An open challenge to anyone who supports government regulations.

[rightwinger]

Regulations only have the force of law if they are enforced by people with guns. Believe it or not, when that happens people are more worried about the guns than they are the words on the paper, which is why the EPA prefers to pick some random people and crucify them as examples than actually do their jobs.

I never denied that people who meet, or exceed, regulatory standards make a difference and save lives, i still haven't seen anyone even try to show that, without regulations, people would be dying wholesale because no one would ever voluntarily choose not to kill people. Instead of responding to the part of my challenge that makes you think I am crazy why not admit that people are actually a lot better than you think and admit that, even without millions of pages of unneeded regulations, the world would still be safe?

Regulations only have the force of law if they are enforced by people with guns?

Without a doubt......dumbest post of the month in the dumbest thread of the month

You say that about all my posts, I am touched by how much you care.

now that we have the sappy part out of the way, there are plenty of regulations that aren't enforced even if they are broken. those don't have any force behind them including that of law.

Wow...how profound

Some regulations aren't enforced so that means none of them have done any good

Dumbest thread of the month

 

[candycorn]

Dumbass thread of the day.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I am really fracking tired of explaining the facts of life to everyone who thinks regulations are good and lack of regulation kills people. I hereby issue a challenge.

Give me a single real world example of a regulation that has actually prevents deaths. I know there are a lot of idiots that are going to point at all sorts of things, like requiring seat belts in cars, and say that proves their point, but that is not going to cut it here. You need to prove that, without said regulation, people would die because no one would have...

1. Made seat belts in the first place,
2. Actually sell them if someone had made them,
3. Use them if both 1 and 2 were true.
4. That the end result is that no one dies.

Regulations are not designed to protect people from dangerous products, they are designed to limit liability in case someone actually gets hurt. Companies go to court all the time and argue that they are not liable because they met all applicable government regulations, and the government supports them in this. We live in crony capitalist world where the government makes choices about who lives and who dies based on what some number cruncher somewhere claims is for the common good.

Ohio's Burning River In Better Health 40 Years Later : NPR

Acid Rain | US EPA

The Love Canal Tragedy | About EPA | US EPA

'Nuff said"?

 

[8537]

those strict regulations you are so fond of have made hospitals one of the deadliest places you can be.

This is what passes for conservative thought these days. Hospitals are one of the deadliest places you can be because...wait for it now...

People who are about to die get sent to hospitals.

Is that what passes for logic in your circles? In my world people who are about to die go to hospices. Hospitals, on the other hand, are breeding grounds for new strains of flesh eating bacteria that are resistant to mutiple types of antibiotics.

lol...So, it's the regulatory environment that makes hospitals breeding grounds for bacteria? And here I thought it was, you know, the sick people with bacterial infections.

How many people died of flesh-eating bacteria last year vs. how many people had their lives saved in a hospital last year? And how is regulation responsible for flesh eating bacteria?

And why do you ignore my post about the success of the Clean Air act regulations. You can the SO2 reduction bill to that as well.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Regulations only have the force of law if they are enforced by people with guns?

Without a doubt......dumbest post of the month in the dumbest thread of the month

You say that about all my posts, I am touched by how much you care.

now that we have the sappy part out of the way, there are plenty of regulations that aren't enforced even if they are broken. those don't have any force behind them including that of law.

Wow...how profound

Some regulations aren't enforced so that means none of them have done any good

Dumbest thread of the month

Damn, you are really good at straw men arguments. Are you ever going to try real arguments?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is what passes for conservative thought these days. Hospitals are one of the deadliest places you can be because...wait for it now...

People who are about to die get sent to hospitals.

Is that what passes for logic in your circles? In my world people who are about to die go to hospices. Hospitals, on the other hand, are breeding grounds for new strains of flesh eating bacteria that are resistant to mutiple types of antibiotics.

lol...So, it's the regulatory environment that makes hospitals breeding grounds for bacteria? And here I thought it was, you know, the sick people with bacterial infections.

How many people died of flesh-eating bacteria last year vs. how many people had their lives saved in a hospital last year? And how is regulation responsible for flesh eating bacteria?

And why do you ignore my post about the success of the Clean Air act regulations. You can the SO2 reduction bill to that as well.

It must, if we apply your logic consistently. You have argued that the lack of regulations caused the economic collapse more than once. so the regulations about hospitals must be causing the bacteria.

Unless, of course, I am right and regulation doesn't actually accomplish anything.

