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 (Page 2)
Thread Tools
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 02:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by Dork. View Post
I don't get it. Licensing beer and liquor sales is an example of government waste?
Well. Liquor licensing is very prone to graft, generally.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 02:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton View Post
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).
I definitely think you're onto something here.

In my view, pointing out that "the regulations didn't help us with xyz company's failure" is invalid, unless you show that xyz company's failure is not an exception.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
turtle777  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 03:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
These are examples of trade laws/regulations.
Ha, now we're cooking.

How many trade laws/regulations are disguised as safety or health regulations ?

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton
The problem is that regulatory successes are invisible, while failures are visible.
A bureaucrats dream: if you can't see any visible signs or results, it's working as intended.
Can't argue with that

-t
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 03:22 PM
 
Yeah it's a pharmacist's dream too. Does that mean you roll your eyes and don't take your shots?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 03:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
A bureaucrats dream: if you can't see any visible signs or results, it's working as intended.
Can't argue with that

-t


Nor can we argue with gut feelings, to be fair...
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 06:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Yeah.
Alcohol license. Liquor license.

Ever heard of it?

My question is why do we need a drivers license? Have you been to the DMV? Totally sucks.

Just let everyone drive. Driving test? Bullsh*t.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
imitchellg5
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Colorado
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 08:07 PM
 
I like that I have my alcohol license to serve alcohol, but I can't drink it.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 10:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
I've always wondered where you're going with these sort of statements.

So my understanding is that you're saying:
....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
It's really much simpler than that greg. I maintain that it is a select few private companies who would "race to the bottom" and this principle does not change regardless of the money you spend on bureaucracies. Too often, government interventions are overreactions to isolated instances (tainted alcohol among the least noteworthy aspects of the prohibition era for example) in order for politicians to score cheap FUD points.

Private enterprise grows on the merits of its achievements in a fickle marketplace. It must employ an effective model that can sustain fluctuating market conditions or it does not exist. It produces and maintains its own life's-blood. It suffers from alleged or publicized market or labor abuses. Above all, unless bail-out is available as stakes at the table of ideals for the preferred; they must remain solvent. Government does not grow this way. It grows by feeding on this enterprise and its employees either directly or indirectly through wink-nod relationships while borrowing more from the Chinese, a printing press, then back to you when it needs more. It thrives on creating stress reactions for unhealthy policies, exacerbates unhealthy behaviors, and encourages less personal awareness. It grows regardless of the merits of its achievement and is obviously not concerned with solvency. And now it's coming back to you.

People quick to defend regulation IMO are embittered, we/they, glass half-emptists bolstered by naive ideals of level playing fields and how it is you and me keep holding you and me down. Somehow the distasteful aspects of human nature are not applicable to government. I think the greater evidence suggests otherwise and that while human nature remains inherent in both entities, it is the government entity that employs a model that is not constrained by any prevailing sanity. There ya go, all in one place to be dismissed.
ebuddy
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 15, 2011, 11:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
It's really much simpler than that greg. I maintain that it is a select few private companies who would "race to the bottom" and this principle does not change regardless of the money you spend on bureaucracies. Too often, government interventions are overreactions to isolated instances (tainted alcohol among the least noteworthy aspects of the prohibition era for example) in order for politicians to score cheap FUD points.

Private enterprise grows on the merits of its achievements in a fickle marketplace. It must employ an effective model that can sustain fluctuating market conditions or it does not exist. It produces and maintains its own life's-blood. It suffers from alleged or publicized market or labor abuses. Above all, unless bail-out is available as stakes at the table of ideals for the preferred; they must remain solvent. Government does not grow this way. It grows by feeding on this enterprise and its employees either directly or indirectly through wink-nod relationships while borrowing more from the Chinese, a printing press, then back to you when it needs more. It thrives on creating stress reactions for unhealthy policies, exacerbates unhealthy behaviors, and encourages less personal awareness. It grows regardless of the merits of its achievement and is obviously not concerned with solvency. And now it's coming back to you.

