It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Let's talk regulation.

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2017 @ 05:06 PM
link   
How would you feel in any of the following situations:

The grocery store set their scales to register 1 pound when 14 oz. were put on it and you pay for a pound of produce when you only receive 14 oz. of produce.

Your local nuclear energy plant is not using the parts required by the manufacturer nor replacing degradable parts when suggested in the maintenance material. The company finds it an acceptable risk.

You find that your pharmacy sold you a medication that didn’t have the potency listed on the label.

You fall on the job because the scaffolding you are using doesn’t have rails sufficient to keep you from falling. You are hurt by the fall and can’t afford the necessary medical care to recover and find yourself disabled and unable to work in your field.

You tell a newspaper about illegal activity by your employer. You are fired, blackballed from your industry (and others) without recourse.

These are just a couple of instances where ‘regulations’ ensure public welfare. And my public welfare, I mean ‘each individual’ welfare’.

Most of us can agree (maybe not) that basic standards should exist to protect the public from abuses of big business. However we have a fundamental problem in the arena of enforcement due to defunding and (more insidious) staffing regulatory bodies with anti-regulation ideologs.

I think it is naïve to believe that business will not ignore and cheat regulations wherever possible to inflate the bottom line thereby transferring the costs to taxpayers. The idea that ‘the market’ will correct any ‘dangers’ is without substance. Perhaps, in specific individual cases, but in the bulk of situations ‘maximizing profit for shareholders’ (even collective ones) trumps any health and safety needs.

So what do you think?

Below are some references.




A general definition to begin with from Google Search…


reg·u·la·tion
ˌreɡ(y)əˈlāSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: regulation; plural noun: regulations

1.
A) a rule or directive made and maintained by an authority. "planning regulations"
synonyms: rule, ruling, order, directive, act, law, bylaw, statute, edict, canon, pronouncement, dictate, dictum, decree, fiat, command, precept
"they obey all the regulations"


B) in accordance with regulations; of the correct type.
modifier noun: regulation
"regulation army footwear"
synonyms: official, prescribed, set, fixed, mandatory, compulsory, obligatory, de rigueur
"regulation dress"
antonyms: unofficial, informal

C) of a familiar or predictable type; formulaic; standardized. "a regulation Western parody"

2.
the action or process of regulating or being regulated.
"the regulation of financial markets"
synonyms: adjustment, control, management, balancing More

Antonyms: deregulation, disorganization, lawlessness, mismanagement from thesaururus.com.

Some sources:

www.regulations.gov...



A well-known study by the economists Eli Berman and Linda T.M. Bui of Boston University looked at the aftermath of new regulations governing air quality in Los Angeles. The South Coast Air Quality Management District in Los Angeles enacted some of the country’s most stringent air quality standards in the 1980s, and Berman and Bui compared Los Angeles firms with those in Louisiana and Texas to see if the more regulated firms cut jobs as a result. They found that the local air quality regulations were not responsible for a large decline in employment, and that the regulations might have actually increased labor demand since firms need to hire people to help them deal with the new regulations. They argued that because all firms in a region were affected by the same regulations, they were still able to compete against one another while facing the same costs. “We find no evidence that local air quality regulation substantially reduced employment,” they concluded.




posted on May, 5 2017 @ 05:24 PM
link   
You mentioned many of the needed regulations and there are many more. For example I like my doctors licensed and Fentanyl regulated. The problem comes with governments' constant need to grow their empire through over regulation. Do we really need a 2,400 page rule covering dog walking by the Park Service? Link

There will never be enough money to enforces all of the big government rules gone wild.


edit on 5-5-2017 by whywhynot because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 05:46 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

A certain amount of regulation is needed. However, 1. there are regulations in many, many areas of American life that have nothing to do with health and safety. 2. There are areas that have to do with health and safety that are not regulated or are under regulated. 3. There are areas where regulation is necessary but not enforced. This leads us to trust certain products and services which should not be trusted without inspection. 4. Certain areas of regulation are enforced in unethical, corrupt, capricious, and/or discriminatory ways.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Are all regulations necessary?



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: whywhynot
You mentioned many of the needed regulations and there are many more. For example I like my doctors licensed and Fentanyl regulated. The problem comes with governments' constant need to grow their empire through over regulation. Do we really need a 2,400 page rule covering dog walking by the Park Service? Link

There will never be enough money to enforces all of the big government rules gone wild.



It appears that you agree to the necessity of regulation. But not the enforcement of those regulations or the number of them.

I agree it would be nice to have simple 'principals' of regulation such as "Do not harm the health or welfare of individual beings" but that is not practical in our litigious society where the letter of the law always trumps (pun intended) the spirit of the law).