 

[Flopper]

Yep, that is what you can conclude, if you think attacking straw men makes you look smart. Regulations do have a purpose. What I object to is the assertion that they have some sort of mystical power. All they are are words on a piece of paper, they don't save lives, anymore than the Bible makes people better.

What matters are people, not words on a piece of paper.

What you don't seem to grasp is that regulations are much more than just words on a piece paper. Regulations carry the force of law with penalties for non-compliance. You are correct when you say what matters is people, that is people writing and enforcing the regs and businesses working with regulators to assure compliance.

There has been ample evidence in this thread that compliance to regulations have saved lies, but proof; judging from your rebuttal, I doubt you would accept any evidence offered as proof so there isn't much point in debating the issue any further.

Regulations only have the force of law if they are enforced by people with guns. Believe it or not, when that happens people are more worried about the guns than they are the words on the paper, which is why the EPA prefers to pick some random people and crucify them as examples than actually do their jobs.

I never denied that people who meet, or exceed, regulatory standards make a difference and save lives, i still haven't seen anyone even try to show that, without regulations, people would be dying wholesale because no one would ever voluntarily choose not to kill people. Instead of responding to the part of my challenge that makes you think I am crazy why not admit that people are actually a lot better than you think and admit that, even without millions of pages of unneeded regulations, the world would still be safe?

In general businesses will often act in the best interest of the community or it's employees as long as that action does not jeopardize the bottom line. The PR value or increase in productivity is often worth any small cost. However, when that action adds significantly to it's costs, then that's something quite different. A business must justify it's costs to it's owners, stockholders or partners, etc. If there are no regulations that require compliance, then compliance becomes a matter of cost versus financial returns. If the competition decides not to comply in order to minimize it's cost, then compliance becomes a pretty hard sell.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Does the windbag understand what is meant by the term "lack of"?

 

[g5000]

I never denied that people who meet, or exceed, regulatory standards make a difference and save lives, i still haven't seen anyone even try to show that, without regulations, people would be dying wholesale because no one would ever voluntarily choose not to kill people.

You are a liar. I have posted at least two such examples. And more than once, since you are choosing to ignore them.

You are a weirdo. When confronted with irrefutable evidence, you ignore it. You are deluding yourself. Actually making an effort to hide the truth from yourself.

People like you are scary.

 

[rightwinger]

You say that about all my posts, I am touched by how much you care.

now that we have the sappy part out of the way, there are plenty of regulations that aren't enforced even if they are broken. those don't have any force behind them including that of law.

Wow...how profound

Some regulations aren't enforced so that means none of them have done any good

Dumbest thread of the month

Damn, you are really good at straw men arguments. Are you ever going to try real arguments?

You mean inspiring arguments like this?........

. Regulations only have the force of law if they are enforced by people with guns. Believe it or not, when that happens people are more worried about the guns than they are the words on the paper

 

[g5000]

Here they are again, for the third fucking time.

Pay REAL close attention to the parts where the industries involved refused to do anything until forced to do so. They were voluntarily choosing to kill people.

Give me a single real world example of a regulation that has actually prevents deaths.

As early as 1705, doctors knew
that inhaling cotton dust caused breathing problems in mill workers.5

For more than two and a half centuries, they knew.

Scientists now
understand that cotton dust contains toxin-producing bacteria and that long-term exposure
often results in chronic wheezing and other breathing difficulties.6 The resulting disease—
referred to as byssinosis or brown lung disease—impairs lung function and debilitates
affected workers, often forcing them to retire early. Complications arising from the
condition can sometimes be fatal.

Byssinosis was a major problem among textile workers in the United States until OSHA
took action to reduce cotton dust exposure. During the early 1970s, more than 50,000
textile workers suffered from the disease at any given time.7 Depending on the type of
factory they worked in, between 7 and 26 percent of workers were affected.8 In 1978,
OSHA issued its first cotton dust regulation, limiting the concentration of the dust allowed
in textile factory air.

The rule to combat ambient cotton dust proved remarkably effective in improving worker
health. A 1978 Department of Labor report to Congress estimated that there were 51,290
cases of byssinosis in the industry at any given time and estimated that prevalence would
decline to 29,245 after the rule was implemented. But the rule was far more effective than
predicted. A study conducted in 1983 found that there were only 1,710 cases, a 97 percent
decline from just a few years earlier.9

The textile industry had long opposed cotton dust regulation. As government attention to
byssinosis grew during the 1960s and 1970s, industry groups denied the existence of the
disease altogether. During the cotton dust rulemaking process, a spokesman for the
American Textile Manufacturers Institute insisted that cotton dust-related health problems
affected only 1 percent of textile workers, stating “The problem is grossly exaggerated.” He
also claimed that “[t]here has not been a known death from byssinosis,”10 although studies
conducted as early as 1910 conclusively demonstrated that the disease was fatal for some
workers.11 In 1981, shortly after the standard took effect, the American Textile
Manufacturers Institute unsuccessfully sued OSHA, claiming that the costs of the regulation
did not outweigh the benefits.12

Complying with the cotton dust regulation ended up costing much less than expected, and
offered the added benefit of increasing productivity.

