An open challenge to anyone who supports government regulations.

[Quantum Windbag]

Does not change the fact there are regulations on the Autobahn. Life-saving regulations.

Regulations don't save lives. If they did, decreasing the legal limit for drunk driving would have decreased the number of traffic fatalities.

again there is no regulation you wont move the goal post in order to be right....
These threads serve no purpose.

You are right, I did move the goalpost, to make it easier for you. All you have done is complain because I made it too hard.

 

[jasonnfree]

I was thinking more along the lines of licensing electricians, airplane pilots, physicians, civil engineers. Also building codes, earthquake safety, maybe even having codes for how a nuclear power plant is built.

Are building codes and licensing of professions on the hit list?

Doesn't prove a thing to me, I have no idea what your job is, or what makes you so dangerous that the state needs to control what you do.

Licensing of manicurists? Why do manicurist need 700 hours of training?

 

[g5000]

i knew you would have an excuse. Which just shows you have no point. There is no answer you will accept period.

trvth

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Empirical evidence consistently shows that motorcyclist deaths are disproportionately concentrated among those riding without a helmet.

https://www.msu.edu/~telder/donorcycles_current.pdf

Funny thing, even when it is against the law, people still ride without helmets. Personally, I wouldn't, but since the only person who is negatively impacted by it is the rider, I don't see the problem. On the other hand, if we passed a law requiring that anyone who rode a motorcycle without a helmet be considered an organ donor if they are in an accident, it would, arguably, end up saving lives.

Just something to think about.

 

[g5000]

Empirical evidence consistently shows that motorcyclist deaths are disproportionately concentrated among those riding without a helmet.

https://www.msu.edu/~telder/donorcycles_current.pdf

Funny thing, even when it is against the law, people still ride without helmets. Personally, I wouldn't, but since the only person who is negatively impacted by it is the rider, I don't see the problem. On the other hand, if we passed a law requiring that anyone who rode a motorcycle without a helmet be considered an organ donor if they are in an accident, it would, arguably, end up saving lives.

Just something to think about.

Lots of words to cover up the fact the helmet law saves lives.

You have been losing for several pages. Your premise has been completely tanked.

 

[SniperFire]

Empirical evidence consistently shows that motorcyclist deaths are disproportionately concentrated among those riding without a helmet.

https://www.msu.edu/~telder/donorcycles_current.pdf

but.... but.... but.....

 

[Londoner]

From the 1940s to the 1980s Wall Street was heavily regulated.

The Securities and Exchange commission maintained strict rules abut leveraging. Corporations had to posses enough capital to cover their bets.

Then came the Reagan Revolution and the era of steroidal deregulation.

Reagan got rid of Carter's man Volker (because of the artificial recession he caused in 1982 to kill inflation), and replaced him with a follower of Ayn Rand > Alan Greenspan.

Greenspan didn't believe in financial regulations - he thought the people making the bets should be able to decide the size of the bet. He and Reagan (and the entire right, and the New Left under Clinton) created an environment where the SEC and all government agencies were staffed with people who did not believe in Regulations.

Greenspan said that bankers should be able to determine their own risk levels. So they removed the rules on leveraging. The result was that banks like Bear and Lehman (and the 5 largest banks in the country) began to place massive bets that they didn't have the money to cover. Greenspan said that the rational bankers would naturally protect their customers and investors. Greenspan said free self-interested rational men - Homo Economicus - should be left alone to make their own decisions.

So these free rational men proceeded to place multi-trillion dollar bets that decades earlier they would not have been able to make. Indeed, during the hey day of regulatory liberalism, bankers had to have sufficient money on hand to cover potential losses. They simply were not allowed to bet an amount of money that if lost would destroy the global economy.

Greenspan was warned into 2005 that there was muti-trillion dollar iceberg growing in the derivatives market. He was told to step in and impose harsh regulations on what was reckless gambling. Greenspan refused because he does not believe in regulations.

He did not believe in restricting the leverage of Bear and Lehman and Citi and AIG and Goldman and all the other large financial firms.

Turns out Greenspan was wrong. The large financial giants were not rational enough to protect their shareholders. They not only made bets so large the they couldn't cover them; they made bets so large that they ended up sinking the global economy. When Lehman failed it triggered a panic which had a domino effect that swallowed the American moment in history.

Why was the derivatives market allowed to grow so big through leveraging? Why was this not regulated like it had been for 35 years?

