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.

 

I Am The State – You Must Beg Me For Permission To Engage In Productive Behavior

page: 3
34
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 06:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by goldentorch

Originally posted by hadriana
Don't forget building permits.

If I want to extend my front porch 3 feet, so I can have a good spot for my telescope on it, it will cost me 500.00 for a building permit.

It is beyond ridiculous.


Unfortunately you come under the same rules that say you can't build a 50 storey skyscraper on 2x4" batons. Sad but true. You don't have to change the law but alter it's parameters.


How about we just let architects build buildings and the people who pay for them pay for them.

This way no one has to get robbed by State bureaucrats.



Oh hell boy why don'tcha just let the family run things. They knows what'sa best fer ya. Stop yer hollerin'




posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 07:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by crimvelvet
reply to post by goldentorch
 




Firstly if you are referring to the offences alluded to in my post then the practices existed because there were actually no ordinances in place.....



GUESS WHAT??? You just met one. My business is not regulated at all. We are VERY VERY safety conscious because we do not want to get our rears sued off.

I provide a good product and the price is reflected by that quality. A business MUST make money to stay in business but the price charged also reflects the competition's price and what the consumer is willing to pay.

For example I used to board my horse at a hack stable. He rented out horses during the summer. He insured his business for the six months he did business. (If it is 20 below you do not ride you ski
)

The insurance company and their buddies in the government decided he had to be insured year round. His customers were not willing to pay the additional cost of insurance. That industry is now totally extinct in that state.
edit on 12-8-2011 by crimvelvet because: (no reason given)



Maybe there is a middle ground. Typically start ups and very small businesses are sole-proprietorship or partnerships. Those types of business structures leave the owner(s) 100% personally liable for any injury, fraud, lawsuits etc. That type of structure is almost self regulating as personal assets (and asses
) are on the line.

Once a business gets to the point where it enters a liability limitation structure (Incorporation, LLC etc.), the business is already at least somewhat established and can shoulder further permitting, inspection etc. The idea being that now personal liability is gone there is more temptation to be dishonest, cut corners etc. This also has the effect of keeping business owners in the personal liability stage of business longer as it would raise the bar on the attaining the limited liability status until the business has established itself.


So possibly keeping the licensing,permitting, inspections etc. to limited liability situations would be appropriate. This would allow the smaller businesses to regulate themselves based on personal liability, while allowing the regulation of larger business with limited liability structure.

Just a thought.



posted on Aug, 12 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   
Due to Wickard_v._Filburn you also have to beg the state to not engage in productive behavior. The state is mother, the state is father.

/TOA



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 12:53 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


No, they really wouldn't. The reason that we have many of these regulatory bodies created in the first place is because of the pure insanity that was happening with food and other things in the early 1900s. I agree with you that things have gone way too far, but to swing it all the way to the other extreme is just as bad. We need to find a sane middle-ground.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 02:39 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


I agree that some of the state and local practices for permits are retarded. I dont think you have to govern everyone on everything every second of the day. Life's too short for that bs.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 10:30 AM
link   
The sad part is that (not universally by any means, of course, but generally) we are The State. As a society we tolerate these laws and actions. Hell, sometimes we demand them. Not "us" as in you and me specifically, necessarily. But "us" as in society at large. We are at best often complicit in our own subjugation, and at worst, at times, architects of our own demise.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 11:06 AM
link   
reply to post by mnemeth1
 
I was a Mortgage Banker who started in the S & L Industry during the late 70s, then after 30 years in the business, the Government decided they wanted to license everyone, requiring me to take courses and pay fees that added up to almost $1K. I decided it was time to leave my chosen career and leave it to these people. Now, the people you have doing your loans are licensed by the DRE and NMLS, good luck.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 11:15 AM
link   
what is this post ?? I guess you are total supporter of anarchy .. but is anarchy the best way?



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 11:22 AM
link   
Once again another great thread. i love how you put everything in simplistic terms thats easily digestible by the people. The government has a stranglehold on the american people and something needs to be done. We nee true change. we need Ron Paul.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 11:48 AM
link   
Yeah, this is much too extreme.

I consider myself a libertarian to an extent, but this is not that, it is anarchy. You want nothing controlling anything anywhere. I forsee armed gangs ruling your country.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   
I just want to say thanks for making these type of threads that clearly expose what is so blatantly wrong with the state but yet goes unquestioned by so many. Why can't this type of logic at least be given a fair shake in our educational systems? The youth question the government but usually not like this which is backed by knowledge and understanding of why government intrusion of our lives is undesirable. In school, they are never taught the negative consequences of government regulation, intrusion in the free market.