Before government action, an average of 90 fatalities related to
trench cave-ins occurred each year.24
In 1989, OSHA issued the excavation standard, requiring construction sites to use
protective methods in order to stop trenches from caving in. The simplest method of
protection involves digging trenches with sloped walls, which prevents falling earth from
enveloping the workers. Other methods involve creating temporary walls on the trench to
prevent a cave-in or placing steel plates inside the trench to create a protected space for
workers should a cave-in occur.
Since the excavation standard took effect, fatalities related to trench cave-ins have dropped
significantly. An analysis conducted a decade after the rule was enacted found that the
average annual number of deaths from cave-ins had fallen from 90 to 70. Adjusting for a 20
percent increase in construction activity during the time period, this represents a 40
percent decrease in the fatality rate.25 Trenching protection is now standard practice on
construction sites that involve excavation. In comments solicited more than a decade after
the regulation was enacted, industry groups expressed general support for the regulation.26

After a series of catastrophic grain explosions in the late 1970s left 59 workers dead in just
one month, the hazards of grain facilities drew the attention of federal regulators. OSHA
began developing its Grain Handling Facilities Standard, which it finalized in 1987. The
regulation limited the amount of dust allowed on surfaces within grain facilities and
required testing of silos for combustible gases. It also prohibited employees from entering
storage bins without a proper harness and a spotter present.

Industry groups and the Reagan administration’s Office of Management and Budget voiced
opposition to the Grain Handling Facilities Standard during the rulemaking process. A
spokesman for the National Grain and Feed Association derided the proposed limits to
grain dust levels, saying, “Research shows no one level of dust is more hazardous than
another.”28 One official from the Office of Management and Budget referred to OSHA’s
assessment of grain facility hazards as “substantially overstated.”29

In the end, the OSHA standard made grain handling facilities much safer places to work.
The National Grain and Feed Association (NGFA), which initially opposed the standard,
now finds it to be remarkably effective at improving workplace safety, citing a 95 percent
drop in explosion-related fatalities for certain facilities.30 In comments submitted to OSHA
in 1998, NGFA stated that in the years following the standard, “there has been an
unprecedented decline in explosions, injuries and fatalities at grain handling facilities.”31
OSHA’s analysis shows that the standard prevented an average of five suffocation deaths
per year.32 Data presented by industry showed that the standard annually prevents eight
injuries and four deaths resulting from explosions in grain elevators.33
27

Link.

 

[g5000]

This is called moving the goalposts. Once it was shown over and over that regulations have saved lives, the Libertarian maniac asks for evidence the industries deliberatly chose to kill people rather than do what it took to prevent deaths.

That has also been proven. Repeatedly.

Whenever this same old conversation reaches this point, Libertarians then state that the workers volunteered to work in these conditions and could have worked somewhere else. This somehow means that all those deaths were their own fault and that the regulations were unnecessary since workers were willing to commit suicide for a paycheck.

 

[ShackledNation]

This is called moving the goalposts. Once it was shown over and over that regulations have saved lives, the Libertarian maniac asks for evidence the industries deliberatly chose to kill people rather than do what it took to prevent deaths.

That has also been proven. Repeatedly.

Whenever this same old conversation reaches this point, Libertarians then state that the workers volunteered to work in these conditions and could have worked somewhere else. This somehow means that all those deaths were their own fault and that the regulations were unnecessary since workers were willing to commit suicide for a paycheck.

Regulations often place a cost on business, which means they have less money to give to their workers. This in turn means they either hire less workers or pay them less. In a less developed economy, this will likely lead to impoverishment of workers who cannot find work due to regulations limiting the job market, and potentially result in their deaths. If regulations had no other effect than saving lives they would be implemented voluntarily. But they do much more than that.

You have to look at the big picture. Yes, if you prevent a company from using a dangerous machine with a regulation, the 10 men using the machine will have a lower chance of dying. That is incredibly obvious, and nobody can deny it. But proponents of regulation do not carry through with the logic and stop there. If the result of regulation is having to purchase a more expensive machine that forces the layoff of 5 of those workers, then they are made worse off. If they were workers in the 19th century, they would likely die just the same.

