How ‘Regulation’ Is Used Against America’s Founding Principles

11. Most ‘regulations’ are both unnecessary and burdensome.
Really? Do you have an example of a regulation that is both unnecessary and burdensome?



"Trump Attack on Regulation
Starts To Win Admiration
Both At Home and Abroad"

Trump Attack on Regulation Starts To Win Admiration Both At Home and Abroad - The New York Sun



"Trump kills 16 regulations for every new one, crushing 2-for-1 goal"

Trump kills 16 regulations for every new one, crushing 2-for-1 goal


"Trump promises to reduce federal regulations to pre-1960 level"
Trump promises to reduce federal regulations to pre-1960 level


"Trump Takes Credit for Killing Hundreds of Regulations That Were Already Dead"
Trump Takes Credit for Killing Hundreds of Regulations That Were Already Dead

"President Trump Cuts Red Tape: On Deregulation, Winning 22-1"
President Trump Cuts Red Tape: On Deregulation, Winning 22-1


 
11. Most ‘regulations’ are both unnecessary and burdensome.
Really? Do you have an example of a regulation that is both unnecessary and burdensome?



"Trump Attack on Regulation
Starts To Win Admiration
Both At Home and Abroad"

Trump Attack on Regulation Starts To Win Admiration Both At Home and Abroad - The New York Sun



"Trump kills 16 regulations for every new one, crushing 2-for-1 goal"

Trump kills 16 regulations for every new one, crushing 2-for-1 goal


"Trump promises to reduce federal regulations to pre-1960 level"
Trump promises to reduce federal regulations to pre-1960 level


"Trump Takes Credit for Killing Hundreds of Regulations That Were Already Dead"
Trump Takes Credit for Killing Hundreds of Regulations That Were Already Dead

"President Trump Cuts Red Tape: On Deregulation, Winning 22-1"
President Trump Cuts Red Tape: On Deregulation, Winning 22-1
So you don't have an example of a regulation that is both unnecessary and burdensome? (Quantity ain't quality when it comes to liinked information.)
 
11. Most ‘regulations’ are both unnecessary and burdensome.
Really? Do you have an example of a regulation that is both unnecessary and burdensome?



"Trump Attack on Regulation
Starts To Win Admiration
Both At Home and Abroad"

Trump Attack on Regulation Starts To Win Admiration Both At Home and Abroad - The New York Sun



"Trump kills 16 regulations for every new one, crushing 2-for-1 goal"

Trump kills 16 regulations for every new one, crushing 2-for-1 goal


"Trump promises to reduce federal regulations to pre-1960 level"
Trump promises to reduce federal regulations to pre-1960 level


"Trump Takes Credit for Killing Hundreds of Regulations That Were Already Dead"
Trump Takes Credit for Killing Hundreds of Regulations That Were Already Dead

"President Trump Cuts Red Tape: On Deregulation, Winning 22-1"
President Trump Cuts Red Tape: On Deregulation, Winning 22-1
So you don't have an example of a regulation that is both unnecessary and burdensome? (Quantity ain't quality when it comes to liinked information.)



So you couldn't be bothered to read any of those articles?

Explains your lack of education.

You must believe that all of the regulations ended by Trump were necessary, eh?
 
"Take a moment to imagine that opening a restaurant required you to demonstrate that your community “needs” another place to eat. Now, imagine in such a situation that, if regulators grant you permission, current restaurants—your future competitors—could challenge and ultimately block you from opening your restaurant.

As crazy as this sounds, this is how the health care industry works in the USA. It’s called a Certificate of Need, and one is required whenever someone wants to build or expand a medical facility. The argument is right out of a socialist playbook: competition is wasteful. By preventing a “duplication of services,” health care providers will feel less pressure to raise prices.


...the CON (Certificate of Need) was already on. The National Health Planning and Resources Development Act of 1974 required all states to have some form of CON in place. Though Congress repealed this requirement in 1987, two-thirds of all states still have a CON program.