As to enforcement, it is absurd to believe that every single instance will be 'overseen' but that is no argument against increasing enforcement budgets. Without random enforcement, there is no incentive to comply with the law.

I work a lot with accountants and over the years, I increasing hear from them "Technically, it's illegal, but the odds of you being caught are minimal and the penalties are so low it's not an issue".

I don't personally live in a world where 'just not getting caught' is a sound reason for breaking the law. I know that's what is fraught to us and our children through the 'win at all costs' system that has taken over but think it is worth thinking about hence the thread.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 06:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: FyreByrd

A certain amount of regulation is needed. However, 1. there are regulations in many, many areas of American life that have nothing to do with health and safety. 2. There are areas that have to do with health and safety that are not regulated or are under regulated. 3. There are areas where regulation is necessary but not enforced. This leads us to trust certain products and services which should not be trusted without inspection. 4. Certain areas of regulation are enforced in unethical, corrupt, capricious, and/or discriminatory ways.


Can you name a few regulations that don't center on health and safety?



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 06:04 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: FyreByrd

Are all regulations necessary?


Are no regulations necessary?

Your point?
edit on 5-5-2017 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 06:08 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Are all regulations necessary?

Are each and every regulation that the government spewed, absolutely necessary?



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 06:25 PM
link   
self regulation has less corruption and bribery




posted on May, 5 2017 @ 06:58 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

So you have created a straw man argument and then decided you can only have lots of regulations or none?

How about you use your brain and common sense and decide which regulations are needed and which aren't?

Is that really too hard?
edit on 2017/5/5 by Metallicus because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 07:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
self regulation has less corruption and bribery



Self regulation is neither consistent nor reliable. Hence it is not less corrupt at all.

In fact, if self regulation worked there would be no need for Law enforcement, or Government Regulations at all. Clearly that isn't the reality we live in.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 07:20 PM
link   
Regulation (in most cases) = Revenue = Taxes = Stealing from the public




posted on May, 5 2017 @ 07:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
Regulation (in most cases) = Revenue = Taxes = Stealing from the public



That statement = Nothing but your opinion = Meaningless to everyone but you.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 07:43 PM
link   
There are necessary regulations and there are excessive regulations. It seems that the piddly regulations seem to trump the necessary ones ten to one. You can stick all the regulations on quality of material in a house, but if not enough nails are put into it, then it will fall apart. You can put airbags into a car and require lots of modification so that the car buckles up on impact to absorb the impact, yet they allow distracting technology in the cars and people go faster because they feel safer and cause more serious accidents. I know a few wrecker drivers, the number of serious accidents are way up

Actually making cars safer is making accidents worse.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 08:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: rickymouse
There are necessary regulations and there are excessive regulations. It seems that the piddly regulations seem to trump the necessary ones ten to one. You can stick all the regulations on quality of material in a house, but if not enough nails are put into it, then it will fall apart. You can put airbags into a car and require lots of modification so that the car buckles up on impact to absorb the impact, yet they allow distracting technology in the cars and people go faster because they feel safer and cause more serious accidents. I know a few wrecker drivers, the number of serious accidents are way up

Actually making cars safer is making accidents worse.



While I enjoy your materials and nails analogy - I would need to see actual facts to support your "....making accidents worse" claim.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Safer cars do not cause worse accidents. That is made up BS. There are worse accidents because people suck at driving and the more cell phones and distractions we give them and the less education they have the dumber they get. Up the population and you have more dumb people driving every day.

Nothing about a safer car is causing worse accidents.

The fact is that some regulations are needed because nobody and no business is going to police themselves responsibly. It just doesn't happen. The problem is that the important regulations that we do have aren't enforced where it actually matters and there are plenty of BS regulations that do no good but to squeeze some money out of the little guy while allowing the worst violators get off.

I've come to the conclusion that every system we have is broken to some degree. The major institutions are broken more than the rest. Government is totally corrupt. Everything is broken and getting worse. There is most likely little that is going to be done to correct any of it because the balance of power is so far out of balance only a system breakdown is possible at this point.

Maybe there will then be some sort of a reset and rebuild and maybe not, who knows. But I don't believe there is an actual way to slow down and correct the damage any longer. It's a Juggernaut that cannot be stopped at this point. The throttle is set on full and has snapped off. The engine is at full speed and stressed up on red and it's a matter of time until something critical snaps and causes system wide failure. The damage will be unpredictable in it's scale but severe and across most all other systems. We are basically just awaiting the unavoidable breakdown at this point and hoping that it will hold out long enough for us to have a decent life and die before the worst of it happens. Sad but true.
edit on 5-5-2017 by mOjOm because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 09:42 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

Regulations regarding education, car registrations, what words can/cannot be said on tv and radio, the hours businesses can be open, the days businesses can be open, what type of house I can build, where I can put my fence or garage or shed, where I can park my car, who can/cannot drive a taxi, I could keep going and going and going.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 09:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: TobyFlenderson
a reply to: FyreByrd

Regulations regarding education, car registrations, what words can/cannot be said on tv and radio, the hours businesses can be open, the days businesses can be open, what type of house I can build, where I can put my fence or garage or shed, where I can park my car, who can/cannot drive a taxi, I could keep going and going and going.