People quick to defend regulation IMO are embittered, we/they, glass half-emptists bolstered by naive ideals of level playing fields and how it is you and me keep holding you and me down. Somehow the distasteful aspects of human nature are not applicable to government. I think the greater evidence suggests otherwise and that while human nature remains inherent in both entities, it is the government entity that employs a model that is not constrained by any prevailing sanity. There ya go, all in one place to be dismissed.


What is naive to me is the belief that the majority of business would take the high road if the low road was more profitable. Money makes the world go round. The fickle market reacting to the moral/ethical failings of business only works when business can no longer get away with what they are doing, and by then it is often too late.

There is a balance to everything, but I don't understand the whole right wing deregulation mantra.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2011, 01:53 AM
 
Who's with me?

Let's get rid of the DMV and driver's license.
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2011, 02:32 AM
 
Originally Posted by hyteckit View Post
Who's with me?

Let's get rid of the DMV and driver's license.

Also, stop signs. I hate when people try to regulate my driving. If I want to stop I will stop, I can avoid hitting other vehicles on my own!
     
turtle777  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2011, 02:47 AM
 


-t
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2011, 05:32 AM
 
Rule of thumb: People who want to be governed less should probably be governed more.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2011, 08:09 AM
 
Once again there seems to be trouble in determining the difference between anarchy and limited government. I don't have a problem with stop signs, but I can imagine besson and hyteckit waiting at a broken stop light for three days.
ebuddy
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2011, 08:23 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
It's really much simpler than that greg. I maintain that it is a select few private companies who would "race to the bottom" and this principle does not change regardless of the money you spend on bureaucracies. Too often, government interventions are overreactions to isolated instances (tainted alcohol among the least noteworthy aspects of the prohibition era for example) in order for politicians to score cheap FUD points.

Private enterprise grows on the merits of its achievements in a fickle marketplace. It must employ an effective model that can sustain fluctuating market conditions or it does not exist. It produces and maintains its own life's-blood. It suffers from alleged or publicized market or labor abuses. Above all, unless bail-out is available as stakes at the table of ideals for the preferred; they must remain solvent. Government does not grow this way. It grows by feeding on this enterprise and its employees either directly or indirectly through wink-nod relationships while borrowing more from the Chinese, a printing press, then back to you when it needs more. It thrives on creating stress reactions for unhealthy policies, exacerbates unhealthy behaviors, and encourages less personal awareness. It grows regardless of the merits of its achievement and is obviously not concerned with solvency. And now it's coming back to you.

People quick to defend regulation IMO are embittered, we/they, glass half-emptists bolstered by naive ideals of level playing fields and how it is you and me keep holding you and me down. Somehow the distasteful aspects of human nature are not applicable to government. I think the greater evidence suggests otherwise and that while human nature remains inherent in both entities, it is the government entity that employs a model that is not constrained by any prevailing sanity. There ya go, all in one place to be dismissed.
Your statements on fickle marketplaces and company merit is a nice theoretical framework, but I honestly don't see how the "real world" bears this out.
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 16, 2011, 09:58 AM
 
Every law and regulation should require a 10 year limit and it has to be re-evaluated and re-passed every 10 years to ensure its still a valid law. Exception to core laws like murder and stuff like that.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2011, 10:06 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Your statements on fickle marketplaces and company merit is a nice theoretical framework, but I honestly don't see how the "real world" bears this out.
Again, I think the greater evidence suggests otherwise. Such is the nature of varying world views I suppose.
ebuddy
     
turtle777  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2011, 10:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Once again there seems to be trouble in determining the difference between anarchy and limited government. I don't have a problem with stop signs, but I can imagine besson and hyteckit waiting at a broken stop light for three days.
Many laws and regulation are a substitute for common sense.

People are so dumb these days, they need government to tell them all kinds of things that people intuitively knew NOT to do in the past.

When something goes wrong, an army of lawyers stands by to sue any- and everybody, just so the dumbass that did the stupid thing could shift the blame on someone else.

-t
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2011, 11:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Many laws and regulation are a substitute for common sense.

People are so dumb these days, they need government to tell them all kinds of things that people intuitively knew NOT to do in the past.

When something goes wrong, an army of lawyers stands by to sue any- and everybody, just so the dumbass that did the stupid thing could shift the blame on someone else.

