[smacintush]

Originally Posted by Athens 

What do you mean Um no... all laws are written rules to which we as law abiding citizens follow.

Rule of Law is rule of regulations. Its the same thing. Law regulates how we behave in our society.

No, you are conflating the concept of rule of law with the concept of law. This is all I was/am trying to correct. They are different, related concepts.

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.

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.

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.

Without protection from others via respect for rights and rule of law, no freedom is possible because anyone may take it away at anytime. Freedom from control is more than freedom from government control. Tyranny of the tribe, a gang of thugs or your next door neighbor is still tyranny.

No sir its all the same thing.

No, it really isn't, but I'm not going to continue to argue semantics.

No my first swing was a home run.

I think that much of our disagreement seems to be because of your conflation and misuse of different terms and concepts. I think that at its root, we are probably in more agreement than I originally thought.

Foul tip.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Yeah. I think some Googling of "rule of law" is needed.

[turtle777]

Besides, the Rule of Law in the US is dead.

Politicians break laws all the time, circumvent it, have activist judges null and void it. The Constitution is treated like a nice old children's book w/o any relevance and meaning to todays issues. Politicians pick and chose what they want to believe of it, or not. It's a farce.

Come a crisis, laws are disregarded and convenient unlawful actions taken. (E.g. wholesale trashing of bankruptcy law with the forced GM and Chrysler "bankruptcy").

-t

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

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. )

You admittedly digress, then digress more.

I'm just wondering why Wal-Mart is always the example here. As if borrowing from overseas to keep your government afloat is more noble? BTW, the manufacturer of the computer you're using employs this same business model, don't be a hypocrite. I don't see Wal-Mart as the cause of the decline of the US economy, I see destructive Fed policy as the cause.

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.

I live in a city known for its numerous restaurants and there are steak houses here that have been around 30-40 years. Sometimes "good" is not good enough. Unlike the government, a business must modify its model to stay alive in a fickle economy. There is no option of simply printing customers or taking hostage customers from other restaurants.

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.

No, see this is the common mistake people make when considering regulations as if the majority of them are intended to keep people from dying. Not unlike criminal law, too often a breech of a regulation leads to new regulations when in fact the problem was lack of enforcement around the already existing legislation.

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!

How is this a relevant example? Should the driver get off because he was a cop or because he was sleeping with the cop that discovered the incident? Just to be clear, this was the type of "life-saving" regulatory behavior that was going on while BPs operations were underway in the Gulf.

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?

So you're more interested in putting large corporations out of business than you are saving lives? (because the winkee face makes it all better)

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?

Hmm. Does it really matter how I answer?

What if the spill could've been made smaller by a disaster recovery plan you paid for, but was never actually implemented? What if you had been paying into this bureaucracy for 15 years and you don't feel the product displayed was worth the money? I can decide not to purchase wares from BP, but apparently the only recourse I have is growing the defunct bureaucracy? Voting out the head of the MMS? MMMno.

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?

If biologists/ecologists/scientists/our own eyes/logic can show us this harm; seems to me there is more than enough evidence of harm to convict the corporation of harm. In fact, I'm certain a great many complainants are paid without even going to court or having to prove a thing. Why? There are a great many who would feed on a large corporation only because they think they can. This does not make their theft or deception and the government bodies and/or lawyers behind them any more noble. I believe there are corporate cads out there and I've not advocated anarchy here, I'm just urging folks to quit being blinded by the dollar signs of others that they can't see the dollars being taken out of their wallet for nothing.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

No, see this is the common mistake people make when considering regulations as if the majority of them are intended to keep people from dying. Not unlike criminal law, too often a breech of a regulation leads to new regulations when in fact the problem was lack of enforcement around the already existing legislation.

You keep going back to this point, but you keep failing to acknowledge that it's the gaping hole in your argument. The entire structure of a regulatory regime is based around the fact that much/most of it is self-policed. The onus is on the regulatory subject(s) to meet the required standards.

You're living in a world of disconnect. On the one hand, you're calling for the removal of "government waste" in the form of regulations...because the government doesn't spend more money to police them. On the other hand, you're championing private business / free market principles as the ideal alternative, even though these companies are, generally, deliberately breaking the regulations because it is cheaper/more convenient to do so.

How is this a relevant example? Should the driver get off because he was a cop or because he was sleeping with the cop that discovered the incident? Just to be clear, this was the type of "life-saving" regulatory behavior that was going on while BPs operations were underway in the Gulf.

It was your relevant example. You're the one claiming that BP suffered punishment for their actions because of the "lost ligquid gold." My comment was: how is that relevant in the context of punishment? And now, you dodge.