The fact of the matter is that people do in fact make the choices to work in more dangerous conditions. You can't apply our 21st century standards on the past. Back then, people were much more impoverished than they are today, with most being unable to buy shoes. The risk of the working conditions was worth it to them based on those circumstances, and I imagine I would make the same choice if I lived back then as well.

 

[The T]

This is called moving the goalposts. Once it was shown over and over that regulations have saved lives, the Libertarian maniac asks for evidence the industries deliberatly chose to kill people rather than do what it took to prevent deaths.

That has also been proven. Repeatedly.

Whenever this same old conversation reaches this point, Libertarians then state that the workers volunteered to work in these conditions and could have worked somewhere else. This somehow means that all those deaths were their own fault and that the regulations were unnecessary since workers were willing to commit suicide for a paycheck.

Regulations often place a cost on business, which means they have less money to give to their workers. This in turn means they either hire less workers or pay them less. In a less developed economy, this will likely lead to impoverishment of workers who cannot find work due to regulations limiting the job market, and potentially result in their deaths. If regulations had no other effect than saving lives they would be implemented voluntarily. But they do much more than that.

You have to look at the big picture. Yes, if you prevent a company from using a dangerous machine with a regulation, the 10 men using the machine will have a lower chance of dying. That is incredibly obvious, and nobody can deny it. But proponents of regulation do not carry through with the logic and stop there. If the result of regulation is having to purchase a more expensive machine that forces the layoff of 5 of those workers, then they are made worse off. If they were workers in the 19th century, they would likely die just the same.

The fact of the matter is that people do in fact make the choices to work in more dangerous conditions. You can't apply our 21st century standards on the past. Back then, people were much more impoverished than they are today, with most being unable to buy shoes. The risk of the working conditions was worth it to them based on those circumstances, and I imagine I would make the same choice if I lived back then as well.

Well stated.

 

[candycorn]

I am really fracking tired of explaining the facts of life to everyone who thinks regulations are good and lack of regulation kills people. I hereby issue a challenge.

Give me a single real world example of a regulation that has actually prevents deaths. I know there are a lot of idiots that are going to point at all sorts of things, like requiring seat belts in cars, and say that proves their point, but that is not going to cut it here. You need to prove that, without said regulation, people would die because no one would have...

1. Made seat belts in the first place,
2. Actually sell them if someone had made them,
3. Use them if both 1 and 2 were true.
4. That the end result is that no one dies.

Regulations are not designed to protect people from dangerous products, they are designed to limit liability in case someone actually gets hurt. Companies go to court all the time and argue that they are not liable because they met all applicable government regulations, and the government supports them in this. We live in crony capitalist world where the government makes choices about who lives and who dies based on what some number cruncher somewhere claims is for the common good.

Ohio's Burning River In Better Health 40 Years Later : NPR

Acid Rain | US EPA

The Love Canal Tragedy | About EPA | US EPA

'Nuff said"?

I know right?

Thanks to QW for providing the pinata for today. Dude musta been high when he wrote this one.

 

[Flopper]

Regulations only have the force of law if they are enforced by people with guns. Believe it or not, when that happens people are more worried about the guns than they are the words on the paper, which is why the EPA prefers to pick some random people and crucify them as examples than actually do their jobs.

I never denied that people who meet, or exceed, regulatory standards make a difference and save lives, i still haven't seen anyone even try to show that, without regulations, people would be dying wholesale because no one would ever voluntarily choose not to kill people. Instead of responding to the part of my challenge that makes you think I am crazy why not admit that people are actually a lot better than you think and admit that, even without millions of pages of unneeded regulations, the world would still be safe?

Regulations only have the force of law if they are enforced by people with guns?

Without a doubt......dumbest post of the month in the dumbest thread of the month

You say that about all my posts, I am touched by how much you care.

now that we have the sappy part out of the way, there are plenty of regulations that aren't enforced even if they are broken. those don't have any force behind them including that of law.

Your comment make me wonder if you have any understanding of the regulatory process.

1. All regulations are based on legislation. Once legislation is passed, the House codifies the act into the United States Code. It then becomes the job of the executive branch to see that the legislation is enforced.

2. Laws often do not include all the details needed to explain how an individual, business, state or local government, or others might follow the law. The United States Code would not tell you, for example, what the speed limit is in front of your house. In order to make the laws work on a day-to-day level, Congress authorizes certain government agencies to create regulations. Regulations are for the benefit of those being regulated. Without the regulations, government prosecutors would be making all decisions as to whether there is violation of the law. A statement of compliance from the regulatory agency provides protection to the business.