-t
Its not that they are a substitute for common sense so much as a substitute for a legal definition of common sense. Its the supposedly smart lawyers who have created the law suit culture, not the dumb idiots who think they are the ones benefitting from it the most when they walk into traffic and then try to blame others for failing to stop them.

The unwillingness to legally define common sense has always frustrated me too. I don't think its unreasonable in a country with a decent and free education system which is genuinely available to everyone to implement such a definition. If you don't go to school or go to school but don't pay attention then its your fault that you're an idiot.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2011, 02:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Once again there seems to be trouble in determining the difference between anarchy and limited government. I don't have a problem with stop signs, but I can imagine besson and hyteckit waiting at a broken stop light for three days.
I can imagine you humping that stop light!
     
turtle777  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2011, 02:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I can imagine you humping that stop light!
Did your wife need special approval to marry a 12 year old ?

-t
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2011, 03:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Did your wife need special approval to marry a 12 year old ?

-t

Oh, so marriage should be regulated too? You must be a pro-regulation big government socialist!
     
turtle777  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2011, 03:07 PM
 
Ok, kudos for a nice comeback

-t
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2011, 03:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Once again there seems to be trouble in determining the difference between anarchy and limited government.
I think people are just identifying a potential slippery slope, kinda like the argument that an unregulated marriage industry will lead to polygamy, people marrying their pets and pedophilia.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2011, 04:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Many laws and regulation are a substitute for common sense.

People are so dumb these days, they need government to tell them all kinds of things that people intuitively knew NOT to do in the past.

When something goes wrong, an army of lawyers stands by to sue any- and everybody, just so the dumbass that did the stupid thing could shift the blame on someone else.

-t
And most of them are knee jerk reactions that score political points with the ignorant. Like our recent body armour ban, because gangsters are using body armour now they ban the sale of it to every one. Gee that makes sense, like criminals who are not law abiding are going to stop using it now because its illegal. Or the law that forces pre paying for gas because some idiot gas station clerk who tried to stop a gas and dash wound up being dragged for 5 km resulting in his death.

The city of Surrey started clearing red tape and regulations from its books last year and have already removed 500 regulations or by-laws that made no sense in a attempt to make things easier for businesses. 500 in one year and some of the examples where so pathetic I couldn't believe they where regulations in the first place. I think a major house keeping is in order for all levels of government just to make things simpler and easier to enforce because what is left will be the ones that should be enforced.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2011, 06:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Again, I think the greater evidence suggests otherwise. Such is the nature of varying world views I suppose.
Yes, well, considering America is the Home of more-is-better consumer culture, where the Wal-Mart principle of "cheaper product, cheaper price" clearly wins 9 times out of 10; where producing an inferior quality product is almost always rewarded, as long as it's cheaper; where giving you 3 patties on your burger for the same price is always more popular than giving one, higher-quality patty on your burger...........well, let's just say I struggle to understand where your "the marketplace will decide" noble principals come from. The marketplace is pretty clear in deciding that in many cases, without any external pressures there will be a race to the bottom.

Now consider that compounded in today's world of massive multinationals that completely dominate many product areas. What, is the marketplace going to punish BP if they decide to treat the environment worse than every other oil company, in the absence of any identifiable regulatory standard?

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2011, 08:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Yes, well, considering America is the Home of more-is-better consumer culture, where the Wal-Mart principle of "cheaper product, cheaper price" clearly wins 9 times out of 10; where producing an inferior quality product is almost always rewarded, as long as it's cheaper; where giving you 3 patties on your burger for the same price is always more popular than giving one, higher-quality patty on your burger...........well, let's just say I struggle to understand where your "the marketplace will decide" noble principals come from. The marketplace is pretty clear in deciding that in many cases, without any external pressures there will be a race to the bottom.