So you're more interested in putting large corporations out of business than you are saving lives? (because the winkee face makes it all better)

What? This strawman argument makes no sense.

What if the spill could've been made smaller by a disaster recovery plan you paid for, but was never actually implemented? What if you had been paying into this bureaucracy for 15 years and you don't feel the product displayed was worth the money? I can decide not to purchase wares from BP, but apparently the only recourse I have is growing the defunct bureaucracy? Voting out the head of the MMS? MMMno.

No one said you need to grow it. In fact, I've asked, several times in this thread, if what you're calling for is actually an expanded government, by which I mean regulatory review boards that are tasked with ongoing review of the appropriateness or applicableness of regulatory regimes. (To be clear: this probably already exists in some form - but your country clearly needs a new version.) You can cut old/inappropriate regulatory regimes just as easily as you can make new ones.

If biologists/ecologists/scientists/our own eyes/logic can show us this harm; seems to me there is more than enough evidence of harm to convict the corporation of harm. In fact, I'm certain a great many complainants are paid without even going to court or having to prove a thing.

Ummm, most environmental legislation is regulatory-based. That's because biologists/ecologists/scientists/our own eyes can show us "harm" to the environment, but the offending party can't be "sued" for that unless we ourselves are harmed. Company A can dump toxic waste in the Gulf all they want, but if Person A can't show they got cancer as a result, or Person B can't show their business was affected, then there's no legal recourse against Company A unless...wait for it...the regulatory regime outlines one.

(Even though we "know" that one company doing this won't necessarily cause harm, a thousand will - a la "death by a thousand cuts" principle. So regulatory regimes are generally what we use in this particular example.)

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

You're living in a world of disconnect. On the one hand, you're calling for the removal of "government waste" in the form of regulations...because the government doesn't spend more money to police them. On the other hand, you're championing private business / free market principles as the ideal alternative, even though these companies are, generally, deliberately breaking the regulations because it is cheaper/more convenient to do so.

Interesting point. And, worth calling out again so it doesn't get lost. There are probably much bigger fish to fry than Regulation Enforcement in the department of Bloated Government.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

You keep going back to this point, but you keep failing to acknowledge that it's the gaping hole in your argument. The entire structure of a regulatory regime is based around the fact that much/most of it is self-policed. The onus is on the regulatory subject(s) to meet the required standards.

And if they don't or if they have an unhealthy relationship with the industry? This is why I used the word enforcement. If you're paying for an entity to provide oversight authority, should they not be providing the oversight? This is an example of the government acting under the guise of protecting us from corporations, but who protects us from government? Many of these regulations, including a wealth of them in Obamacare for example; have been drafted by non-elected officials. These regulations place undue burden on small businesses who cannot afford a battery of attorneys to ensure they're in compliance with the perpetual stack of ever-changing, ever-growing regulations. At some point we have to say enough is enough.

You're living in a world of disconnect. On the one hand, you're calling for the removal of "government waste" in the form of regulations...because the government doesn't spend more money to police them. On the other hand, you're championing private business / free market principles as the ideal alternative, even though these companies are, generally, deliberately breaking the regulations because it is cheaper/more convenient to do so.

No, there is no "one hand - other hand" point here. What you're missing is that I'm arguing against a burgeoning regulatory environment from all angles. We are paying for oppressive regulations that merely collect fees from businesses, taxes from Americans, create increasing market uncertainty, place undue burdens on small businesses that employ the majority of Americans, and aren't enforced anyway. I'm not asking for more of any of this, I'm asking for less. You're saying "these companies are, generally, deliberately breaking the regulations because it is cheaper/more convenient to do so" while ignoring that this government continues to burden the market with unnecessary regulations because it is lucrative/founded in distaste for the free market as evidenced here/beneficial for the growth of bureaucracy. I'm saying that most businesses, just as most people, generally, want to do the right thing and aren't interested in the drama of criminal investigation and/or public flogging.

It was your relevant example. You're the one claiming that BP suffered punishment for their actions because of the "lost ligquid gold." My comment was: how is that relevant in the context of punishment? And now, you dodge.

