It is...and the consumer while bitching about their own jobs and safety standards continue to only care about price and nothing else. So, this in translated to the manufacturers. The better ones still go above and beyond because it makes good business sense to protect your employees and your assets, but without some regulation, some of these standards would slip...potentially greatly.
You talk about food, but look at what 'regulation' has brought us in that industry. Can I just go out and purchase raw milk if I want to because I know of its beneficial properties and I'm willing to take on the risk associated with consuming raw milk? Fuck no, because most people aren't willing to sell it because they are afraid of the FBI kicking down their door for selling an 'illegal' substance. Can we sue Monsato for fucking with famers who want to plant crops that don't include what you mention above? We can try, but the reality of things is Monsato is more successful at suing these farmers for contaminating their farmers' use of their product.
hey ... i already wrote in my post near the top of the page that the feds do a horrible job and that they are lackeys to the major corporations ... which is what you are alluding to with raw milk and monsanto ...
but that still does not alter the need for regulation ... you guys can argue that the gov't is horrible at implementing and enforcing regulations and i would agree with you but it still does not negate the need for it ...
if we left everything up to the free market ... all we would have is a world similar to what is shown in WALL-E ... massive corporations controlling everything ...
What I don't get is, you acknowledge that the government is terrible at regulating, yet you want to hand them MORE regulating authority? Their proven track record shows they are incapable of this.
I recognize the need for regulation, as I see you do, but I believe the government is incapable of honest regulation.
Bringing up massive corporations doesn’t do anything to justify your argument in my opinion. These massive corporations that control everything only do so because of government interventionism, not in spite of it. This is because of the ‘too big to fail’ ideology; because most regulatory bills, if not all, only slap the big corporations on the wrist while increasing the barrier for smaller upstarts to enter into any certain industry. The big corporations have the capital to adapt or the wherewithal to move to another country if it becomes too burdensome. If you are a small business trying to compete, your best hope when a corporation pays attention to you is that they want to buy you out as opposed to sue you into oblivion for infringing on some sort of intellectual property protected by, you guessed it, the government.
But to market yourself you have to have something to sell. People expect pipelines to not blow up, they aren't going to pay extra for it. Harsh reality of Safety and Quality, it's all overhead until people start to pay more attention and are willing to pay for it.
And that is part of the responsibility of the consumer...not the government.
It is...and the consumer while bitching about their own jobs and safety standards continue to only care about price and nothing else. So, this in translated to the manufacturers. The better ones still go above and beyond because it makes good business sense to protect your employees and your assets, but without some regulation, some of these standards would slip...potentially greatly.
I don't disagree with what you are saying. We as consumers need to not rely on the government for these standards and regulations though. Their are forces out their that do try to inform consumers on products and the manufacturers. There would probably be more organizations that did this if we didn't leave it up to government. I'm willing to bet they would do a hell of a better job too.
You guys act like I'm saying if government didn't regulate then we wouldn't have these blasted regulations. That is NOT what I am saying. I'm saying the government is a failed institutition in this apsect and regulation would be better handled if we had a free market that was actually free. Not the "free market" we have now, but one where corporations can be held accountable for their doings by the government actually doing its job in enforcing contracts.
vinny - the issue you seem to have is not in the need for regulations but the entity by which they come from ... i'll agree that the feds do horribly in that matter overall ...
but the bottom line is this: this industry needs to be regulated ... if the associations and industry groups are not willing nor able to regulate themselves ... what alternative is there?
which brings us back to this ...
a truly free market will not be the answer ... a truly free market will just lead to more exploitation and a complete disregard for public safety ...
But to market yourself you have to have something to sell. People expect pipelines to not blow up, they aren't going to pay extra for it. Harsh reality of Safety and Quality, it's all overhead until people start to pay more attention and are willing to pay for it.
And that is part of the responsibility of the consumer...not the government.
consumers are ill equipped to make decisions like this because by nature we are short sighted ... it is why so many people live with unreasonable amounts of debt ...
without the gov't we would still have lead in our gasoline, ddt sprayed everywhere ... and all our resources would be either used up or contaminated ...
The short sightedness of consumers in my opinion is because we have become so conditioned to just rely on the government to ensure our safety for us. No one is going to take care of yourself but you and it is best if consumers started to pay more attention to what it is they are consuming. You can bet that people would pay more attention if they weren't patted on the head all the time being told "it's okay, government is here to help you". People would be forced to pay attention and those that choose not to would serve as a good example and reminder as to why one should pay attention.