Research confirms CON’s distortionary effects on the marketplace. CON programs reduce access to health care services and cause an increase in health care spending."
3 Ways Regulation Makes Health Care Expensive | David Youngberg
 
11. Most ‘regulations’ are both unnecessary and burdensome.
Really? Do you have an example of a regulation that is both unnecessary and burdensome?



"Trump Attack on Regulation
Starts To Win Admiration
Both At Home and Abroad"

Trump Attack on Regulation Starts To Win Admiration Both At Home and Abroad - The New York Sun



"Trump kills 16 regulations for every new one, crushing 2-for-1 goal"

Trump kills 16 regulations for every new one, crushing 2-for-1 goal


"Trump promises to reduce federal regulations to pre-1960 level"
Trump promises to reduce federal regulations to pre-1960 level


"Trump Takes Credit for Killing Hundreds of Regulations That Were Already Dead"
Trump Takes Credit for Killing Hundreds of Regulations That Were Already Dead

"President Trump Cuts Red Tape: On Deregulation, Winning 22-1"
President Trump Cuts Red Tape: On Deregulation, Winning 22-1
So you don't have an example of a regulation that is both unnecessary and burdensome? (Quantity ain't quality when it comes to liinked information.)



So you couldn't be bothered to read any of those articles?

Explains your lack of education.

You must believe that all of the regulations ended by Trump were necessary, eh?
I was hoping you'd pick one YOU thought unnecessary and burdensome since that was your premise not mine.
 
"Take a moment to imagine that opening a restaurant required you to demonstrate that your community “needs” another place to eat. Now, imagine in such a situation that, if regulators grant you permission, current restaurants—your future competitors—could challenge and ultimately block you from opening your restaurant.

As crazy as this sounds, this is how the health care industry works in the USA. It’s called a Certificate of Need, and one is required whenever someone wants to build or expand a medical facility. The argument is right out of a socialist playbook: competition is wasteful. By preventing a “duplication of services,” health care providers will feel less pressure to raise prices.


...the CON (Certificate of Need) was already on. The National Health Planning and Resources Development Act of 1974 required all states to have some form of CON in place. Though Congress repealed this requirement in 1987, two-thirds of all states still have a CON program.

Research confirms CON’s distortionary effects on the marketplace. CON programs reduce access to health care services and cause an increase in health care spending."
3 Ways Regulation Makes Health Care Expensive | David Youngberg

A number of factors spurred states to require CONs in the health care industry. Chief among these was the concern that the construction of excess hospital capacity would cause competitors in an over-saturated field to cover the costs of a diluted patient pool by over-charging, or by convincing patients to accept hospitalization unnecessarily.[2]

There was a federal need for state health care CONs but that ended in 1987. They serve a purpose but that doesn't mean they are perfect and shouldn't be tweaked as needed. There are no federal requirements for CONs so Trump's deregulation will have no impact.
 
"I tell my students that when I get sick, I prefer going to see the second best doctor I can choose. When asked why, I reply, “Because the care will basically be the same but it’ll be a lot easier to get an appointment.” The additional value of the best over the second-best is tiny and waiting for better quality treatment isn’t always worth it.

American primary care requires that we see overqualified medical professionals. When you go to a health care facility for routine care, you typically see a physician and you typically don’t see one quickly. You wait in the waiting room and, when your name is finally called, you go to what Jerry Seinfeld calls the “second waiting room.” When they finally come, you exchange barely a few words before they’re off to their next patient. They sure seem busy—and they are.

Licensing laws are why you go to the second waiting room. They constrain entry, preventing someone with slightly less training—like nurse practitionersfrom being an option at all. Physician salaries thus rise.

Liberalizing licensing laws would save billions in health care costs every year. Doctors are some of the highest-paid professionals in the country. Requiring them to handle routine care is like requiring mechanical engineers to change a car’s oil."
3 Ways Regulation Makes Health Care Expensive | David Youngberg
 
"License to Style

Ask yourself, would you pay someone just to wash, dry, and style your hair for you? Many people do. So-called “blowout bars”—which offer a hair wash, blow dry, and styling, but not haircuts or chemical treatments—are growing in popularity and multiplying.