My point was that the oversight authority was not there to ensure BP didn't spill millions of gallons of oil into the gulf because you don't need laws to stop you from deliberately sticking yourself in the head with a meat-hook. You're bent on punishing businesses, I get that. What of the entity that pushed operations further from shore without a clue what they were advocating. What of outright criminal misconduct???
What of complete negligence?
In 2006 a representative led an investigation that showed MMS had improperly awarded contracts to various oil companies that cost the taxpayers 10s of billions of dollars in lost royalties. This investigation was corroborated by GAO and the Interior Department Inspector General. Another Interior IG Report showed that senior MMS officials gave preferential treatment in awarding contracts, received improper gifts and kickbacks from industry personnel in exchange for lucrative contracts, abused drugs with coworkers, and had sex with subordinates. Since 2003 there have been nine reports issued by the GAO and nine Inspector General investigations, all critical of MMS, their lack of management and failure to properly regulate those that they are supposed to oversee. In fact, the MMS even granted TransOcean/Deepwater Horizon (the rig that blew starting the entire mess) with several awards for the safety of their operations. Worse, even today MMS cannot give an accurate accounting of how much oil is pumped from federal lands (on shore or offshore) and whether all royalties are paid to the US Taxpayer. What are they overseeing if they're not even aware of the activities' existence?

No one said you need to grow it. In fact, I've asked, several times in this thread, if what you're calling for is actually an expanded government, by which I mean regulatory review boards that are tasked with ongoing review of the appropriateness or applicableness of regulatory regimes. (To be clear: this probably already exists in some form - but your country clearly needs a new version.) You can cut old/inappropriate regulatory regimes just as easily as you can make new ones.

That's what our elected officials are for. When they pass measures to curb regulatory abuse, they come up against the same anti-capitalist / all corporations are bent on greed and abuse nonsense prevalent in this thread.

Ummm, most environmental legislation is regulatory-based. That's because biologists/ecologists/scientists/our own eyes can show us "harm" to the environment, but the offending party can't be "sued" for that unless we ourselves are harmed. Company A can dump toxic waste in the Gulf all they want, but if Person A can't show they got cancer as a result, or Person B can't show their business was affected, then there's no legal recourse against Company A unless...wait for it...the regulatory regime outlines one.

This is not a pervasive enough scenario to warrant sweeping regulation against an entire industry. I've seen nothing to show it is. They are causing more harm than good.

(Even though we "know" that one company doing this won't necessarily cause harm, a thousand will - a la "death by a thousand cuts" principle. So regulatory regimes are generally what we use in this particular example.)

I disagree. I don't think we use them very well at all. I think we abuse them. Regulations are used because they are great election-season FUD fodder, lucrative, and good for the growth of the bureaucracy.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

while ignoring that this government continues to burden the market with unnecessary regulations because it is lucrative/founded in distaste for the free market as evidenced here/beneficial for the growth of bureaucracy.

Don't know how regulations are drafted in the States, but I imagine it's similar to up here - and there's quite a process and set criteria that must be met. Those criteria generally seem to involve being for the good of and to improve the functioning of the industry itself.

Anyone reading what you write would conclude regulations are just drafted willy-nilly by government any time they see something they think they can control. Unless things have gone totally crazy down there - and something tells me it's not nearly as bad you imply - then you're employing a bit too much hyperbole.

You're bent on punishing businesses, I get that.

Unfortunately this sort of snide commentary won't really fly. You can imply in so few words that everyone is an anti-business commie, but - for example - I help businesses for a living. I help people create them (regulations!), I help them finance their operations (regulations!), I help them buy other businesses (regulations!); I help them expand (regulations!) and contract (regulations!). My job is to help businesses succeed and make their business/financial moves safely. Claiming it's my overarching goal to "punish businesses" is laughale - I help them succeed.

Regulations are often annoying, but they're almost always there for a good reason. There's instances where circumstances have changed and regulations are no longer necessary - and there's instances where maybe they shouldn't've been regulations at all. But, if that's the case you're arguing against, the you've already made the relevant statement:

Originally Posted by ebuddy

That's what our elected officials are for.

That's the answer to your numerous questions on "who polices the government?" And if you don't like the job you're doing, then I assume your campaign platform will involve this topic...?

greg

[Doofy]

Quick aside...

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Unfortunately this sort of snide commentary won't really fly. You can imply in so few words that everyone is an anti-business commie, but - for example - I help businesses for a living. I help people create them (regulations!), I help them finance their operations (regulations!), I help them buy other businesses (regulations!); I help them expand (regulations!) and contract (regulations!). My job is to help businesses succeed and make their business/financial moves safely. Claiming it's my overarching goal to "punish businesses" is laughale - I help them succeed.

Do you ever get people coming in and questioning what turnover your personal business does and how big your yacht is? Because that's what I'd want to know if I were paying for business advice.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Doofy 

Do you ever get people coming in and questioning what turnover your personal business does and how big your yacht is? Because that's what I'd want to know if I were paying for business advice.

Hmmm, my job is probably less "business advice" and more "business legal advice". I'm not sure it's as pointed as asking for yacht size, but I would think most people tend to use the lawyer/firm they feel is the best at their price point.