With the government we are still on gasoline and still spray pesticides, fungicides, and fertilizer on our crops. With government we plant crops in areas that aren't appropriate for farming and pay people not to plant crops in areas that are appropriate for farming. Just because the government is able to take care of some superficial cosmetics does not justify its meddling in the market. Gasoline use is a pollutant period. We still have gasoline use WITH government.
Without government we would have more efficient farming and we would most likely not even be on gasoline anymore because the real costs of using gasoline would have been realized by consumers decades ago causing the market to figure out a better source of energy or a better mode of transportation. The government didn’t subsidize horse carriages when the auto was introduced to the market so why should they subsidize the energy market when other forms could be introduced?
vinny - the issue you seem to have is not in the need for regulations but the entity by which they come from ... i'll agree that the feds do horribly in that matter overall ...
but the bottom line is this: this industry needs to be regulated ... if the associations and industry groups are not willing nor able to regulate themselves ... what alternative is there?
which brings us back to this ...
a truly free market will not be the answer ... a truly free market will just lead to more exploitation and a complete disregard for public safety ...
Not really, we have all that and more with the regulated market of today...
uhhh ... what basis do you derive your beliefs from? ...
sooo ... tell me, in this free market world ... what would prevent me from manufacturing a product that is highly toxic to humans and utilizes exploitative labour practices?
uhhh ... what basis do you derive your beliefs from? ...
sooo ... tell me, in this free market world ... what would prevent me from manufacturing a product that is highly toxic to humans and utilizes exploitative labour practices?
The impending lawsuits and potential jail time/restitution to the victims for potentially breaking a contract (I'm assuming you weren't marketing your product as highly toxic) and also for infringing on the rights of others.
The impending lawsuits and potential jail time/restitution to the victims for potentially breaking a contract (I'm assuming you weren't marketing your product as highly toxic) and also for infringing on the rights of others.
lawsuits based on what? ... who's gonna test the product? .. who's gonna protect those rights of others? ... and on what statute are the rights being protected on? ... if they are willing to work for 5 cents a week ... that is the free market working is it not?
The impending lawsuits and potential jail time/restitution to the victims for potentially breaking a contract (I'm assuming you weren't marketing your product as highly toxic) and also for infringing on the rights of others.
lawsuits based on what? ... who's gonna test the product? .. who's gonna protect those rights of others? ... and on what statute are the rights being protected on? ... if they are willing to work for 5 cents a week ... that is the free market working is it not?
I already told you what the lawsuits would be based upon in the post of mine you are quoting.
If someone is willing to work for 5 cents a week, that is their call. As for the rest of your post, the market would be able to address those issues. There would be and already is a market for product testing, protecting individual rights would also have a market (already does to an extent i.e. the ACLU).
I already told you what the lawsuits would be based upon in the post of mine you are quoting.
If someone is willing to work for 5 cents a week, that is their call. As for the rest of your post, the market would be able to address those issues. There would be and already is a market for product testing, protecting individual rights would also have a market (already does to an extent i.e. the ACLU).
you said breaking of a contract ... what contract did i sign? ... if there is no regulation or standards ... there is nothing illegal about me selling an unsafe product ...
I already told you what the lawsuits would be based upon in the post of mine you are quoting.
If someone is willing to work for 5 cents a week, that is their call. As for the rest of your post, the market would be able to address those issues. There would be and already is a market for product testing, protecting individual rights would also have a market (already does to an extent i.e. the ACLU).
you said breaking of a contract ... what contract did i sign? ... if there is no regulation or standards ... there is nothing illegal about me selling an unsafe product ...
See, you equate me as saying government should not regulate as me saying that there should be no regulations. That is not what I am saying at all. I don't believe regulations or standards would cease to exist if the government was not involved with them. What would end is these endless broad mandates.
I realize you are in Canada so please bear with me that I am speaking purely from a USA context regarding the Constitution. In the Constitution certain rights are protected and those are the rights that would be violated by you knowingly selling a toxic substance to people. You wouldn't necessarily need a contract for that because, as I said in my above post, your actions would be " infringing on the rights of others." allowing them to seek restitution from you. Not only that, but lets say there wasn't a Constitution to base this off of. Private law existed prior to the Constitution's implementation and still does exist and could take care of these issues as well.
