- This topic has 137 replies, 23 voices, and was last updated 16 years, 5 months ago by
latesummer2008.
-
AuthorPosts
-
May 28, 2007 at 7:35 PM #55294May 28, 2007 at 7:35 PM #55310
Wiley
Participant4runner,
Throughout history people have survived without the government being involved in every aspect of their lives. The “market” ie. the buyers, lenders, users, etc make demands and uses or buys the product if it meets them. In your S.F. fire example I’m certain the lenders and buyers would have demanded changes before investing, lending, etc. With or without govt. intervention we all accept certain risks.
Cars could be made safer. The market doesn’t want them and we all know thousands of lives could be saved. The gov’t does step in here also but I would argue
Lets use your homebuilding example. Actually lets use manufactured homes since thats the business I’m in. When the gov’t first started regulating the building of them in 1976 they were already being built to a certain standard the customer demanded. When HUD stepped in the factories were puzzled because they were already building them better then the regulations provided. Now evey last detail in that home has some regulation pertaining to it. Even with that we get homes that come out with crossed wiring and other hazards. The regulations don’t save us a bit. What motivates the producer here is the knoweldge we’ll buy from a different manufacturer as well as civil liability.
The point I’m not sure I’m articulating very well is the government is the most inneficient way to regulate a society and in the end the market would have done it anyway to whatever standards that society demanded.
May 28, 2007 at 7:53 PM #55296latesummer2008
ParticipantEvery Man for Himself!!! We don’t need ANY government, right? No police, no firemen, no teachers, no building codes, no taxes, let everything just take care of itself.
I believe a civilized society does have laws, government and rules, the last time I checked. Otherwise, its just survival of the fittest. How do you recommend GOVERNING a civilized society ?
I’m sorry, but business nowadays is nothing more than how much can you lie, cheat and steal from your neighbor with no conscious.We don’t need anyone to regulate now, do we.
Friggin pathetic….
May 28, 2007 at 7:53 PM #55312ParticipantEvery Man for Himself!!! We don’t need ANY government, right? No police, no firemen, no teachers, no building codes, no taxes, let everything just take care of itself.
I believe a civilized society does have laws, government and rules, the last time I checked. Otherwise, its just survival of the fittest. How do you recommend GOVERNING a civilized society ?
I’m sorry, but business nowadays is nothing more than how much can you lie, cheat and steal from your neighbor with no conscious.We don’t need anyone to regulate now, do we.
Friggin pathetic….
May 28, 2007 at 9:20 PM #55302Anonymous
GuestDr. C., without regulators, we’d have more entities such as Consumers Union and Underwriters Laboratories, private entities that test and report on quality, safety, etc.
The FDA often times does things in a nonsensical fashion. I work in the medical device industry. By virtue of a legal argument, only, and not science, the FDA allows certain actions and not others. Example: a centrifugal action heart surgery blood pump may go onto the market without a single human clinical trial (‘510(k) path’). Yet, a rotary action heart surgery blood pump requires extensive human clinical trials (‘PMA path’). Trust me, there is nothing inherently superior in terms of hemolysis, etc. in a centrifugal blood pump compared to a rotary blood pump.
You may trust regulators. I don’t. I know that there are better ways to do things, such as having a Consumers Union type outfit commission and conduct clinical trials of value and import to its members.
May 28, 2007 at 9:20 PM #55318GuestDr. C., without regulators, we’d have more entities such as Consumers Union and Underwriters Laboratories, private entities that test and report on quality, safety, etc.
The FDA often times does things in a nonsensical fashion. I work in the medical device industry. By virtue of a legal argument, only, and not science, the FDA allows certain actions and not others. Example: a centrifugal action heart surgery blood pump may go onto the market without a single human clinical trial (‘510(k) path’). Yet, a rotary action heart surgery blood pump requires extensive human clinical trials (‘PMA path’). Trust me, there is nothing inherently superior in terms of hemolysis, etc. in a centrifugal blood pump compared to a rotary blood pump.
You may trust regulators. I don’t. I know that there are better ways to do things, such as having a Consumers Union type outfit commission and conduct clinical trials of value and import to its members.
May 28, 2007 at 9:42 PM #553064runner
Participant- Even with that we get homes that come out with crossed wiring and other hazards. The regulations don’t save us a bit. What motivates the producer here is the knoweldge we’ll buy from a different manufacturer as well as civil liability.
Wow– a libertarian who is actually in favor of replacing gov’t regs with tort lawsuits. I never thought I’d see the day when a libertarian contended that tort lawsuits were “efficient.”
Back to SF– the buyers/lenders/insurers can make all the demands they want, except some people are going to build sh_t for houses no matter how dangerous absent laws telling them that they can’t. The danger is not limited to those fools– fire spreads. No man is an island.
Put another way– you can do due diligence on your car until the cows come home– buy a Volvo, get airbags, test the rubber on your tires, etc. But if the slob next to you is driving a piece of crap, without headlights, and without safe tires, you are still in danger.