America swallowed poison in 1980 and the patient died 28 years later.

 

[Seawytch]

Empirical evidence consistently shows that motorcyclist deaths are disproportionately concentrated among those riding without a helmet.

https://www.msu.edu/~telder/donorcycles_current.pdf

Funny thing, even when it is against the law, people still ride without helmets. Personally, I wouldn't, but since the only person who is negatively impacted by it is the rider, I don't see the problem. On the other hand, if we passed a law requiring that anyone who rode a motorcycle without a helmet be considered an organ donor if they are in an accident, it would, arguably, end up saving lives.

Just something to think about.

Helmet laws have saved lives which, I believe, meets the challenge you set forth in your OP.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I was thinking more along the lines of licensing electricians, airplane pilots, physicians, civil engineers. Also building codes, earthquake safety, maybe even having codes for how a nuclear power plant is built.

I can do anything an electrician does. the only thing regulations like that accomplish is make it harder to do simple electrical work. Do you honestly believe that an airline would hire someone who walked in off the street to fly a plane worth a few hundred million if the government didn't tell set a regulation about it? I actually support building codes, but I know they don't keep me safe.

 

[g5000]

I was thinking more along the lines of licensing electricians, airplane pilots, physicians, civil engineers. Also building codes, earthquake safety, maybe even having codes for how a nuclear power plant is built.

I can do anything an electrician does.

I seriously doubt that.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

i knew you would have an excuse. Which just shows you have no point. There is no answer you will accept period.

Because I know that Mattel is exempted from the CPSIA it somehow proves I am wrong? If the regulation is designed to save lives, and Mattel was the company that was actually selling the lead toys, how is it going to save lives to exempt Mattel from the law?`Explain that and we might be able to talk.

show that they are.....Nevermind found it....They still have to meet federal requirements, and being exempt does not mean they can do what they want.

I see you didn't answer the question. Mattel is the only company that was found importing lead contaminated toys, it is also the only company that doesn't have to pay independent testers to check the toys they sell, how does that save lives?

 

[SniperFire]

Empirical evidence consistently shows that motorcyclist deaths are disproportionately concentrated among those riding without a helmet.

https://www.msu.edu/~telder/donorcycles_current.pdf

Funny thing, even when it is against the law, people still ride without helmets. Personally, I wouldn't, but since the only person who is negatively impacted by it is the rider, I don't see the problem. On the other hand, if we passed a law requiring that anyone who rode a motorcycle without a helmet be considered an organ donor if they are in an accident, it would, arguably, end up saving lives.

Just something to think about.

Helmet laws have saved lives which, I believe, meets the challenge you set forth in your OP.

Thread closed. The rest is just windbaggage.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Empirical evidence consistently shows that motorcyclist deaths are disproportionately concentrated among those riding without a helmet.

https://www.msu.edu/~telder/donorcycles_current.pdf

Funny thing, even when it is against the law, people still ride without helmets. Personally, I wouldn't, but since the only person who is negatively impacted by it is the rider, I don't see the problem. On the other hand, if we passed a law requiring that anyone who rode a motorcycle without a helmet be considered an organ donor if they are in an accident, it would, arguably, end up saving lives.

Just something to think about.

Lots of words to cover up the fact the helmet law saves lives.

You have been losing for several pages. Your premise has been completely tanked.

Actually, I am not covering up anything because the law doesn't save lives. What saves lives is people using helmets. They don't wear them because the law tells them to, they wear them because we have learned a lot about motorcycle accidents, and people chose to live longer by wearing a helmet.

 

[SniperFire]

they don't wear them because the law tells them to.

lol

 

[Quantum Windbag]

From the 1940s to the 1980s Wall Street was heavily regulated.

The Securities and Exchange commission maintained strict rules abut leveraging. They had to posses enough capital to cover their bets.

Then came the Reagan Revolution and the era of steroidal deregulation.

Reagan got rid of Carter's man Volker (because of the artificial recession he caused in 1982 to kill inflation), and replaced him with a follower of Ayn Rand > Alan Greenspan.

Greenspan didn't believe in financial regulations. He and Reagan (and the entire right, and the New Left under Clinton) had a much different vision for the Securities and Exchange commission. He used his influence to staff the SEC and all government agencies with Libertarians who did not believe in Regulations.