In my late twenties now it's only recently that I started to be exposed to and understand this way of looking at the state and it's probably more eye opening and jarring than any other specific conspiracy theory because the state itself seems to be the greatest conspiracy of all!! Starting to grasp just how vastly corrupt our system is while knowing that this corruption is interwoven into every aspect of our lives is extremely disturbing and distressing.

I want to be an optimist but I sometimes wonder if the state and it's massive grip on power, tyranny, etc. will ever cease or at least decrease at all and I'm not sure the answer's yes. I think it's very likely that the state will very possibly only continue to grow and become an even bigger monster than ever before. That's at least what I feel like I am witnessing every day. This is why I commend people who are doing their part to educate others as this thread does. It seems like all we can do. If people can change their ways of thinking and start to take off their blinders then that could lead to change. I myself will continue to educate myself so I can better explain this whole mess to any family and friends who will listen and possibly understand.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 12:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1
reply to post by xPico
 


It really is disgusting.

The entire purpose of the State is to destroy competition and violate property rights. It is the exact opposite of everything it claims to uphold and protect.


THE STATE INVENTED PROPERTY RIGHTS. How foolish can you be??



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 12:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by mnemeth1

Originally posted by LargeFries
reply to post by mnemeth1
 


while i appreciate your stance me thinks you over-simplify a tad, perhaps. while i don't want to defend a governing body i'm confident that as a person with life experience you realize some checks and balances really are in place for the good of the people.

there are news stories every week of people who actually do go to unlicensed, unqualified people willing to do all sorts of medical procedures. dental, abortions, liposuction and plastic surgery comes to mind immediately. we read about it afterward, when someone is scarred for life or deceased from their poor choice.

i'd rather consume foods from a establishment that is well versed in proper good housekeeping practices and is scrutinized for their behavior than buy mystery meat on a stick from someone who won't speak to me in english on a city street corner. food handling licenses came about because people became ill so many times in the past. common sense isn't as common as it should be. by holding people responsible for their actions a higher level of safety is set for the good of the patrons.

i'll agree that as a society we are overwhelmed and overburdened by endless red tape and requirements. however we did not arrive where we are overnight. the many safety standards and practices that affect the workplace of america, for example, came about slowly and painfully. there was a time when wage earners could easily lose a body part any day they worked because of the lack of guards, grilles, shut-off devices and other such things. a lot of people suffered and died along the way. it would be stupid and cruel to not make use of protective safety features after witnessing the pains and deaths that took place along the way.

there are no free lunches. everything comes with a cost.


Who's fault is it for someone choosing a bad doctor?

The doctor's fault for not getting a medical license or the consumer's fault for not even bothering to review the guy's history at all?

And further, can't a civil suit bring justice instead of a criminal suit for not being licensed?

Regulations are not necessary for a citizen to bring a civil suit against a fraudulent doctor that performs a bad surgery.



edit on 12-8-2011 by mnemeth1 because: (no reason given)


So wait wait wait a second...

You're saying if a doctor deceives somebody and botches a procedure due to incompetence/negligence, etc. that it's the VICTIM'S fault?? Typical right-wing worldview... blame the victims of the system because the system is somehow infallible. Actually... ALL tyrants do this, whether they're Capitalist or Communist. Sorry bud... but just as Communism was, Capitalism and modern markets are horrible FAILURES to humanity and the environment, and no amount of theoretical silliness can get you out of that paper-bag.



posted on Aug, 13 2011 @ 09:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

THE STATE INVENTED PROPERTY RIGHTS. How foolish can you be??


So, children never said "mine" until the state invented property rights? Who invented property rights any way? Al Gore? It must be hard work for parents to teach children how to take things and consider them their own


In some people's view, rights are gifts the government gives us. In other people's view, property rights come naturally to all of us, and the government is supposed to be protecting those natural rights. But, they are not doing that.



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by civilchallenger

Originally posted by NoHierarchy

THE STATE INVENTED PROPERTY RIGHTS. How foolish can you be??


So, children never said "mine" until the state invented property rights? Who invented property rights any way? Al Gore? It must be hard work for parents to teach children how to take things and consider them their own


In some people's view, rights are gifts the government gives us. In other people's view, property rights come naturally to all of us, and the government is supposed to be protecting those natural rights. But, they are not doing that.


Shut up.


"One does not sell the earth upon which people walk."
- Crazy Horse of the Oglala Sioux



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 11:24 AM
link   
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 


Sorry,

I ran into that book BEFORE OSHA and MSDS sheets ever existed. I made sure the Union Steward was aware of hte fact it was on my office library shelf.