Now consider that compounded in today's world of massive multinationals that completely dominate many product areas. What, is the marketplace going to punish BP if they decide to treat the environment worse than every other oil company, in the absence of any identifiable regulatory standard?

greg

The market is great at picking winners and losers, that is it.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 16, 2011, 10:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
People quick to defend regulation IMO are embittered, we/they, glass half-emptists bolstered by naive ideals of level playing fields and how it is you and me keep holding you and me down. Somehow the distasteful aspects of human nature are not applicable to government. I think the greater evidence suggests otherwise and that while human nature remains inherent in both entities, it is the government entity that employs a model that is not constrained by any prevailing sanity.
QFT
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2011, 03:31 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
The city of Surrey started clearing red tape and regulations from its books last year and have already removed 500 regulations or by-laws that made no sense in a attempt to make things easier for businesses. 500 in one year and some of the examples where so pathetic I couldn't believe they where regulations in the first place. I think a major house keeping is in order for all levels of government just to make things simpler and easier to enforce because what is left will be the ones that should be enforced.
I think it's fantastic when politicians advocate for removing unnecessary or inefficient regulations.

What I can't stand are the morons who claim all regulations are unnecessary and inefficient. That's the difference between responsible conservative and batsh!t crazy "conservative," i.e. most of the so-called conservatives in this forum.

And most of the conservatives on the national stage trumpet the silly "regulations are bad" line because it gets them votes from stupid people. They, being typical neo-cons, have no intention of actually doing anything so stupid, but they have to pander to their base of morons to get elected.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2011, 04:30 AM
 
What I hate are mouth-breathing morons with fewer than ten brain-cells left that half work that claim anyone ever said they wanted no regulations.

Why is it simple-minds always have to make up other people's arguments and can't ever comprehend anything? Oh that's right: simple minds = simpleminded 'arguments'.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2011, 04:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
No one is gonna take you seriously when you spout ludicrous hyperbole.
Really?

In this case, the driver, who makes $70,408 a year, only drives to the location. When someone is in the bucket, a second person is required on the ground for safety. They both make $84,968 a year.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2011, 09:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
People quick to defend regulation IMO are embittered, we/they, glass half-emptists bolstered by naive ideals of level playing fields and how it is you and me keep holding you and me down. Somehow the distasteful aspects of human nature are not applicable to government. I think the greater evidence suggests otherwise and that while human nature remains inherent in both entities, it is the government entity that employs a model that is not constrained by any prevailing sanity. There ya go, all in one place to be dismissed.
I think this is ludicrous statement. In my opinion, the people who defend regulation actually know something about how regulatory regimes have forced companies to improve not only their product, but the quality of life for those who use their product - and how there is no logical way that would have happened if those regulations were not put in place.

I was responding specifically to your examples - the ones you brought up of financial, automobile and oil industries. Since your position is seemingly that regulations were useless in many fields, and you brought these examples up to show how "the government doesn't care about you here"....well, there are tons of examples in these fields to show how regulatory regimes have improved the practice in all these fields.

What, exactly, is your argument? That's what I'm asking. You're giving great theoretical overviews that are devoid of real-world content, but where are your specific arguments?

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2011, 09:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
What I hate are mouth-breathing morons with fewer than ten brain-cells left that half work that claim anyone ever said they wanted no regulations.

Why is it simple-minds always have to make up other people's arguments and can't ever comprehend anything? Oh that's right: simple minds = simpleminded 'arguments'.
Ahhhhh yes - what we have, instead, aremouth-breathing morons with fewer than ten brain-cells left that are claiming that regulations which they know nothing about, including why they were implemented or their function, are "useless" and should not exist.

That's a huge improvement.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
turtle777  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2011, 10:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
This might be efficient compared to Toronto, who knows...

Anyone else knows that government = waste and abuse.
You could get everything done with half the resources.

YES, I'M SAYING THAT YOU'D STILL NEED SOME PEOPLE TO DO GOVERNMENT JOBS.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT ALL GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE ABANDONED. GET IT???/?/!!1!one

-t
     
turtle777  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2011, 10:17 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Ahhhhh yes - what we have, instead, aremouth-breathing morons with fewer than ten brain-cells left that are claiming that regulations which they know nothing about, including why they were implemented or their function, are "useless" and should not exist.
Pfff, look at smacintush's example link above.

You bet the local government has tons of reasons and regulations WHY they would require 3 people to change one light bulb.