May 28, 2007 at 9:42 PM #55322Participant- Even with that we get homes that come out with crossed wiring and other hazards. The regulations don’t save us a bit. What motivates the producer here is the knoweldge we’ll buy from a different manufacturer as well as civil liability.
Wow– a libertarian who is actually in favor of replacing gov’t regs with tort lawsuits. I never thought I’d see the day when a libertarian contended that tort lawsuits were “efficient.”
Back to SF– the buyers/lenders/insurers can make all the demands they want, except some people are going to build sh_t for houses no matter how dangerous absent laws telling them that they can’t. The danger is not limited to those fools– fire spreads. No man is an island.
Put another way– you can do due diligence on your car until the cows come home– buy a Volvo, get airbags, test the rubber on your tires, etc. But if the slob next to you is driving a piece of crap, without headlights, and without safe tires, you are still in danger.
May 29, 2007 at 12:17 AM #55331Participant4runner,
Agree with both of your last two paragraphs. I don’t see how gov’t regs have or will solve either one. You don’t think there are people still building crappy wood houses too close together with people driving uninsured jalopy’s too fast down the street in front of it? With or without regs there will be a certain element who will hurt people (however you want to define it).
So let me ask you, how far do we take this. My buddy is a matress manufacturer. They just passed ANOTHER regulation regarding the way in which he manufactures. He now has to use a fire “safe” thread on the trim. The cost to do this is very significant and gets passed on to us of course.
In this case you might be persauded to say ya thats a good thing because studies say it will save x number of people. I say what your missing is the negative affect of taking efficient capital out of efficient market and giving it to the gov’t to provide inneficient service which is a drag on that society. Multiply it too many times and you end up with socialism. The more power you give the gov’t the less they need to ask for more (they just take it). Free market capitlism always does the most good for the most people. You can argue that all you want but history suggests strongly your wrong.
Shoot if the gov’t is so smart and helpful why don’t we have them regulate who plants what and where as we could probably feed more people and save more lives? I think china even did it once. Oh wait their gov’t killed millions with that one. But ours is smarter. Please.
I know challenging your own belief system can be hard but try it. I certainly do.
If you insist on labelling me I guess “Libertarian” isn’t so bad.
I hate to break this to you but the only gov’t is good at is collecting taxes.
May 29, 2007 at 12:17 AM #55348Participant4runner,
Agree with both of your last two paragraphs. I don’t see how gov’t regs have or will solve either one. You don’t think there are people still building crappy wood houses too close together with people driving uninsured jalopy’s too fast down the street in front of it? With or without regs there will be a certain element who will hurt people (however you want to define it).
So let me ask you, how far do we take this. My buddy is a matress manufacturer. They just passed ANOTHER regulation regarding the way in which he manufactures. He now has to use a fire “safe” thread on the trim. The cost to do this is very significant and gets passed on to us of course.
In this case you might be persauded to say ya thats a good thing because studies say it will save x number of people. I say what your missing is the negative affect of taking efficient capital out of efficient market and giving it to the gov’t to provide inneficient service which is a drag on that society. Multiply it too many times and you end up with socialism. The more power you give the gov’t the less they need to ask for more (they just take it). Free market capitlism always does the most good for the most people. You can argue that all you want but history suggests strongly your wrong.
Shoot if the gov’t is so smart and helpful why don’t we have them regulate who plants what and where as we could probably feed more people and save more lives? I think china even did it once. Oh wait their gov’t killed millions with that one. But ours is smarter. Please.
I know challenging your own belief system can be hard but try it. I certainly do.
If you insist on labelling me I guess “Libertarian” isn’t so bad.
I hate to break this to you but the only gov’t is good at is collecting taxes.
May 29, 2007 at 10:51 AM #55380ParticipantLet’s try a different tack:
- Can you show me a single society that has evolved out of the stone age without gov’t regulation of one sort or another?
I’m not saying that every gov’t reg is necessary. I’m not saying that the FDA is always right, or that mattress manufacturers need regulating.
What I am saying is that at some level, a certain amount of gov’t regulation is economically efficient. In fact- the rule of law is essential to allowing humans to coexist as a society. Look at the book of Leviticus– it is nothing more than 30-40 pages of regulations specifying things like what happens if my cow dies while plowing your field.
As for challenging my belief system– show me any working example of a society without gov’t regulations, and then we can start talking.
Libertarianism is a lot like communism– great in theory but it just doesn’t work in the real world.
May 29, 2007 at 10:51 AM #55396ParticipantLet’s try a different tack:
- Can you show me a single society that has evolved out of the stone age without gov’t regulation of one sort or another?
I’m not saying that every gov’t reg is necessary. I’m not saying that the FDA is always right, or that mattress manufacturers need regulating.
What I am saying is that at some level, a certain amount of gov’t regulation is economically efficient. In fact- the rule of law is essential to allowing humans to coexist as a society. Look at the book of Leviticus– it is nothing more than 30-40 pages of regulations specifying things like what happens if my cow dies while plowing your field.
