An open challenge to anyone who supports government regulations.

[Mr. Shaman]

You aren't going to answer my question.

LOL

The answer to your question is regulations do not save lives.

And what proof do you offer?

Quantum Windbag (quite) obviously forgets-about the much-improved safety of flying, as-a-result of.....

...the laws regulating civil aviation.

 

[g5000]

Fact is, our lakes and rivers would be toxic if it weren't for regulations. And we'd all have cancer or led poisoning or asbestos poisoning.

Water quality in most US waters have improved since the damned EPA and clean water acts and such worked on them.

Anyone who actually believes that industries will self regulate to the benefit of the USA are delusional. Very delusional.

Yep. The kind of toxic waste dumping of all kinds which used to take place is irrefutable evidence corporations will not always do what is best until they are forced to do so by the government.

 

[Truthmatters]

FDIC: Banks' profits at highest level since recession - Louisville - Business First


Profits at U.S. banks totaled $35.3 billion in the first quarter of 2012, up from $6.6 billion from the first quarter of 2011.



However, the report noted, total loans and leases made by banks declined by $56 billion.

 

[g5000]

Time to double-bag Quantum Windbag and drop him off at a hazardous waste disposal site. He's done.

 

[Flopper]

The federal tax on cigs is only $1.01 of the total.

So?

Government is government regardless of the level

government=BAD!!! local, state, federal, all bad, must get rid of!

As James Madison said, "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." But men are not angels and without government, there can be no law except the law of the jungle.

 

[rightwinger]

In my lifetime, Government regulations that have had a noticable impact on public health:

1. Auto safety- Mandatory seatbelts, automobile safety standards, safer roads and tougher drunk driving standards have reduced fatalities noticeably

2. Environment- Water standards, air quality, emissions, toxic dumping regulations have led to noticeably safer water and air

3. Smoking- Tough government rules on public smoking, anti-cancer research, public information and cigarette taxes have reduced the number of smokers

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

In my lifetime, Government regulations that have had a noticable impact on public health:

1. Auto safety- Mandatory seatbelts, automobile safety standards, safer roads and tougher drunk driving standards have reduced fatalities noticeably

2. Environment- Water standards, air quality, emissions, toxic dumping regulations have led to noticeably safer water and air

3. Smoking- Tough government rules on public smoking, anti-cancer research, public information and cigarette taxes have reduced the number of smokers

Don't forget food safety. Death from contaminated food is a relatively rare occurance in this country.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

And what are we to conclude from this thread? Unless a regulation can be proved to save lives it should not exist? We should not regulate nuclear power plants until one blows and wipes out a city? We should abolish health department regulations to see to if we have an increase in deaths and illness from improper preparation and storage of food?

It may come as a surprise to you but most businesses actively support government regulations. From the restaurant that displays a health dept. inspection with a AAA grade on it's wall to the nuclear power plant that has documented independent inspections verifying their safety procedures. In a lawsuit, one the best defenses a business has is often government inspections and certifications that safety and health standards have been met.

In China, they have extremely poor regulations, and some companies, ship us bad food. Then we buy less food from all Chinese companies. So the good ones all suffer because of the bad ones. So high-quality companies tend to want the industry regulated to punish the bad ones, and prevent them from harming the reputation of the industry. And that's good for consumers as well.

I'm not saying all regulation is good, but by and large it protects us and rewards the good companies. We need to make it better, not get rid of it.

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?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The problem here is one of semantics. I am making the case that regulations, in and of themselves, do not save lives. China has pages upon pages of regulations regarding pollution and worker safety, people routinely ignore them. Even the EPA knows that regulations don't save lives, which is why they prefer to scare people into compliance by taking random companies and using them as examples, remember the crucify them video that was posted here?

Because only an idiot would insist that words on a piece of paper actually accomplish anything. That is not an opposite position, it is a fact. What matters is people, not pieces of paper.That is my position, so far no one has even hinted to having a position that could be considered opposite to that.

What is this, a freshman philosophy seminar? This level of sophistry is embarrassing, even for you.

Does the fact that you cannot quote endless pages of regulations in order to make your arguments hurt your brain?

 

[8537]

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.

The Clean Air Act, probably the most successful piece of regulation ever passed, has saved thousands and thousands of lives.

Seat belt use spiked dramatically when it became the law. There's a reason NH has the lowest seat belt use rate in the nation.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

.

Going back to the question posed by the original post about how regulations don't save lives, I sure am glad that there are strict regulations in the medical field regarding the storage, handling and use of medical devices, especially during invasive surgery. I sure am glad there are strict regulations regarding the storage and handling of food products in public restaurants. Can I prove that has not saved lives? Nope, nor am I going to burn the effort finding the statistics, because those facts would just be spun anyway. But pretending that such regulations have not saved lives is denial in the extreme.

More shallow absolutism.

Whether it's medical products or food products or financial products, proper and effective regulation are critically important. The question is the tipping point at which over-regulation or redundant regulation begins to cause significant damage to the overall flow of products through the system and to the consumer of those products. Bureaucrats clearly too often think that "more" regulation equates to "better" regulation, and that's just stunningly simplistic and naive. But these folks are usually those who just love more and more government, so trying to get through to them is difficult, indeed.

I'd think that would be the argument, but obviously shallow absolutism is easier.

.

those strict regulations you are so fond of have made hospitals one of the deadliest places you can be. They have also resulted in outbreaks of E. coli in bagged spinach. Here in San Francisco there was a popular restaurant that was shutdown because the health department found that the trays that were used to make their popular main dish were covered with rat droppings. This did not happen immediately, by the way, they were given a deadline to become compliant with the appropriate regulations, and only shut down when the owners admitted they did not have the money to actually remodel. They were still allowed to serve food to the public for weeks after this was discovered.