As a Chemist I HATE MSDS because they are nothing but a corporate CYA. The MSDA for sand, Drinking alcohol (Ethanol) and a lethal chemical all read pretty much the same. So how the heck do you know what is a problem and what is not???


This is what they have to say about the beer you are drinking




...Substances to be avoided include strong oxidizing agents, peroxides, acids, acid chlorides, acid anhydrides, alkali metals, ammonia, moisture. Forms explosive mixtures with air......

...Causes skin and eye irritation. Ingestion can cause nausea, vomitting and inebriation; chronic use can cause serious liver damage....

Personal protection
Safety glasses. Suitable ventilation.

msds.chem.ox.ac.uk...



posted on Aug, 14 2011 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by crimvelvet
 


I find it interesting that you made those statements without any sources to back them up. Perhaps I should say I found it interesting until I checked for myself and then I found it highly amusing and understood why you didn't site any sources.

I checked several sources regarding the publication dates of the MSDS vs. The Handbook of Hazardous Chemical Properties.

Here is a source that shows a publication date for The Handbook of Hazardous Chemical Properties.



Bibliographic & ordering Information
Hardbound, ISBN: 0-7506-7209-9, 448 pages, publication date: 1999
Imprint: BUTTERWORTH HEINEMANN



Then there is this this source:



Product Details
Paperback: 452 pages
Publisher: Butterworth-Heinemann (December 8, 1999)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0123991757
ISBN-13: 978-0123991751


This source shows the actual tittle page of The Handbook of Hazardous Chemical Properties so that anyone can see the publishing date.
Just to avoid any chance of being in error regarding the publishing date I also checked with The Library of Congress. They show the publication date in this link.

Now as far as the MSDS are concerned there is this source which outlines the MSDS history.



Finally, on Friday, November 25, 1983, in Rules and Regulations of the Federal Register, Volume 48, Number 228, OSHA issued its final regulations. Under this ruling, MSDS's (either an improved form Number 20 or some similar format) were required for all shipments of hazardous chemicals leaving the manufacturers work place and from all importers of such on all shipments by November, 1985. Distributors and employers were to comply as of that same date. All employers will be in compliance with all provisions of this section including initial training requirements for all current employees by May 25, 1986.


Based upon the above information I believe it is safe to say that you are in error regarding your statement that the MSDS are not as old as The Handbook of Hazardous Chemical Properties. We can also infer based upon that information that you did not run into The Handbook of Hazardous Chemical Properties before you ever ran into OSHA or the MSDS.

Now let's examine each book's descriptions of the categories you provided in your response to me.

Sand in the MSDS:




Section 3: Hazards Identification
Potential Acute Health Effects: Slightly hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of eye contact (irritant), of ingestion, of inhalation.
Potential Chronic Health Effects:
CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: Classified 1 (Proven for human.) by IARC. Classified A2 (Suspected for human.) by ACGIH. MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. TERATOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY: Not available. The substance may be toxic to lungs, upper respiratory tract. Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target organs damage.


Ethanol



MSDS Name:Ethyl Alcohol, 70% Catalog Numbers:S75119, S75120, S556CA4 Synonyms: Ethyl Alcohol; Ethyl Hydrate; Ethyl Hydroxide; Fermentation Alcohol; Grain Alcohol; Methylcarbinol; Molasses Alcohol; Spirits of Wine. Company Identification:
Fisher Scientific 1 Reagent Lane Fair Lawn, NJ 07410
For information, call: 201-796-7100 Emergency Number:201-796-7100 For CHEMTREC assistance, call:800-424-9300 For International CHEMTREC assistance, call:703-527-3887
Hazard Symbols:F Risk Phrases: 11
EMERGENCY OVERVIEW
Appearance: colorless clear liquid. Flash Point: 16.6 deg C. Flammable liquid and vapor.May cause central nervous system depression. Causes severe eye irritation. Causes respiratory tract irritation. Causes moderate skin irritation. This substance has caused adverse reproductive and fetal effects in humans. Warning! May cause liver, kidney and heart damage.
Target Organs: Kidneys, heart, central nervous system, liver. Potential Health Effects
Eye: Causes severe eye irritation. May cause painful sensitization to light. May cause chemical conjunctivitis and corneal damage. Skin: Causes moderate skin irritation. May cause cyanosis of the extremities. Ingestion: May cause gastrointestinal irritation with nausea, vomiting and diarrhea. May cause systemic toxicity with acidosis. May cause central nervous system depression, characterized by excitement, followed by headache, dizziness, drowsiness, and nausea. Advanced stages may cause collapse, unconsciousness, coma and possible death due to respiratory failure.
Inhalation: Inhalation of high concentrations may cause central nervous system effects characterized by nausea, headache, dizziness, unconsciousness and coma. Causes respiratory tract irritation. May cause narcotic effects in high concentration. Vapors may cause dizziness or suffocation. Chronic:May cause reproductive and fetal effects. Laboratory experiments have resulted in mutagenic effects. Animal studies have reported the development of tumors. Prolonged exposure may cause liver, kidney, and heart damage.
Section 2 - Composition, Information on Ingredients
CAS#
Chemical Name
Percent
EINECS/ELINCS
64-17-5
Ethyl alcohol
70
200-578-6
7732-18-5
Water
30
231-791-2
Section 3 - Hazards Identification