As for challenging my belief system– show me any working example of a society without gov’t regulations, and then we can start talking.
Libertarianism is a lot like communism– great in theory but it just doesn’t work in the real world.
May 29, 2007 at 1:22 PM #55409drunkle
Participantthe stand of “no regulations” is obviously silly. industrialized societies require regulations to protect people’s interests when people are specialized in their functions. you can’t simply pan the fda unless you are a self sufficient farmer.
this argument is simply a matter of details. in truth, you ‘no-regulation’ people do in fact want regulations but only in the areas in which you directly benefit. the arguments about consumer reports, private regulation is ridiculous; without the truth in advertising *regulations*, consumer reports would be overwhelmed by the industry’s paid publications. who do you think has deeper pockets?
regulations are necessary, but they need to be done well. that is the problem, that is the real issue. regulations that provide for the bailout of lenders are stupid when there aren’t regulations that prevent lenders from being stupid.
conversely, regulations on national businesses or local businesses are detrimental when there are no protections for those businesses from outside competition. but since we need and want local regulations that protect the environment, workers, etc, what we obviously need is to level the playing field by regulating trade. simple, obvious and yet retards all over just don’t get it. instead, it’s racism: those japs dont belong here! or fascism: everything the corporations do is good and if you dont believe in corporations, you’re a com’nist! or pollyannaism: well, *i* dont see the problem so there must not be one. so on and so forth. “we need more private watchdogs”… and yet, without regulation of what those “private watchdogs” say, you still can’t trust them.
oh, i’m sure so many of you approve of the deceptions of telemarketers. except when it’s your grandparents who are skinned, who have to come and live with you because they’ve lost everything and it’s now your responsibility, your burden to bear. we’re all connected, we all pay for the mistakes of the ignorant, for the crimes of thieves. this current housing market is a prime example of how good people suffer when the stupid do their thing.
May 29, 2007 at 1:22 PM #55426Participantthe stand of “no regulations” is obviously silly. industrialized societies require regulations to protect people’s interests when people are specialized in their functions. you can’t simply pan the fda unless you are a self sufficient farmer.
this argument is simply a matter of details. in truth, you ‘no-regulation’ people do in fact want regulations but only in the areas in which you directly benefit. the arguments about consumer reports, private regulation is ridiculous; without the truth in advertising *regulations*, consumer reports would be overwhelmed by the industry’s paid publications. who do you think has deeper pockets?
regulations are necessary, but they need to be done well. that is the problem, that is the real issue. regulations that provide for the bailout of lenders are stupid when there aren’t regulations that prevent lenders from being stupid.
conversely, regulations on national businesses or local businesses are detrimental when there are no protections for those businesses from outside competition. but since we need and want local regulations that protect the environment, workers, etc, what we obviously need is to level the playing field by regulating trade. simple, obvious and yet retards all over just don’t get it. instead, it’s racism: those japs dont belong here! or fascism: everything the corporations do is good and if you dont believe in corporations, you’re a com’nist! or pollyannaism: well, *i* dont see the problem so there must not be one. so on and so forth. “we need more private watchdogs”… and yet, without regulation of what those “private watchdogs” say, you still can’t trust them.
oh, i’m sure so many of you approve of the deceptions of telemarketers. except when it’s your grandparents who are skinned, who have to come and live with you because they’ve lost everything and it’s now your responsibility, your burden to bear. we’re all connected, we all pay for the mistakes of the ignorant, for the crimes of thieves. this current housing market is a prime example of how good people suffer when the stupid do their thing.
May 29, 2007 at 4:50 PM #55445ParticipantDrunkie,
Not sure where to even start. So you advocate regulating society as well as regulating what they trade? Yes lets let a small group of men decide whats best for us. I think your advocating…actually not sure what your saying.What you guys are missing is that every time the gov’t does something FOR someone, it does something TO someone else. I’m guessing you will argue this too.
No where did I say no regulations. I’m just in favor of say what our founding fathers envisioned. A VERY limited role of government and increased power at the lower levels, ie states, counties, etc but still limited. They understood the ramifications of big gov’t. I believe law is critical to freedom especially as it pertains to limitations of the gov’t to interfere with it.
4runner, to answer your question about free societies I’ll refer to Ludwig Von Mises…
Since time immemorial in the realm of Western civilization, liberty has been considered as the most precious good. What gave to the West its eminence was precisely its concern about liberty, a social ideal foreign to the oriental peoples. The social philosophy of the Occident is essentially a philosophy of freedom. The main content of the history of Europe and the communities founded by European emigrants and their descendants in other parts of the world was the struggle for liberty. “Rugged” individualism is the signature of our civilization. No open attack upon the freedom of the individual had any prospect of success.
We lock up citizens at rates as high as eight times the rest of the industrialized world. Is it because we have more crime? No. What do you get for all this increased spending on enforcing the increased regulations? More tyranny voted upon yourselves.
Ask yourself where your belief system comes from? It’s not from our founding fathers I assure you.
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.