It's doesn't take a genius to notice that this is bullshit, even w/o knowing the regulations, "why they were implemented or their function". Some things are obvious to most people, for everyone else, there are bureaucrats that do the thinking for them

-t
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2011, 03:23 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
Pfff, look at smacintush's example link above.

You bet the local government has tons of reasons and regulations WHY they would require 3 people to change one light bulb.

It's doesn't take a genius to notice that this is bullshit, even w/o knowing the regulations, "why they were implemented or their function". Some things are obvious to most people, for everyone else, there are bureaucrats that do the thinking for them

-t
I've already pointed this out. I already asked you if what you're actually requesting is a larger government - e.g. some sort of regulatory review task force. Many regulations are brought in for good reasons, but later for whatever reason become superfluous.

And although my last post was facetious, my point was that the vast majority of you have no idea why a regulation was implemented in the first place. Complaining about a certain alcohol-related regulation when you have no idea about why it was implemented, or the usage of it, is pretty dumb in my opinion. I'd suggest you get some hard data first, or some actual knowledge about the situation you're complaining about, rather than our ignorant wild speculation on how this is/isn't a good thing.

greg
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 17, 2011, 04:15 PM
 
I would say the appropriateness of regulation is a big ol' "it depends", but defaulting to regulation being unnecessary or pushing for it to be made unnecessary out of some sort of non-pragmatic ideological belief is sickening.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2011, 07:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
Yes, well, considering America is the Home of more-is-better consumer culture, where the Wal-Mart principle of "cheaper product, cheaper price" clearly wins 9 times out of 10; where producing an inferior quality product is almost always rewarded, as long as it's cheaper; where giving you 3 patties on your burger for the same price is always more popular than giving one, higher-quality patty on your burger...........well, let's just say I struggle to understand where your "the marketplace will decide" noble principals come from. The marketplace is pretty clear in deciding that in many cases, without any external pressures there will be a race to the bottom.
I've never understood why the big hangup over Wal-Mart. Is it abhorrent to you that someone with a low income may also want lawn furniture or a grill? Has this put Bed Bath & Beyond out of business? Has the three-patty burger put Schlotzky's out of business, Subway, Arby's, etc? My "marketplace will decide" noble principle comes from the fact that a good steak house will still thrive in spite of Burger King and Wal-Mart. If you don't see government "racing to the bottom", you're too worried about Wal-Mart who employs thousands of people and provides a service deemed necessary by the market place, not by a bunch of suits trying to determine how to use up this year's allotment of funding to ensure the same allotment next year.

Now consider that compounded in today's world of massive multinationals that completely dominate many product areas. What, is the marketplace going to punish BP if they decide to treat the environment worse than every other oil company, in the absence of any identifiable regulatory standard?
If you can tell me how having a rig of yours blow, killing employees, and spewing billions of dollars of liquid gold into the sea was somehow in BPs best interest, I'll buy your argument. Otherwise, it's an accident no one wanted to happen and it has appropriately done a great deal of harm to BP's reputation. I don't consider the funding of an agency we paid to show up after the fact to throw their worthless weight around with no ideals of their own "a race to the top". Do you?
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2011, 07:08 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I would say the appropriateness of regulation is a big ol' "it depends", but defaulting to regulation being unnecessary or pushing for it to be made unnecessary out of some sort of non-pragmatic ideological belief is sickening.
What if all we're saying is to dial back some of the regulation in order to facilitate the enforcement of the more valid among them? Blindly supporting regulation to "sock it to the rich" is equally disgusting and has as profound an impact on the "not so rich" people they employ. Good intentions gone bad as too often they do.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2011, 07:21 AM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
I think this is ludicrous statement. In my opinion, the people who defend regulation actually know something about how regulatory regimes have forced companies to improve not only their product, but the quality of life for those who use their product - and how there is no logical way that would have happened if those regulations were not put in place.
I maintain they haven't a clue what is being regulated and the ones bent most on it are simply trying to "sock it to the rich". The government will use one example of thousands as the FUD they need for new bureaucracy and additional funding. The examples of greater regulation in the US market place has not ensured a higher-quality, safer product than in the marketplaces abroad with less regulation. A simple report to the masses of the shoddy business practices of a company would be enough to motivate action that would damage that company's bottom line. There's no reason for sweeping regulations on entire industries comprised of entities already in compliance with reasoned practices.