Deadly Chemical (I had to make one up since you didn't site one) Cyanide:



Section 3: Hazards Identification
Potential Acute Health Effects:
Very hazardous in case of skin contact (irritant), of eye contact (irritant), of ingestion, of inhalation. Hazardous in case of skin contact (permeator). Corrosive to eyes and skin. The amount of tissue damage depends on length of contact. Eye contact can result in corneal damage or blindness. Skin contact can produce inflammation and blistering. Inhalation of dust will produce irritation to gastro-intestinal or respiratory tract, characterized by burning, sneezing and coughing. Severe over-exposure can produce lung damage, choking, unconsciousness or death. Inflammation of the eye is characterized by redness, watering, and itching. Skin inflammation is characterized by itching, scaling, reddening, or, occasionally, blistering.
Potential Chronic Health Effects:
CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. MUTAGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. TERATOGENIC EFFECTS: Not available. DEVELOPMENTAL TOXICITY: Not available. The substance may be toxic to skin, eyes, central nervous system (CNS). Repeated or prolonged exposure to the substance can produce target organs damage. Repeated exposure of the eyes to a low level of dust can produce eye irritation. Repeated skin exposure can produce local skin destruction, or dermatitis. Repeated inhalation of dust can produce varying degree of respiratory irritation or lung damage. Repeated exposure to a highly toxic material may produce general deterioration of health by an accumulation in one or many human organs.


Those seem very different to me. I don't think that the quote below (said by you) can be deemed as accurate given the great differences in Section 3 of the MSDS quoted above.



As a Chemist I HATE MSDS because they are nothing but a corporate CYA. The MSDA for sand, Drinking alcohol (Ethanol) and a lethal chemical all read pretty much the same.


So there we have it. It would seem that the government's regulations were in effect (both in terms of the regulating body OSHA and the MSDS) before the publication of The Handbook of Hazardous Chemical Properties. It would seem that the MSDS are vastly different for sand, ethanol, and a deadly chemical. It would also seem that you opened your reply to me with "Sorry" not as an apology to me for a rebuttal but as an adjective to describe the general quality of your rebuttal.



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 07:36 AM
link   
When I owned my restaurant, I saw first hand how incompetent the dept. of health was. I was nailed because the light over my prep table was one candle power less than what they wanted. I had to move a light two feet to raise the candle power. So after hiring an electrician, building permit for said electrician, and having to replace ceiling tile it ended up costing me over $600 for one candle power. What a friggin joke. Not only that, but when I was adding a dining room, I had to have a separate sink for everything I did. Three for washing dishes, one for vegetables, one for general food prep, one within 30 feet of my sandwich table and one by the beverage bar. So being the smart a$$ that I was, I asked the inspector how many sinks were in her home? Did she have three for her dishes, one for vegetables and one for general hand washing? She did not find this humorous, but I did! I told her, "see how silly this is"? Why do I need all these sinks when a couple would do.

Oh, and I had a high temperature dish washer (190 deg) and she nailed me for not having sanitizer even though the health code clearly stated that a sterilizing temperature of 180 degrees or higher did NOT need sanitizer! I pointed it out to her and she said I don't care. If I tell you to use sanitizer, then you'll use sanitizer!



posted on Aug, 15 2011 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by Dilligaf28
 




Here is a source that shows a publication date for The Handbook of Hazardous Chemical Properties....


I had the company I worked for buy the book or one of a similar title in 1972 when I went to work at my first job right out of college and became ill from one of the chemicals. At that time we used Benzene followed by acetone to wash our hands....

The last time I looked at MSDS sheets was for sand in the late 1990's and the Ethanol MSDS I used as a teaching aid for the Mixmen at Gillette in the mid 1980's.

I am sorry if the actual reference book I looked at forty years ago has been replaced by one of a similar title.

edit on 15-8-2011 by crimvelvet because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
34
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join