3. The first step in creating regulations is to determine if they are needed. Most laws are sufficiently detailed so that no regulation is required.

4. If the regulation is required, the regulatory agency will propose a regulation. The regulation is published in the Federal Registry with a request for comment. The agency reviews comments and often will hold hearings to consider changes in the proposed regulations which usually come from those being regulated.

5. Once the regulation is finalized, it is added to the Code of Federal Regulations. The penalties for not following the regulations are often stated or a reference is made to the underlying legislation. So regulations due carry the weight of law.

Often regulatory material distributed will contain "good practice recommendations' which does not carry any penalty for noncompliance. Some will jump to the erroneous conclusion that because some recommendations are not being followed, the agency is not doing it's job in enforcing the regulations.

 

[Vidi]

The Jungle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[8537]

Is that what passes for logic in your circles? In my world people who are about to die go to hospices. Hospitals, on the other hand, are breeding grounds for new strains of flesh eating bacteria that are resistant to mutiple types of antibiotics.

lol...So, it's the regulatory environment that makes hospitals breeding grounds for bacteria? And here I thought it was, you know, the sick people with bacterial infections.

How many people died of flesh-eating bacteria last year vs. how many people had their lives saved in a hospital last year? And how is regulation responsible for flesh eating bacteria?

And why do you ignore my post about the success of the Clean Air act regulations. You can the SO2 reduction bill to that as well.

It must, if we apply your logic consistently. You have argued that the lack of regulations caused the economic collapse more than once. so the regulations about hospitals must be causing the bacteria.

Lol! So, let's see here. where to begin. It wasn't a lack of regulation that caused the collapse - it as entities making really bad decisions. Some regulations could have prevented those bad decisions.

Hospitals benefit from regulation because it prevents people from making bad decisions as well.

Unless, of course, I am right and regulation doesn't actually accomplish anything.

No, you've created a straw man and asked other people to knock it down for you.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What you don't seem to grasp is that regulations are much more than just words on a piece paper. Regulations carry the force of law with penalties for non-compliance. You are correct when you say what matters is people, that is people writing and enforcing the regs and businesses working with regulators to assure compliance.

There has been ample evidence in this thread that compliance to regulations have saved lies, but proof; judging from your rebuttal, I doubt you would accept any evidence offered as proof so there isn't much point in debating the issue any further.

Regulations only have the force of law if they are enforced by people with guns. Believe it or not, when that happens people are more worried about the guns than they are the words on the paper, which is why the EPA prefers to pick some random people and crucify them as examples than actually do their jobs.

I never denied that people who meet, or exceed, regulatory standards make a difference and save lives, i still haven't seen anyone even try to show that, without regulations, people would be dying wholesale because no one would ever voluntarily choose not to kill people. Instead of responding to the part of my challenge that makes you think I am crazy why not admit that people are actually a lot better than you think and admit that, even without millions of pages of unneeded regulations, the world would still be safe?

In general businesses will often act in the best interest of the community or it's employees as long as that action does not jeopardize the bottom line. The PR value or increase in productivity is often worth any small cost. However, when that action adds significantly to it's costs, then that's something quite different. A business must justify it's costs to it's owners, stockholders or partners, etc. If there are no regulations that require compliance, then compliance becomes a matter of cost versus financial returns. If the competition decides not to comply in order to minimize it's cost, then compliance becomes a pretty hard sell.

Does that mean regulations actually increase the cost of doing business?

Tell you what, once you actually get into a boardroom and find out how they actually run a business in the real world you can come back here and take down the straw man you just set up. Until then, all I have to say is you are full of shit if you actually believe a corporation actually cares about short term profit over maintaining a long term profit that will make them, and their children, rich.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I never denied that people who meet, or exceed, regulatory standards make a difference and save lives, i still haven't seen anyone even try to show that, without regulations, people would be dying wholesale because no one would ever voluntarily choose not to kill people.

You are a liar. I have posted at least two such examples. And more than once, since you are choosing to ignore them.

You are a weirdo. When confronted with irrefutable evidence, you ignore it. You are deluding yourself. Actually making an effort to hide the truth from yourself.

People like you are scary.

Did you? Why don't you show me where? All I saw you post was a couple of links to some press releases that tried to argue that regulations accomplished something you just called me a liar for when I pointed out that I admit people made the difference. if you actually agree with me why are you upset?