Arizona law currently requires people to pay for at least 1,000 training hours, an exam, and various fees to get a license to style someone’s hair.

Next, ask yourself, would you imprison blowout stylists for not getting licenses designed for their scissor-and-chemical-wielding competitors? Many of Arizona’s licensed cosmetologists would, and, amazingly enough, the law is on their side. And those incumbents are fighting to keep those laws, and their customers, in place.

Arizona law currently requires people to pay for at least 1,000 training hours, an exam, and various fees to get a license to style someone’s hair. That includes blowout stylists, who gain nothing from the many hours of training on using sharp tools and dangerous chemicals. But they face the threat of six months in prison and fines if they work without the license.

As the late Justice Antonin Scalia would have said, “Stupid but constitutional.”
Blow-Dry Bars Don't Even Cut Hair, So Why Do They Need Licenses? | John-Michael Seibler the board” of cosmetology.
 
2.The 17th and 18th century saw England become the most prosperous nation in the world, for several reasons. One is the use of regulations that saw the demise of communal lands, and the systematic privatization of grazing and farming land.

Untrue, see corn laws...
 
"License to Style

Ask yourself, would you pay someone just to wash, dry, and style your hair for you? Many people do. So-called “blowout bars”—which offer a hair wash, blow dry, and styling, but not haircuts or chemical treatments—are growing in popularity and multiplying.

Arizona law currently requires people to pay for at least 1,000 training hours, an exam, and various fees to get a license to style someone’s hair.

Next, ask yourself, would you imprison blowout stylists for not getting licenses designed for their scissor-and-chemical-wielding competitors? Many of Arizona’s licensed cosmetologists would, and, amazingly enough, the law is on their side. And those incumbents are fighting to keep those laws, and their customers, in place.

Arizona law currently requires people to pay for at least 1,000 training hours, an exam, and various fees to get a license to style someone’s hair. That includes blowout stylists, who gain nothing from the many hours of training on using sharp tools and dangerous chemicals. But they face the threat of six months in prison and fines if they work without the license.

As the late Justice Antonin Scalia would have said, “Stupid but constitutional.”
Blow-Dry Bars Don't Even Cut Hair, So Why Do They Need Licenses? | John-Michael Seibler the board” of cosmetology.
That is a local regulation not a federal one...
 
No matter what one claims is their political philosophy, the Litmus Test is how that view compares with the concepts surrounding America’s founding:

Individualism, Free Markets, and Limited Constitutional Government.

Only conservatism fits that description.




1.Regulation has a particular meaning in modern times, most especially in America, but there is an historical pattern that helps in understanding how ‘regulation’ has been used to end the America of the Founders.



2.The 17th and 18th century saw England become the most prosperous nation in the world, for several reasons. One is the use of regulations that saw the demise of communal lands, and the systematic privatization of grazing and farming land.

3. The efficiency of British agriculture and of the economy in general increased due to Parliament’s passing some 3,000 Enclosure acts between 1760 and 1815.

The very antithesis of communism, the ascendancy of private property rights, was recognized as the path to prosperity. The effect of British law was the meticulous respect for fair compensation and due process for those who could no longer use communal lands.

This was a moment in English history when the law was changed to promote efficiency and fortune.



4.When land was privately owned, it encouraged investments in new farming methods, and more effort by owners who would benefit. Such is the basis of capitalism.

5. This was a determining step in the Agricultural Revolution, and led to the Industrial Revolution, as well.
“The Noblest Triumph,” Bethell, chapter six.





Of course, England passed its law, and the concepts of privatization, on to America.
To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, ours was a nation of opportunity and prosperity....'if you can keep it that way.'

Under the attacks of Progressivism, and Modern Liberalism....it seems we will be unable to keep it.

Wanna show how any private property in the USA is not allowed by those folks you demonize? Or do you just want to lie yer pants off in a fire?
 

Forum List

Back
Top