Knowing this, do you still think regulations are wonderful? Wouldn't it make more sense to shut down a restaurant that is infested with rats and is a fire hazard than follow regulations that require the government to follow stupid procedures and give the restaurant warnings?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

FDIC: Banks' profits at highest level since recession - Louisville - Business First


Profits at U.S. banks totaled $35.3 billion in the first quarter of 2012, up from $6.6 billion from the first quarter of 2011.



However, the report noted, total loans and leases made by banks declined by $56 billion.

This is why no one pays any attention to TM.

 

[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.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Going back to the question posed by the original post about how regulations don't save lives, I sure am glad that there are strict regulations in the medical field regarding the storage, handling and use of medical devices, especially during invasive surgery. I sure am glad there are strict regulations regarding the storage and handling of food products in public restaurants. Can I prove that has not saved lives? Nope, nor am I going to burn the effort finding the statistics, because those facts would just be spun anyway. But pretending that such regulations have not saved lives is denial in the extreme.

More shallow absolutism.

Whether it's medical products or food products or financial products, proper and effective regulation are critically important. The question is the tipping point at which over-regulation or redundant regulation begins to cause significant damage to the overall flow of products through the system and to the consumer of those products. Bureaucrats clearly too often think that "more" regulation equates to "better" regulation, and that's just stunningly simplistic and naive. But these folks are usually those who just love more and more government, so trying to get through to them is difficult, indeed.

I'd think that would be the argument, but obviously shallow absolutism is easier.

.

those strict regulations you are so fond of have made hospitals one of the deadliest places you can be. They have also resulted in outbreaks of E. coli in bagged spinach. Here in San Francisco there was a popular restaurant that was shutdown because the health department found that the trays that were used to make their popular main dish were covered with rat droppings. This did not happen immediately, by the way, they were given a deadline to become compliant with the appropriate regulations, and only shut down when the owners admitted they did not have the money to actually remodel. They were still allowed to serve food to the public for weeks after this was discovered.

Knowing this, do you still think regulations are wonderful? Wouldn't it make more sense to shut down a restaurant that is infested with rats and is a fire hazard than follow regulations that require the government to follow stupid procedures and give the restaurant warnings?

Funny thing, after reading your post I reviewed mine, and it turned out that I never said that regulations are "wonderful". I also notice that I pretty clearly wrote "proper and effective regulation are critically important", and that "Bureaucrats clearly too often think that 'more' regulation equates to 'better' regulation, and that's just stunningly simplistic and naive" . Not sure how much more clear I can make it than that.

Further, nothing implemented by humans is going to be perfect, so yes, I'm sure there are many instances of regulations backfiring. Wow, shock. It's much easier identify backfires than non-backfires. That's like saying that a plane crash means that all air travel is unsafe.

I don't like straw man arguments. They give me gas.


.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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.

Blah..blah..blah..blah..blah..blah..blah..blah.....

Hey....admit it.

You just got
YOUR ASS HANDED TO YOU!!!!

.

,.

.

.

.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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....

Pure Food and Drug Act: A Muckraking Triumph

Meat Inspection Act: The Power of the Pen

moron

 

[Quantum Windbag]

As Flopper (and probably some others that I have missed) has pointed out, pieces of paper influence people. People influence other people, and part of the way they do that is by writing things on paper (and by enforcing said provisions).

I can say the exact same about the Bible. If I stood up and tried to argue that the Bible saved people's lives most of the people here arguing with me that regulations do the same thing would still be arguing with me.

The study is available at (you would have to pay to read it, of course, if you don't have journal access)

Effects of Drivers' License Suspension Policies on Alcohol-Related Crash Involvement: Long-Term Follow-Up in Forty-Six States - Wagenaar - 2007 - Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research - Wiley Online Library

The journal is indeed peer-reviewed:

Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research - Journal Information

I don't have access so I can't go into it to see what their methodology is.

I agree that most people don't actively try to kill others, and that sometimes self-regulation is preferable to government regulation.

I won't argue.

The studies I've cited aren't that simple, and rely on substantial controls. They aren't perfect, of course, but if we aren't relying on statistical studies that brings me back to wondering what methodology you would accept.

It would depend on the methodology and what the researches were actually trying to prove. Statistics is one of those fields were you can start with the same data and reach two conclusions that seem to contradict each other based on the method you used to get there, yet bot conclusions are perfectly valid.

I agree that CAFE standards cause deaths.

That makes life simpler, at least we can look at the same data and reach the same conclusion.

If your point is that Murphy's Law predicts that anything that can go wrong will go wrong but only with a finite frequency, then it doesn't seem to support your position. After all, regulations don't have to drop fatalities to zero to save lives, so affecting the frequency of fatalities would indeed be a mechanism for saving lives.

Anything that can go wrong, will. That is not a prediction, it is is simple statement. It doesn't include a time frame when it says that something will happen, just that it will, eventually. I am sure you will agree that computers can crash in the middle of a post, even with the reliability of modern manufacturing processes. It will happen, it just might not happen to you.

This time.

Absolutely, there are. And they might be right (or, due to differing methodologies, data sets, or what have you they might both be right). However, such studies represent a definite minority view within the field. I tend to rely on the majority view, discounting published theories that say AGW doesn't exist, smoking doesn't cause cancer, Darwinian evolution is impossible, etc. Sometimes science gets it wrong, but it usually gets it right.

Science is a process, and it always gets it right, eventually. People, on the other hand, make mistakes, which is why people who call themselves scientists argue that the Earth doesn't move simply because that is what they were taught.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

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

 

[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?

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.