- This topic has 137 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 15 years, 9 months ago by
latesummer2008.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 28, 2007 at 9:02 AM #55279May 28, 2007 at 9:35 AM #55268
Wiley
ParticipantThe private market can and always will regulate better then the govt. Do you think there was always regulations for building bridges, houses, etc. No the market dictated the quality.
Social Security. Please. Thats one “regulation” arguement that is completely empty. There is no social security to give to the people even if we wanted to let them invest privately. Yes lets put our trust in the govt. to regulate. So drugs, crime, fraudulent behavior is all regulated and has been for some time. Does that stop it? Arguing for most any type of regulation is just asking for a larger govt. and less personal responsibility.
I believe in the 1800’s Brittain didn’t even have governemt police. They were all private contractors. The thought of that now is absurd to most.
May 28, 2007 at 9:35 AM #55283ParticipantThe private market can and always will regulate better then the govt. Do you think there was always regulations for building bridges, houses, etc. No the market dictated the quality.
Social Security. Please. Thats one “regulation” arguement that is completely empty. There is no social security to give to the people even if we wanted to let them invest privately. Yes lets put our trust in the govt. to regulate. So drugs, crime, fraudulent behavior is all regulated and has been for some time. Does that stop it? Arguing for most any type of regulation is just asking for a larger govt. and less personal responsibility.
I believe in the 1800’s Brittain didn’t even have governemt police. They were all private contractors. The thought of that now is absurd to most.
May 28, 2007 at 2:15 PM #55278Anonymous
GuestI was born in Philadelphia. There are lovely old homes from the 1700s in the historic district. On the fronts of the homes are plaques. The plaques indicated that the homeowner had paid for private fire protection. If the homeowner’ house was on fire, the privately-paid fire fighters would battle the blaze. If the homeowner had not paid for fire protection, he was on his own if he had a fire.
Individual responsibility makes you think and act prudently. I look forward to a return to individual responsibility, which will be buttressed by family responsibility and community responsibility. All three of those get ‘crowded out’ when the government steps in and taxes and regulates us as it assumes responsibility.
May 28, 2007 at 2:15 PM #55293GuestI was born in Philadelphia. There are lovely old homes from the 1700s in the historic district. On the fronts of the homes are plaques. The plaques indicated that the homeowner had paid for private fire protection. If the homeowner’ house was on fire, the privately-paid fire fighters would battle the blaze. If the homeowner had not paid for fire protection, he was on his own if he had a fire.
Individual responsibility makes you think and act prudently. I look forward to a return to individual responsibility, which will be buttressed by family responsibility and community responsibility. All three of those get ‘crowded out’ when the government steps in and taxes and regulates us as it assumes responsibility.
May 28, 2007 at 3:17 PM #55280SD Realtor
ParticipantI am sorry 4runner but as sdr would say, you lobbed a softball…
“At some point, it is actually more efficient for the gov’t to step in and forbid certain behavior. For example, the government does not allow people to buy addictive recreational drugs because too many people will make stupid mistakes and society at large will have to pay for those mistakes.”
I guess I will need someone else to buy me a pack of smokes and bottle of JD…
Can you really keep coming up with the theory that any govt regulation we have is not self serving in nature to some politicians who are getting greased by a lobby?
Really now… I am not defending what has happened with mortgage fraud. It is just almost funny to think that our govt would actually regulate any industry at all for the sheer benefit of the uneducated or general people they are supposed to serve.
Wake up.
D Realtor
May 28, 2007 at 3:17 PM #55295ParticipantI am sorry 4runner but as sdr would say, you lobbed a softball…
“At some point, it is actually more efficient for the gov’t to step in and forbid certain behavior. For example, the government does not allow people to buy addictive recreational drugs because too many people will make stupid mistakes and society at large will have to pay for those mistakes.”
I guess I will need someone else to buy me a pack of smokes and bottle of JD…
Can you really keep coming up with the theory that any govt regulation we have is not self serving in nature to some politicians who are getting greased by a lobby?
Really now… I am not defending what has happened with mortgage fraud. It is just almost funny to think that our govt would actually regulate any industry at all for the sheer benefit of the uneducated or general people they are supposed to serve.
Wake up.
D Realtor
May 28, 2007 at 5:38 PM #55288GuestYeah, you’re right, Dr. C., trust the regulators. They are omniscient.
No, they suck too, so people need to check up on them as well to ensure that they’re honest and the policy is generating the proper effect.
Just ask the diabetics who’ve been taking FDA-approved Avandia, who have a 64% increased risk of heart-related death and a 43% increased risk of having a heart attack.
You can trust regulators. I don’t.
Ah, so an alternative free market solution is to abolish the FDA and let all commercial players compete with “advertorials” telling us, honestly, for real, that their competitors drugs will murder you but ours are safe for puppies and grandmas—and you’ll get a free iPod for every 1000 Lipitors.
And yes, you as a consumer, could indeed theoretically decide to get a PhD in endrocrinology and raise $50 million dollars for trials to see if they’re telling the truth or not.
Coming back to reality—the only reason we have those data avilable about Avandia is surely because of a non-commercial regulatory system which requires collecting it and paying for somebody to analyze it regardless of the commercial consequences.
