now!
     
turtle777  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 09:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Adequate funds doesn't require "unlimited" funds. And you don't need to give the gov't more money: cut the bloated defence budget, let the temporary tax break stimulus for the rich expire, and claw back subsidies for tax-sucking private industries. Wow, look at all the money available to do actual, useful work now!
I actually agree with those cuts.

But you still need to address government waste & abuse.

-t
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 09:13 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
How about giving bars the OPTION to be certified and regulated, and let the consumers decide if they are willing to pay more to get a drink at a regulated facility ?
Sure. Let's fire all the food inspectors too. And the fire safety inspectors. And the building safety inspectors. I can't wait to go drinking and dining in those market-ready establishments.
Since you lefties claim that the cost of all this regulation is sooooo small, there shouldn't be a significant cost difference, so the consumers would of course chose the regulated bars.
Sure, let's create two different legal standards, because one law for all is too confusing or something.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 09:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
But you still need to address government waste & abuse.
But there are no specific allegations of waste and abuse at the alcohol regulators in the link. If there are specific complaints, they can be dealt with without throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 09:21 AM
 
Oh, and less government in the Tobacco and Recreational Drug industries as well.
     
turtle777  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 09:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
But there are no specific allegations of waste and abuse at the alcohol regulators in the link. If there are specific complaints, they can be dealt with without throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
You fail to show how paying a Brand-label registration fee has any effect on public safety and health.

-t
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 09:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
More laws and money to enforce those laws is a self-perpetuating cycle. It will grow and grow and grow like cancer.
This assumes that the legislative branch is just in charge of budgets and that the executive branch can decide on its own where its responsibilities lie: the legislature gives authority to the executive branch to enforce certain things. So if you deny them adequate funds to do what they are supposed to do as mandated by law (whether those laws are useful or not is another matter entirely) is giving them Mission Impossible. The problem is not to start cutting funding, but to cut responsibilities and then to scale funding accordingly. But to think that you cut funding and then take away responsibilities that the government is unable to do is just weird and effectively amounts to a reversal of cause and effect. If you want to `starve the beast,' you should starve its responsibilities.

The example you have used in the beginning of the thread actually serves well to illustrate this point: the problem is not the rights the government authorities have, but the Minnesota state politicians' inability to come to an agreement with regards to the budget. That's what should get people riled up.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 10:30 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
More laws and money to enforce those laws is a self-perpetuating cycle. It will grow and grow and grow like cancer.
...
-t
To be clear, I agree with this. There have to be bright-line decisions made.

(On an unrelated note, my opinion is that many of the most important regulatory decisions to be made are retroactive - i.e. reversing decisions that might have previously made sense but no longer make sense. See: many examples in the farming/agriculture industry, where getting "free money" in the 1950s/60s made sense, but somehow these loopholes have been grandfathered along to the present time, solely on a political basis of course.)

But at the same time, I'm not trying to suggest to ebuddy/yourself that the solution is necessarily to give government more money for enforcement. I'm not sure that's the case. I think the onus should be on the private sector to meet the required regulations.

My point to ebuddy was, why are we blaming the government if the private sector doesn't meet the regulations? Is the argument that "the regulatory standards were bad/should not exist"? Obviously that's a bit of a trick question because I think everyone in here would probably agree that some level of regulation is necessary. In the examples that ebuddy gave, it seems ludicrous to me - and let me know if you don't agree - that there should not be regulation in the oil, car or financial industries. But if you're arguing that the regulation was bad because there wasn't adequate enforcement when/if it was broken...then the easy solution, to me, is to make it more financially burdensome to break the regulations than to meet them.

Does any of this make sense?

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 12:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Is this what the BOEMRE (formally MMA) did in regulating BP? Or the NHTSA in regulating Toyota? The SEC in regulating the market? etc, etc... Of course the government is not interested in ensuring OAWs health and safety, they couldn't give a rat's ass. I'll give you a perfect example at the bottom.
ShortcutToMonton gave a great response to this. I really don't have anything to add.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
First of all, prohibition was government intervention that turned a pastime into gang warfare. Second of all, the day someone drops dead from tainted alcohol is the day that business goes belly up. These aren't the days of Upton Sinclair. The consumer is more than vigilant enough to handle tainted alcohol.
Perhaps. But what's to stop that business from closing down and then re-opening somewhere else under a new name? What happens if their tainted product doesn't make you keel over and die ... but instead poisons you over time in a manner that's difficult to pinpoint? As you well know the prime directive for a corporation is to maximize profit for its shareholders. And we both know for a fact that companies often to a cost/benefit analysis when it comes to product safety. Even to the point of forgoing relatively minor changes that might be the right thing to do because the anticipated cost of lawsuit damages is more than covered by the extra profit derived by not doing it. Market forces will only go so far in restraining unscrupulous behavior because at the end of the day a company is motivated by making money. So why should anyone expect it to be motivated by promoting the common good? And why should anyone expect "the market" ... which is comprised of profit motivated companies and their customers ... to magically promote the common good when that's not what it's setup to do? That's the role of government. To lay down the ground rules and enforce them evenhandedly so that the power of "the market" can be harnessed to benefit society as a whole. Now perhaps you'd prefer the government no longer impose food safety standards and building code standards and just let "the market" handle it. But I'd say such a position would put you in a distinct minority my friend.

Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Has the sun been deemed unhealthy or unsafe that the government would require the usage of low-E windows?
Low-E windows standards have nothing to do with safety. These standards are all about improving the thermal efficiency of windows. In short, these windows are designed to reflect radiant IR energy while letting visible light pass. Thus, heat that comes from outside during the summer gets reflected back out keeping it cooler inside. And, heat that comes from inside during the winter gets reflected back in keeping it warmer inside. Which, of course, lowers energy utilization. And considering the nation's dependence on foreign oil for much of its power needs ... considering the environmental impact of fossil fuel utilization ... this is a very appropriate thing for the government to be doing to promote the common good or the "general welfare" of the people.

OAW
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 12:26 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
I'm with turtle; the sale of alcohol should not be regulated. I've always thought that restricting people's right to drink alcohol until after they turned 21 was rather far-reaching.
Just look at the stupid laws we have here with alcohol. A resident from BC can't bring alcohol bought in Alberta home because its illegal. Wine producers in Kelowna can't ship Wine to any other province. They can ship it around the world and to the US but not to other provinces.


Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
How about giving bars the OPTION to be certified and regulated, and let the consumers decide if they are willing to pay more to get a drink at a regulated facility ?

Since you lefties claim that the cost of all this regulation is sooooo small, there shouldn't be a significant cost difference, so the consumers would of course chose the regulated bars.

-t

Or let private business handle the regulation enforcement and standards part of it and they can bill the businesses directly for certification. The Government agency then only has to deal with regulating a few private companies that then regulate the industry and do random inspections that those regulation companies are doing a proper job. Easier to monitor a few companies then a entire industry. Then it pays for itself. Businesses have choice to to get certified with and can compare prices. Company X charges 400 a year, Company Y charges 350 a year. Company X takes 3 months to issue certificate, company Z takes 2 weeks...


You know one example of this that comes to mind is at my work. The city requires a yearly inspection of the fire alarm system. The city does not send a inspector but requires us to pay for a inspection through a private vender. It just has to be certified. After each inspection a report is sent to the fire department for compliance. Im sure the city randomly checks up on the certified venders to ensure they are doing a proper job. Imagine if the fire department had to inspect every business directly, that would be insanely costly. On a side note we switched from one inspection company to another recently because they included extras like swapping extinguishers every 2 years with new ones. So there is room for competition for inspections that provide a lot more to the business then having a city hall goon doing the work themselves.
( Last edited by Athens; Jul 15, 2011 at 12:39 PM. )
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 12:27 PM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Generally-speaking, local authority is much more responsive than federal authority. We could replace all municipal and regional authority with federal authority, but getting anything changed would become a nightmare.

Also, having parallel institutions permits variations, which allows for analysis of which variations are better. State A can look over at State B and decide if they're doing it better or worse. This is impossible with only federal authority.
Agreed. That's the upside. But here's the downside. Take insurance for example. I work in IT and it is just crazy the amount of money that is spent developing software to write a new policy that has to have 50 variations because each state has its own way of doing things. 85-90% of the code is the same ... and the rest is custom, state specific code. Can't test it once ... oh no that would be too much like right! You have to pay people to test it for each state because Michigan says you have to dot the "i" before you cross the "t" .... but Missouri says you have to cross the "t" before you dot the "i". Now don't get me wrong. I'm not saying everything should be at the federal level. But do we really need 50 different agencies issuing driver's licenses? Is driving in Montana so different than driving in Arizona?

OAW
     
turtle777  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 01:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Just look at the stupid laws we have here with alcohol. A resident from BC can't bring alcohol bought in Alberta home because its illegal. Wine producers in Kelowna can't ship Wine to any other province. They can ship it around the world and to the US but not to other provinces.
Why won't you understand: this is keeping you safe.

To question these laws is "demented utopia bullsh!t."

-t
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 01:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
I've always wondered where you're going with these sort of statements.
...
Essentially, you're blaming the government because the private companies failed to live up to the required standards. It confuses me.

greg
I think the point is that if regulations fail to deliver the safety benefits, then why should we accept the costs (monetary and convenience)? IOW, if your Mac doesn't Just Work™ then why are you paying the premium in $ and interoperability over a generic Winbox?

The problem is that regulatory successes are invisible, while failures are visible. We only know they're working from the fact that we never have to think about them. But it's not cost-effective to make them (or anything) 100% effective (diminishing returns).
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 02:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Why won't you understand: this is keeping you safe.

To question these laws is "demented utopia bullsh!t."

-t
These are examples of trade laws/regulations. Many of them are historical (e.g. a dominant wine producer from another province/state is prohibited from bringing wine into another province, because that province wants to protect their fledgling/not-as-good industry, or what have you). Of course these sort of trade restrictions are rampant, from the municipal to the international level.

Maybe what you want is actually a larger government - in the form of a new Regulations Board set up to monitor whether existing regulations should be abolished?

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:41 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,