Also, you don't need to sign a contract to be bound by a contract. There are things such as offers and acceptances which sales could fall under that are done without a physical contract being signed.
but the constitution exists now and corporations still do it ... i don't see them getting sued even with what you feel is an over-regulated country ...
i just don't understand where your faith in self-regulation comes from!? ... there is no example of where when left to its own devices the outcome balances the need for profit and public interests ...
but the constitution exists now and corporations still do it ... i don't see them getting sued even with what you feel is an over-regulated country ...
i just don't understand where your faith in self-regulation comes from!? ... there is no example of where when left to its own devices the outcome balances the need for profit and public interests ...
They aren't getting sued now because too many people are willing to protect them. Too many people and organizations (i.e. the government) do not take the Constitution seriously and are willing to distort the meaning behind it to serve their wants and emotions.
There are many corrupt forces in our government that do not allow justice to happen. Many times the regulatory committees are made up of former execs of the companies that are in the industry that is the current hot topic for regulation. You don't see something weird about that?
I don't understand where your faith in government regulation comes from. It has been proven time and again that government does a terrible job at this and is easily corruptible. It doesn't work other than to weed out any chance of competition being created to force the big corportations to compete on a level playing field. Not only that, but all the things you fear would occur under a free market still exist under our regulated market. I'm simply saying things would be better handled were the market actually allowed to function as intended. If public interests are great enough amongst the public, businesses will be forced to cater to those interests because the public is the ultimate determination in whether a business is successful or not.
They aren't getting sued now because too many people are willing to protect them. Too many people and organizations (i.e. the government) do not take the Constitution seriously and are willing to distort the meaning behind it to serve their wants and emotions.
There are many corrupt forces in our government that do not allow justice to happen. Many times the regulatory committees are made up of former execs of the companies that are in the industry that is the current hot topic for regulation. You don't see something weird about that?
I don't understand where your faith in government regulation comes from. It has been proven time and again that government does a terrible job at this and is easily corruptible. It doesn't work other than to weed out any chance of competition being created to force the big corportations to compete on a level playing field. Not only that, but all the things you fear would occur under a free market still exist under our regulated market. I'm simply saying things would be better handled were the market actually be allowed to function as intended. If public interests are great enough amongst the public, businesses will be forced to cater to those interests because the public is the ultimate determination in whether a business is successful or not.
we keep circling back to the same points ... you don't need to convince me that the gov't is corrupt ... i know that ... but in other countries ... gov't regulation is working out just fine ... just because the US is beholden to corporate interests doesn't make the necessity of regulation obsolete ...
so ... just point me in the direction that shows that some free market style of operation will yield a situation that would protect public interest and maybe i can see your light ...
Comments
brings a tear to my eye ...
What I don't get is, you acknowledge that the government is terrible at regulating, yet you want to hand them MORE regulating authority? Their proven track record shows they are incapable of this.
I recognize the need for regulation, as I see you do, but I believe the government is incapable of honest regulation.
Bringing up massive corporations doesn’t do anything to justify your argument in my opinion. These massive corporations that control everything only do so because of government interventionism, not in spite of it. This is because of the ‘too big to fail’ ideology; because most regulatory bills, if not all, only slap the big corporations on the wrist while increasing the barrier for smaller upstarts to enter into any certain industry. The big corporations have the capital to adapt or the wherewithal to move to another country if it becomes too burdensome. If you are a small business trying to compete, your best hope when a corporation pays attention to you is that they want to buy you out as opposed to sue you into oblivion for infringing on some sort of intellectual property protected by, you guessed it, the government.
I don't disagree with what you are saying. We as consumers need to not rely on the government for these standards and regulations though. Their are forces out their that do try to inform consumers on products and the manufacturers. There would probably be more organizations that did this if we didn't leave it up to government. I'm willing to bet they would do a hell of a better job too.
You guys act like I'm saying if government didn't regulate then we wouldn't have these blasted regulations. That is NOT what I am saying. I'm saying the government is a failed institutition in this apsect and regulation would be better handled if we had a free market that was actually free. Not the "free market" we have now, but one where corporations can be held accountable for their doings by the government actually doing its job in enforcing contracts.
which brings us back to this ...
a truly free market will not be the answer ... a truly free market will just lead to more exploitation and a complete disregard for public safety ...