I was responding specifically to your examples - the ones you brought up of financial, automobile and oil industries. Since your position is seemingly that regulations were useless in many fields, and you brought these examples up to show how "the government doesn't care about you here"....well, there are tons of examples in these fields to show how regulatory regimes have improved the practice in all these fields.

What, exactly, is your argument? That's what I'm asking. You're giving great theoretical overviews that are devoid of real-world content, but where are your specific arguments?
So did I bring up examples or didn't I? Still struggling to defend regulation I see. Don't lash out at me. Again, if you can explain how the BP travesty was in BP's best interest at any point that they'd need government to come in to tell them spilling billions of dollars of oil into the sea is a bad, bad thing, I'll listen. Otherwise, I'm assuming most businesses need a good reputation and smooth operations for a predictable bottom-line and will act to ensure it all on their own. You may need a nanny-state, but what people are telling you is that they don't. Sell them on the need for the nanny-state greg.
ebuddy
     
ShortcutToMoncton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: The Rock
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2011, 08:33 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I've never understood why the big hangup over Wal-Mart. Is it abhorrent to you that someone with a low income may also want lawn furniture or a grill? Has this put Bed Bath & Beyond out of business? Has the three-patty burger put Schlotzky's out of business, Subway, Arby's, etc? My "marketplace will decide" noble principle comes from the fact that a good steak house will still thrive in spite of Burger King and Wal-Mart. If you don't see government "racing to the bottom", you're too worried about Wal-Mart who employs thousands of people and provides a service deemed necessary by the market place, not by a bunch of suits trying to determine how to use up this year's allotment of funding to ensure the same allotment next year.
1. I buy from Wal-Mart on a semi-regular basis, although I try to avoid doing so where local stores make a competing product. (I find it very interesting that you ardently defend the company that is able to provide the cheapest products by having almost everything made overseas by cheap labour and then shipped back to the US for sale...but I digress. After all, I know you aren't worried about the decline of the US economy. )

2. Interesting perspective on the "good steak-house." Unfortunately ours closed down after the new Keg moved into town - I eat nothing at the Keg but their burgers, on principal as a penalty for their mediocre steak and ribs.

If you can tell me how having a rig of yours blow, killing employees, and spewing billions of dollars of liquid gold into the sea was somehow in BPs best interest, I'll buy your argument. Otherwise, it's an accident no one wanted to happen and it has appropriately done a great deal of harm to BP's reputation. I don't consider the funding of an agency we paid to show up after the fact to throw their worthless weight around with no ideals of their own "a race to the top". Do you?
You've mentioned this in both posts, and it really surprises me.

1. First off, a criminal/civil liability case is a completely different can of worms - especially if you kill someone. Regulations are put in place to avoid this situation in the first place, but this is an extreme outlier situation.

2. What external impact does the fact that a rig exploded and "hundreds of dollars of liquid gold" was lost have on BP? Are you really trying to claim that the sum cost of BP's accident (minus civil lawsuits if there was any harm) should be the damage they caused themselves by their own stupidity? Isn't that sort of like saying "oh, you were blind drunk and tried to drive and wrecked your car...hope that's a stiff enough penalty for you, learn your lesson!

3. "Harming their reputation" eh? You seem oblivious to the simple fact that, absent any regulatory penalty, BP/whomever normally would have made more money with their unsafe practices than if they'd followed the correct practices. And in today's business world, how long does it take a multibillion-dollar giant like BP to recover from that harmed reputation? 3 months? A year?

4. Now, what about if the rig had only exploded and everyone had gotten off safely, Arnie-diving-into-the-burning-oil-slicked-water style? What then? No lawsuits from dead employees - maybe some from people affected by the oil slick, but if it was a little smaller and had been disbursed ideally, there might not have even been anyone affected....I suppose the "tragic pain" of that ruined rig and lost liquid gold would be enough of a lesson for everyone, right?