Regulatory failure doesn’t necessarily imply the alternative abandonment, any more than occasional bad parenting demands orphanges for all.
Look, in the end it’s all people; not a subhuman caste of “regulators” next to the glorious ubermenschen of business .
May 28, 2007 at 5:38 PM #55303GuestYeah, you’re right, Dr. C., trust the regulators. They are omniscient.
No, they suck too, so people need to check up on them as well to ensure that they’re honest and the policy is generating the proper effect.
Just ask the diabetics who’ve been taking FDA-approved Avandia, who have a 64% increased risk of heart-related death and a 43% increased risk of having a heart attack.
You can trust regulators. I don’t.
Ah, so an alternative free market solution is to abolish the FDA and let all commercial players compete with “advertorials” telling us, honestly, for real, that their competitors drugs will murder you but ours are safe for puppies and grandmas—and you’ll get a free iPod for every 1000 Lipitors.
And yes, you as a consumer, could indeed theoretically decide to get a PhD in endrocrinology and raise $50 million dollars for trials to see if they’re telling the truth or not.
Coming back to reality—the only reason we have those data avilable about Avandia is surely because of a non-commercial regulatory system which requires collecting it and paying for somebody to analyze it regardless of the commercial consequences.
Regulatory failure doesn’t necessarily imply the alternative abandonment, any more than occasional bad parenting demands orphanges for all.
Look, in the end it’s all people; not a subhuman caste of “regulators” next to the glorious ubermenschen of business .
May 28, 2007 at 5:42 PM #55290Guest
I believe in the 1800’s Brittain didn’t even have governemt police. They were all private contractors. The thought of that now is absurd to most.We’ll always have Somalia.
May 28, 2007 at 5:42 PM #55305Guest
I believe in the 1800’s Brittain didn’t even have governemt police. They were all private contractors. The thought of that now is absurd to most.We’ll always have Somalia.
May 28, 2007 at 6:00 PM #55286uncomfortably numb
ParticipantHere’s the deal. 99.9% of all law is economic law. It is therefore the job of the government to provide the legal framework by which those who own exploit the rest. It’s just that simple…the government and Big Business are essentially THE SAME! It should be fairly obvious to all to see the revolving door which exists between the two. For example, do you see any connection between Big Oil and the government? It’s all this way. It’s the best of both worlds, the Nazi’s and the Soviet’s, in one wonderful package. And the kicker is that people think they’re free!!
May 28, 2007 at 6:00 PM #55301ParticipantHere’s the deal. 99.9% of all law is economic law. It is therefore the job of the government to provide the legal framework by which those who own exploit the rest. It’s just that simple…the government and Big Business are essentially THE SAME! It should be fairly obvious to all to see the revolving door which exists between the two. For example, do you see any connection between Big Oil and the government? It’s all this way. It’s the best of both worlds, the Nazi’s and the Soviet’s, in one wonderful package. And the kicker is that people think they’re free!!
May 28, 2007 at 6:37 PM #552924runner
Participant- The private market can and always will regulate better then the govt. Do you think there was always regulations for building bridges, houses, etc. No the market dictated the quality.
I don’t understand what you mean. How has the market ever dictated quality in building construction? Before San Francisco burned to the ground, were the houses built so that the whole city wouldn’t be immolated if a fire started? Even if one or two were safe, it didn’t matter when the whole city was burning to the ground. It took gov’t regulation to insist that buildings be built to code so the catastrophe would not be repeated time and gain.
Do you really think that consumers are smart enough to tell a safe bridge from an unsafe bridge, a safe road from an unsafe road, or a safe rail track from an unsafe rail track? They should just do “due diligence” before driving over the Coronado bridge– check out the pilons, see if the paint is fresh– and then decide whether or not to take drive out on the bridge.
I hope that you checked the wiring in your house before you bought it. Is everything grounded properly? Does the electrical insulation meet the necesary temperature tolerances? How about those breakers– consumers should figure out on their own when a line is overloaded!!! That silly, ineffective gov’t regulation– always insisting that the electrical wiring be be up to code.
Do you really think that private action is more effective than gov’t regulation in every case?
May 28, 2007 at 6:37 PM #55307Participant- The private market can and always will regulate better then the govt. Do you think there was always regulations for building bridges, houses, etc. No the market dictated the quality.
I don’t understand what you mean. How has the market ever dictated quality in building construction? Before San Francisco burned to the ground, were the houses built so that the whole city wouldn’t be immolated if a fire started? Even if one or two were safe, it didn’t matter when the whole city was burning to the ground. It took gov’t regulation to insist that buildings be built to code so the catastrophe would not be repeated time and gain.
Do you really think that consumers are smart enough to tell a safe bridge from an unsafe bridge, a safe road from an unsafe road, or a safe rail track from an unsafe rail track? They should just do “due diligence” before driving over the Coronado bridge– check out the pilons, see if the paint is fresh– and then decide whether or not to take drive out on the bridge.
I hope that you checked the wiring in your house before you bought it. Is everything grounded properly? Does the electrical insulation meet the necesary temperature tolerances? How about those breakers– consumers should figure out on their own when a line is overloaded!!! That silly, ineffective gov’t regulation– always insisting that the electrical wiring be be up to code.
Do you really think that private action is more effective than gov’t regulation in every case?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.