Let's talk regulation.

originally posted by: FyreByrd

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.

The auto insurance companies tried to petition the government years ago to drop the discounts for airbags and seatbelts. They said that the accidents were much more costly because people felt safe and drive faster. The governments response was they need to raise their rates and continue giving the discounts for seatbelts and airbags.

Here are some articles on this subject, the research on this subject was not well spread, I happed on it somewhere years ago when the insurance industry was trying to stop the government from making them give these discounts.

content.time.com...

phys.org...

Now here is another study by harvard, this has to do with deaths. www.law.harvard.edu... This shows seat belts save lives.

When the insurance companies were arguing is that with seat belts there were more accidents and injuries, not necessarily deaths. This is because people feel safer. Around here when there were no seat belts, people went slower when the roads were a little icy, now traffic is going at fifty five to sixty and there are more accidents. I am old enough to see the change, it is the feeling of safe that makes people go faster. People with four wheel drive suvs and cars go faster on bad roads, four wheel drive does not make braking on ice any better. During a slippery storm, more four wheel drives are in the ditch than two wheel drives, they go faster. I wave as I go by them when they are getting out of their vehicle out in the field after flying by me on the highway in the winter.

Seat belts make people feel more confident, maybe airbags actually make them feel they don't want to hit something and get slugged in the face with an airbag. I don't like airbags. I have seen a lot of people get hurt from getting T-boned who were strapped in with seatbelts. Since I knew the cops and they would come down for coffee at a friends business at night where I would go for coffee, they would mention which accidents would have been better off without seat belts a lot. Consensus of them, driving in town and crossing the highway was better not to have seatbelts and out on the highway it was better to have seatbelts on.

I cannot find the original insurance study that fueled their going against the discounts of the drivers for those things, it was real evidence, and it was done before much was on the net long ago.

Regulations are to make regular, and they are for businesses and for occupations that are regulated by the state. The problem starts when government starts regulating the people.

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

False. Know thyself. If self regulation worked, alcoholism, drug addiction, and obesity would not exist.

originally posted by: mOjOm

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.

So you say. Prove it wrong . You cant , can you ? One liners and nothing to back it up...all that you provide.Anywhere.
Talk is cheap , takes money to buy land

a reply to: rickymouse

Thank you for your effort and I agree that there is actually a "moral hazard" effect of regulation (to borrow the term from the insurance industry).

I do believe though it's only tangentially relevant to the 'wisdom' of regulation because safety standards are not only addressing the quantity of incidences but rather the severity of such situations. Also this moral hazard would only apply to individual intent and not those effected that don't have any direct volition.

I would add that regulation directly addresses the issue of 'moral hazard' for organizations where they 'expect' the public to 'cover the bill' for any short or long term damages.

Again it is something to consider and thank you for bringing it into the conversation.

a reply to: rickymouse

rickymouse...

an offtopic comment - do you know of Sam Harris?

originally posted by: DJW001

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

False. Know thyself. If self regulation worked, alcoholism, drug addiction, and obesity would not exist.

Those problems exist anyway right?

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.

I think you might be failing to think some of these through...

The regulation of education is a difficult and complex concept. At the most fundamental it is to ensure a basic level of education of all citizens so that Society doesn't have to pay for the lack of productivity of uneducated individuals. Lack of education is of harm to both the individual effected and society at large. As to the content, locations and extent of said education that's where it gets complex - but the requirement of a basic secular education is pretty simple.

Car registration pays in large part for roads. It also ensures that the car meets public safety standards.

The "7 words" is a bit silly but in all fairness I think it's a good idea to have regulation about standards for public speech. Private speech is fine but frankly I don't listen well to those that use much profanity. It is appropriate in certain circumstances but those times are few.

About hours of business - ask yourself - "Who does it benefit?". I would answer the community. If the community norm is that something is appropriate or not members of that community should comply wether or not they agree - that is the definition of being a good citizen. In many instances - compliance must be insured by coercion of some sort. Individual rights vs collective rights.

Most of your examples concern the boundary of where individual rights impact on others rights which the reason for law and regulation.

originally posted by: DJW001

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

False. Know thyself. If self regulation worked, alcoholism, drug addiction, and obesity would not exist.

Gosh - this is good.

Areas were regulation is necessary to assist in self-regulation.

Self-regulation requires constant self-reflection and adjustment of behavior. That's all great but human's have a tremendous capacity for self deceit and delusion in the self-interest.