The short sightedness of consumers in my opinion is because we have become so conditioned to just rely on the government to ensure our safety for us. No one is going to take care of yourself but you and it is best if consumers started to pay more attention to what it is they are consuming. You can bet that people would pay more attention if they weren't patted on the head all the time being told "it's okay, government is here to help you". People would be forced to pay attention and those that choose not to would serve as a good example and reminder as to why one should pay attention.
With the government we are still on gasoline and still spray pesticides, fungicides, and fertilizer on our crops. With government we plant crops in areas that aren't appropriate for farming and pay people not to plant crops in areas that are appropriate for farming. Just because the government is able to take care of some superficial cosmetics does not justify its meddling in the market. Gasoline use is a pollutant period. We still have gasoline use WITH government.
Without government we would have more efficient farming and we would most likely not even be on gasoline anymore because the real costs of using gasoline would have been realized by consumers decades ago causing the market to figure out a better source of energy or a better mode of transportation. The government didn’t subsidize horse carriages when the auto was introduced to the market so why should they subsidize the energy market when other forms could be introduced?
Not really, we have all that and more with the regulated market of today...
sooo ... tell me, in this free market world ... what would prevent me from manufacturing a product that is highly toxic to humans and utilizes exploitative labour practices?
The impending lawsuits and potential jail time/restitution to the victims for potentially breaking a contract (I'm assuming you weren't marketing your product as highly toxic) and also for infringing on the rights of others.
lawsuits based on what? ... who's gonna test the product? .. who's gonna protect those rights of others? ... and on what statute are the rights being protected on? ... if they are willing to work for 5 cents a week ... that is the free market working is it not?
I already told you what the lawsuits would be based upon in the post of mine you are quoting.
If someone is willing to work for 5 cents a week, that is their call. As for the rest of your post, the market would be able to address those issues. There would be and already is a market for product testing, protecting individual rights would also have a market (already does to an extent i.e. the ACLU).
you said breaking of a contract ... what contract did i sign? ... if there is no regulation or standards ... there is nothing illegal about me selling an unsafe product ...
See, you equate me as saying government should not regulate as me saying that there should be no regulations. That is not what I am saying at all. I don't believe regulations or standards would cease to exist if the government was not involved with them. What would end is these endless broad mandates.
I realize you are in Canada so please bear with me that I am speaking purely from a USA context regarding the Constitution. In the Constitution certain rights are protected and those are the rights that would be violated by you knowingly selling a toxic substance to people. You wouldn't necessarily need a contract for that because, as I said in my above post, your actions would be " infringing on the rights of others." allowing them to seek restitution from you. Not only that, but lets say there wasn't a Constitution to base this off of. Private law existed prior to the Constitution's implementation and still does exist and could take care of these issues as well.
Also, you don't need to sign a contract to be bound by a contract. There are things such as offers and acceptances which sales could fall under that are done without a physical contract being signed.
i just don't understand where your faith in self-regulation comes from!? ... there is no example of where when left to its own devices the outcome balances the need for profit and public interests ...
They aren't getting sued now because too many people are willing to protect them. Too many people and organizations (i.e. the government) do not take the Constitution seriously and are willing to distort the meaning behind it to serve their wants and emotions.
There are many corrupt forces in our government that do not allow justice to happen. Many times the regulatory committees are made up of former execs of the companies that are in the industry that is the current hot topic for regulation. You don't see something weird about that?
I don't understand where your faith in government regulation comes from. It has been proven time and again that government does a terrible job at this and is easily corruptible. It doesn't work other than to weed out any chance of competition being created to force the big corportations to compete on a level playing field. Not only that, but all the things you fear would occur under a free market still exist under our regulated market. I'm simply saying things would be better handled were the market actually allowed to function as intended. If public interests are great enough amongst the public, businesses will be forced to cater to those interests because the public is the ultimate determination in whether a business is successful or not.
we keep circling back to the same points ... you don't need to convince me that the gov't is corrupt ... i know that ... but in other countries ... gov't regulation is working out just fine ... just because the US is beholden to corporate interests doesn't make the necessity of regulation obsolete ...
so ... just point me in the direction that shows that some free market style of operation will yield a situation that would protect public interest and maybe i can see your light ...