Greenspan said that bankers should be able to determine their own risk levels. So they removed the rules on leveraging. The result was that banks like Bear and Lehman (and the 5 largest banks in the country) began to place massive bets that they didn't have the money to cover. Greenspan said that the rational bankers would naturally protect their customers and investors. Greenspan said free self-interested rational men - Homo Economicus - should be left alone to make their own decisions.

So these free rational men proceeded to place multi-trillion dollar bets that decades earlier they would not have been able to make. Indeed, during the hey day of regulatory liberalism, bankers had to have sufficient money on hand to cover potential losses. They simply were not allowed to bet an amount of money that if lost would destroy the global economy.

Greenspan was warned into 2005 that there was muti-trillion dollar iceberg growing in the derivatives market. He was told to step in and impose harsh regulations on what was reckless gambling. Greenspan refused because he does not believe in regulations.

He did not believe in restricting the leverage of Bear and Lehman and Citi and AIG and Goldman and all the other large financial firms.

Turns out Greenspan was wrong. The large financial giants were not rational enough to protect their shareholders. They not only made bets so large the they couldn't cover them; they made bets so large that they ended up sinking the global economy. When Lehman failed it triggered a panic which had a domino effect that swallowed the American moment in history.

Why was the derivatives market allowed to grow so big through leveraging? Why was this not regulated like it had been for 35 years?

America swallowed poison in 1980 and the patient died 28 years later.

That is so much bullshit even Elizabeth Warren admitted that it wouldn't make a difference.

Reinstating an Old Rule Is Not a Cure for Crisis - NYTimes.com

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Empirical evidence consistently shows that motorcyclist deaths are disproportionately concentrated among those riding without a helmet.

https://www.msu.edu/~telder/donorcycles_current.pdf

Funny thing, even when it is against the law, people still ride without helmets. Personally, I wouldn't, but since the only person who is negatively impacted by it is the rider, I don't see the problem. On the other hand, if we passed a law requiring that anyone who rode a motorcycle without a helmet be considered an organ donor if they are in an accident, it would, arguably, end up saving lives.

Just something to think about.

Helmet laws have saved lives which, I believe, meets the challenge you set forth in your OP.

It doesn't, because you have to prove that the law is the reason people wear helmets. Personally, I think they wear them because they don't want to die. I know that is why I wear one when I get on a bike.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I was thinking more along the lines of licensing electricians, airplane pilots, physicians, civil engineers. Also building codes, earthquake safety, maybe even having codes for how a nuclear power plant is built.

I can do anything an electrician does.

I seriously doubt that.

Doubt it as much as you want, I worked as an electrician for years.

 

[g5000]

So...what do we have?

Winter tire regulations on the Autobahn. Saves lives.

Helmet laws. Save lives.

Cotton dust regulation, which was opposed by the industry. Saves lives, increased productivity.

Excavation standards. Saved lives, now openly supported by the industry.

Grain facilities handling standards. Opposed by the industry. Saved lives, now found to be remarkably effective by the industry.

Coal mining regulation. Lives lost decreased by 50 percent in 4 years.



End result: A total slam dunk. Not only do we have evidence of lives saved by regulations, we also have regulated industries supporting the regulations!



We now enter the full-on delusional denial phase of Libertarianism. Which is what happens with any absolutist philosophy.

 

[SniperFire]

Funny thing, even when it is against the law, people still ride without helmets. Personally, I wouldn't, but since the only person who is negatively impacted by it is the rider, I don't see the problem. On the other hand, if we passed a law requiring that anyone who rode a motorcycle without a helmet be considered an organ donor if they are in an accident, it would, arguably, end up saving lives.

Just something to think about.

Helmet laws have saved lives which, I believe, meets the challenge you set forth in your OP.

It doesn't, because you have to prove that the law is the reason people wear helmets. Personally, I think they wear them because they don't want to die. I know that is why I wear one when I get on a bike.

More bullshit. Fewer people wear helmets when helmet laws are repealed, and more people wear helmets when laws are put in place.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

show that they are.....Nevermind found it....They still have to meet federal requirements, and being exempt does not mean they can do what they want.

I see you didn't answer the question. Mattel is the only company that was found importing lead contaminated toys, it is also the only company that doesn't have to pay independent testers to check the toys they sell, how does that save lives?

it doesn't, it is a meaningless question you just asked.

Do you admit that the CPSIA was meant to make people feel safe, not actually be safe?