5. Now what about if the rig had not exploded after all? In fact, the situation where something "only a little bit wrong" has happened, and nothing more - even though it could have! - is generally where regulation is most applied. When someone reports a company spewing waste directly into the ocean - what penalty is there for the company? There's no civil suit possible, because more than likely no one can prove any harm. At the same time, we know there's harm done to the ocean/surroundings, because biologists/ecologists/scientists/our own eyes/logic can show us this harm. Similarly, if a worker on that rig had decided to phone up the responsible agency and report that things weren't being done in the proper manner...your stance is that no penalty should be possible in these situations, right, until something is done that causes harm to the company and/or external forces who could sue that company?

greg
( Last edited by ShortcutToMoncton; Jul 18, 2011 at 09:47 AM. )
Mankind's only chance is to harness the power of stupid.
     
Uncle Skeleton
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Rockville, MD
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 18, 2011, 09:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
So did I bring up examples or didn't I? Still struggling to defend regulation I see. Don't lash out at me. Again, if you can explain how the BP travesty was in BP's best interest at any point that they'd need government to come in to tell them spilling billions of dollars of oil into the sea is a bad, bad thing, I'll listen. Otherwise, I'm assuming most businesses need a good reputation and smooth operations for a predictable bottom-line and will act to ensure it all on their own. You may need a nanny-state, but what people are telling you is that they don't. Sell them on the need for the nanny-state greg.
It's true that "accidents happen" and that adverse outcomes are often UNintended by the party that caused them. The same is true of the situation described in the OP (I'm sure the nerd that originally wrote the regulation had no intention of obstructing beer sales due only to government deadlocks). But the unintended consequences of sloppy regulation rarely actually risks human lives, while the unintended consequences of the private sector do, quite often. The .gov cuts corners on making money in order to protect human life, while the .com cuts corners on human life in order to protect the making of money. Don't you value human life?
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2011, 03:25 PM
 
Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton View Post
I think this is ludicrous statement. In my opinion, the people who defend regulation actually know something about how regulatory regimes have forced companies to improve not only their product, but the quality of life for those who use their product - and how there is no logical way that would have happened if those regulations were not put in place.

I was responding specifically to your examples - the ones you brought up of financial, automobile and oil industries. Since your position is seemingly that regulations were useless in many fields, and you brought these examples up to show how "the government doesn't care about you here"....well, there are tons of examples in these fields to show how regulatory regimes have improved the practice in all these fields.

What, exactly, is your argument? That's what I'm asking. You're giving great theoretical overviews that are devoid of real-world content, but where are your specific arguments?

greg
Its easy to prove regulations work. Just compare Canada/USA/Australia/UK to Uganda, Congo, India and Afghanistan.

Places with regulations are generally safer, more organized, benefit from strong economies.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2011, 03:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Its easy to prove regulations work. Just compare Canada/USA/Australia/UK to Uganda, Congo, India and Afghanistan.

Places with regulations are generally safer, more organized, benefit from strong economies.

Places with sensible, well enforced, and properly managed regulatory bodies maybe, but you don't get ponies and rainbows just by having regulation.
     
hyteckit
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2011, 04:44 PM
 
More reasons to get rid of the DMV.

Alaska DMV denies transgender woman a driver's license.

Alaska Sued For Denying Transgender Woman Driver's License
Bush Tax Cuts == Job Killer
June 2001: 132,047,000 employed
June 2003: 129,839,000 employed
2.21 million jobs were LOST after 2 years of Bush Tax Cuts.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2011, 05:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Places with sensible, well enforced, and properly managed regulatory bodies maybe, but you don't get ponies and rainbows just by having regulation.
No just Law and Order
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2011, 11:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Its easy to prove regulations work. Just compare Canada/USA/Australia/UK to Uganda, Congo, India and Afghanistan.

Places with regulations are generally safer, more organized, benefit from strong economies.
And you attribute this to regulations?

Try freedom, individual rights and rule of law. That is how you achieve a prosperous society, not by treating people as if they are stupid or malicious by creating myriad rules and controls to force their behavior to fit your pre-concieved notions of how people should behave.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 19, 2011, 11:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
And you attribute this to regulations?