All those regulations have a valid purpose though. They might be enforced unfairly or cost too much or something but make sense overall.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 10:47 PM
link   
a reply to: mOjOm

Every regulation, ostensibly serves a purpose. However, that doesn't mean it should be in place. Until the last few years, liquor stores in Massachusetts could not open on Sundays. In fact, only a few years before that, no store in Mass. could open on Sundays. Those regulations served the purpose of bygone religious beliefs.

I am not a pot smoker, but under Federal law marijuana is a Schedule One drug which means it can not be tested for any medicinal purposes. This serves the purpose of lining the pockets of pharmaceutical companies by eliminating a cheap and efficacious alternative.

If I buy a piece of land, why shouldn't I be able to build on it what I will as long as it does not risk the lives or safety of others?

I could keep going on but am tired.

I must admit, this is quite a unique thread in that you maybe the only person I've ever encountered that thinks so highly of regulation in general.



posted on May, 5 2017 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

As has been said already, some regulation is indeed good, but too much is bad. You may have a recipe for a dish that calls for a teaspoon of salt. The salt makes it taste delicious! But try putting a half-pound of salt in...it will probably be inedible.

I agree with regulations to do two basic things: ensure honesty in commerce, and protect public safety. Let's look at your examples.

The grocery store set their scales to register 1 pound when 14 oz. were put on it and you pay for a pound of produce when you only receive 14 oz. of produce.

Obviously, this falls under commercial honesty. I support that, just as I support regulations to have gas pumps certified, or regulations to print ingredients and nutritional information on a foodstuff. What I don't support would be a regulation that then requires a foodstuff to conform to a certain restrictions, i.e., it cannot have trans-fats. Trans-fats may not be healthy, but if the product clearly states it contains them, it is honest commerce and the decision to buy or not should be left to the consumer.


Your local nuclear energy plant is not using the parts required by the manufacturer nor replacing degradable parts when suggested in the maintenance material. The company finds it an acceptable risk.

A perfect example of protecting public safety. A malfunctioning nuclear plant is extremely hazardous and thus great care needs to be taken to ensure proper operation and maintenance. But requiring annual inspections of handrails inside the reactor building primary containment (where a human would die within minutes unprotected and within a couple hours using full protection) would be ridiculous.


You find that your pharmacy sold you a medication that didn’t have the potency listed on the label.

Again, commercial honesty.


You fall on the job because the scaffolding you are using doesn’t have rails sufficient to keep you from falling. You are hurt by the fall and can’t afford the necessary medical care to recover and find yourself disabled and unable to work in your field.

First of all, no one has ever fell because scaffolding rails were missing. They fall because of something else. Rails are there to provide a level of safety in case of a fall.

Secondly, that is quite a tale you weave as to consequences... I thought you wanted a serious discussion?


You tell a newspaper about illegal activity by your employer. You are fired, blackballed from your industry (and others) without recourse.

Again, commercial honesty.

But let's be fair... some regulations are ridiculous to the extreme. Like:
  • Some states forbid the collection of rainwater by individuals.
  • Many cities require a business license, food inspections, and building code compliance for lemonade stands run by kids trying to raise money.
  • In many cases, regulations prohibit me from purchasing raw milk, even if it is from a neighbor with a milk cow.
  • If the EPA finds an area with water (even if only during a rain) on your private property, they can declare it a wetlands and prohibit you from using that property for anything not specifically approved by the EPA.
  • US DOT regulations require truck drivers to take a minimum of ten consecutive hours off duty, preferably sleeping in the bunk, after a maximum of 11 hours of driving or 14 hours on duty. Yet, many states (I'm talking to YOU, Virginia!) do not allow drivers to park in the truck-only spaces for more than 30 minutes and will force drivers to drive illegally.
  • California once tried to ban CB radios from trucks, because they could be used to pass information about law enforcement activity. They are also used quite often to communicate with the terminal while being loaded/unloaded.
  • At one time, Indiana decreed that it was illegal to stop on the shoulder of the highway unless the vehicle was immobile. I know one driver who got a $1500 ticket for stoping long enough to look at his directions rather than try to drive distracted.
  • If you hit a deer driving and kill it (usually totalling your vehicle), it's not illegal. But if you then pick it up, you're guilty of poaching.

There are good and bad regulations, not just generic regulations. Therein lies the error in your argument.

TheRedneck




top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join