Your tag line is "Unity". Unity comes first. The individual a close second.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Thank you for your thoughtful and extensive response.

I do agree with you in regard to arcaic laws and regulations and it is my belief and suggestion that all legislative and regulatory bodies spend a full half of their work time (that could use some regulation) reviewing existing laws/regulations and purging un and counter productive items).

And I think such a requirement should apply to all civic levels and need to start at the city level.

That is a regulation, probably a law would be necessary, that the majority would endorse.

This patching new law onto old (read regulation too) makes any code unwieldy and confusing (perhaps the point?).

It's rather like patching new code onto old in software. It doesn't solve the underlying problem. The bandaid approach to life (short term) is the dominant mode of society and we can clearly see the results of such.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: rickymouse

Thank you for your effort and I agree that there is actually a "moral hazard" effect of regulation (to borrow the term from the insurance industry).

I do believe though it's only tangentially relevant to the 'wisdom' of regulation because safety standards are not only addressing the quantity of incidences but rather the severity of such situations. Also this moral hazard would only apply to individual intent and not those effected that don't have any direct volition.

I would add that regulation directly addresses the issue of 'moral hazard' for organizations where they 'expect' the public to 'cover the bill' for any short or long term damages.

Again it is something to consider and thank you for bringing it into the conversation.

That sounds like I was reading a legal document.

The thing is that if you lower risk then people think they are safer and they go faster. The risk of death may be less, but the risk of accidents of all types does increase. Modern Antilock brakes actually do help to stop many accidents. I hated them when they came out at first, just rear antilocks were dangerous in the snow.

A lot of regulations are good regulations. But the government seems to be great at making a good thing complicated and expensive. A lot of times regulations, like the ones for commercial toilet height are way off tilt. You have to buy a hundred dollar special seat and put it on a low elongated bowl instead of buying a higher toilet to solve their regulation. I think the higher toilet is much better, but it is about an inch too high with a regular seat. Just happens that the seat manufacturer for those toilet seats originally approved was a friend of some politicians. I read that years ago in a construction magazine that was addressing the issue.

I have known someone who sold a product that had to be used in an application, they worked to help set the regulation in place. He worked for the company, he did not own the company, he helped to design the product specifications for the government. Their product was the only approved product to be used for years. For the life of me, I cannot remember what the product was anymore, it has only been maybe thirty five years, I should remember that. I remember it was a fiberglass item because he worked with fiberglass design and engineering and later started his own company.

originally posted by: FyreByrd
a reply to: rickymouse

rickymouse...

an offtopic comment - do you know of Sam Harris?

I have heard of some of his stuff but never actually researched if it was real or applicable to what he was applying it to. I had to look him up, I did not recognize the name at first.

a reply to: FyreByrd

You're welcome.

The regulations I mention are not exactly 'archaic.' They are oftentimes reasonable regulations either taken to ridiculous extremes (like the lemonade stand) or conflicting regulations between different levels of government.

The real problem is that a regulation, unlike a law, is a policy only but carries the weight of law. I cringe every time I read a bill that says something like "the head of the Department of State shall make regulations consistent with carrying out the intent of this bill." That is a shift of power from the Legislative branch to the Executive. Once that bill is passed into law, further 'laws' (regulations) no longer require Congressional approval, only a signature from one appointed official. And too often, that one appointed official has their own agenda. The wetlands example I used is a perfect representation of that. Sure, protecting natural habitats is important, but how far does this protection extend? It has been extended, through policy (regulations) only to include de facto removal of property from individuals without compensation... something that goes against the very heart of America.

Regulations in general are also very hard to get rid of. They are enforced by beaurocrats and beaurocrats are not well-known for accepting change. This leads to the 'new code in the old' situation, because changes in legislation can often cause problems with existing regulations, which departments are loathe to give up. Thus, having departments examine their own regulations would be an exercise in futility. I do admire Trump's approach: require two existing regulations to be removed before a new regulation can be implemented. It forces departments to take a long, hard look at any new regulations.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Gothmog

So you say. Prove it wrong . You cant , can you ? One liners and nothing to back it up...all that you provide.Anywhere.
Talk is cheap , takes money to buy land

Getting a little defensive there aren't ya??

That's typical when someone calls you on your BS and you've been called.

Talk is cheap, you're right. Which is why I can afford to give you sh*t about the stuff you write here all day long.