Try freedom, individual rights and rule of law. That is how you achieve a prosperous society, not by treating people as if they are stupid or malicious by creating myriad rules and controls to force their behavior to fit your pre-concieved notions of how people should behave.
Rule of law is a form of regulations last time I checked. I would say you have more freedoms in some of those countries I listed above because of the lack of law and regulations and individual rights. Im free to kill you where you stand with no repercussions. I can setup a home on any plot of land. Our freedoms are much more regulated and controlled then you think. I would even argue individual rights like the US Constitution or the Canadian Charter of rights count as a regulation as well.

Wanna try again?
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2011, 02:54 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Rule of law is a form of regulations last time I checked.
Um…no?

Originally Posted by Wikipedia
The rule of law is a legal maxim that provides that no person is above the law, that no one can be punished by the state except for a breach of the law, and that no one can be convicted of breaching the law except in the manner set forth by the law itself. The rule of law stands in contrast to the idea that the leader is above the law, a feature of Roman law, Nazi law, and certain other legal systems.
Regulations are a form of law. It is a form of control implemented by authority, which only carry weight in a country where rule of law is the standard.

I would say you have more freedoms in some of those countries I listed above because of the lack of law and regulations and individual rights. Im free to kill you where you stand with no repercussions. I can setup a home on any plot of land.
Really, you think living in conditions where people can kill each other indiscriminately conducive to freedom? Where anyone could just kill you and take your stuff? THAT is true freedom?

Without the right to life and property rights (backed by rule of law), there is no freedom!

These other countries are shitholes because of a lack of respect for rights and of rule of law, that is to say that some are above the law while others aren't, while many of the laws that DO exist basically give those in power the ability to accuse and convict on whim rather than an objective standard. People are not truly free to pursue their own ends because they have little or no protection from others who would harm them or use force against them.

Our freedoms are much more regulated and controlled then you think.
No, I am fully aware of how controlled we are. It is to that degree that we are failing as a nation.

I would even argue individual rights like the US Constitution or the Canadian Charter of rights count as a regulation as well.
Regulation is form of control. The protection of individual rights explicitly remove or limit such controls from that very same authority.

Wanna try again?
Be my guest, your first try is a swing and a miss.
Being in debt and celebrating a lower deficit is like being on a diet and celebrating the fact you gained two pounds this week instead of five.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jul 20, 2011, 03:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
Um…no?
What do you mean Um no... all laws are written rules to which we as law abiding citizens follow.


Regulations are a form of law. It is a form of control implemented by authority, which only carry weight in a country where rule of law is the standard.
Rule of Law is rule of regulations. Its the same thing. Law regulates how we behave in our society.


Really, you think living in conditions where people can kill each other indiscriminately conducive to freedom? Where anyone could just kill you and take your stuff? THAT is true freedom?
Ya that's true freedom. Your free to do what ever you want. Our freedom is the freedom of speech which is also slowly disappearing.


Without the right to life and property rights (backed by rule of law), there is no freedom!
With out the right to life and property which is a regulation backed by regulations which make up the rule of law, there is limited freedom. Freedom to live and property and speech. Its not absolute freedom. Its a accepted limited freedom.

These other countries are shitholes because of a lack of respect for rights and of rule of law, that is to say that some are above the law while others aren't, while many of the laws that DO exist basically give those in power the ability to accuse and convict on whim rather than an objective standard. People are not truly free to pursue their own ends because they have little or no protection from others who would harm them or use force against them.
No they are shitholes because they lack respect of rules and regulation which law is is. In our society we are not truly free to pursue our own ends either because of limits placed upon us with rules and regulations which is what rule of law is. It regulates our behaviour. A rule/regulation says if you commit murder under rules/regulations you are punished. Your limited from harming others at your own gains. Rules and regulations created ordered society. Lack of rules and regulations create chaotic societies.

No, I am fully aware of how controlled we are. It is to that degree that we are failing as a nation.
Well at least this we agree on.


Regulation is form of control. The protection of individual rights explicitly remove or limit such controls from that very same authority.
No sir its all the same thing.


Be my guest, your first try is a swing and a miss.
No my first swing was a home run.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
 
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 03:17 AM.
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.,