An open challenge to anyone who supports government regulations.

[Quantum Windbag]

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

Did I say it was inspired? It is, however, a position you seem unable to refute. Why else resort to straw men arguments?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Here they are again, for the third ******* 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.

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.

Go back and read my OP.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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.

I read this long ago, don't remember the source.

The more you study, the more you know.
The more you know, the more you forget.
The more you forget, the less you know.
So why study?

The more you regulate, the safer you become.
The safer you become, the less cautious you become.
The less cautious you become, the more often you get hurt.
So why regulate.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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

My guess is it is better than yours.

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.

A swing and a miss.

Let us take the Clean Air act as an example. The law clearly gives the EPA the authority to regulate particulates in the atmosphere, I am pretty sure we can both agree on that. I will go out on a limb here and guess that you, being intelligent, will admit that carbon dioxide is not a particulate. Despite the fact that carbon dioxide, not being a particulate, is not a pollutant as defined by the Clean Air Act. Despite this, the court managed to decide that gases that are naturally part of our atmosphere are pollutants. Legislation had nothing to do with this.

Then we have the example of the EPA developing regulations to regulate carbon dioxide through a cap and trade program despite a law that prohibited them from doing so.

Now that we have dealt with the absurd position that all regulation is based on legislation let us see what else you have to say.

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.

Wow, wrong again.

The Constitution of the United States clearly limits the ability of Congress to regulate the speed limit in front of my house. That simple fact often escapes the statists who believe that government is the best answer to everything.

I do have to agree that regulations are clearly for the benefit of those being regulated. In fact, I made that point way back in my OP if you care to go look. Regulations limit competition, and hurt consumers. They are often written to specify not just a goal, but a specific method of meeting that goal. Why do you think that Congress passed the energy efficient light bulb law when GE was the only company that make a bulb wasn't incandescent, or that Phillips won a government award for making an affordable bulb that cost $50 that sells for less than half that in China?

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.

That is so absurd it doesn't even merit a response.

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.

Now you are getting to the meat of the process, the part where the companies get to argue that everyone should adopt the technology that they happen to hold the patents on.

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.

Actually, they aren't meant to carry the weight of law. Funny thing though, federal prosecutors want to use regulations to turn people into felons. Ever wonder why they do that?

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.

And other sill jump to the erroneous conclusion that,m because they are promulgating and enforcing regulations, they are doing their job. What, exactly, is your point here?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Regulations prevent bad decisions? What if the regulation itself was based on a bad decision, does it still prevent bad decisions?

 

[Greenbeard]

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.

A swing and a miss.

Let us take the Clean Air act as an example. The law clearly gives the EPA the authority to regulate particulates in the atmosphere, I am pretty sure we can both agree on that. I will go out on a limb here and guess that you, being intelligent, will admit that carbon dioxide is not a particulate. Despite the fact that carbon dioxide, not being a particulate, is not a pollutant as defined by the Clean Air Act. Despite this, the court managed to decide that gases that are naturally part of our atmosphere are pollutants. Legislation had nothing to do with this.

The Court found that greenhouse gases fall under the legislative definition of air pollutant (which does not mention particulates) and thus the EPA is required to promulgate regulations on them.

The term ‘‘air pollutant’’ means any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (including source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air. Such term includes any precursors to the formation of any air pollutant, to the extent the Administrator has identified such precursor or precursors for the particular purpose for which the term ‘‘air pollutant’’ is used.​

Read a ******* primary source once in a while. Your carefully chosen example proves Flopper's point.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

Drive your family on vacation in a car made without safety regulations on a road without speed limits. If you come back, tell us how it was.

Our roads have no enforcement of speed limits now. They ARE without speed limits.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

A swing and a miss.

Let us take the Clean Air act as an example. The law clearly gives the EPA the authority to regulate particulates in the atmosphere, I am pretty sure we can both agree on that. I will go out on a limb here and guess that you, being intelligent, will admit that carbon dioxide is not a particulate. Despite the fact that carbon dioxide, not being a particulate, is not a pollutant as defined by the Clean Air Act. Despite this, the court managed to decide that gases that are naturally part of our atmosphere are pollutants. Legislation had nothing to do with this.

The Court found that greenhouse gases fall under the legislative definition of air pollutant (which does not mention particulates) and thus the EPA is required to promulgate regulations on them.

The term ‘‘air pollutant’’ means any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (including source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air. Such term includes any precursors to the formation of any air pollutant, to the extent the Administrator has identified such precursor or precursors for the particular purpose for which the term ‘‘air pollutant’’ is used.​

Read a ******* primary source once in a while. Your carefully chosen example proves Flopper's point.

One must do more than just read. Comprehension, context and critical thought must also be applied.

What this means (since you only seem to be able to read and fail to comprehend) is that in the CONTEXT of this thread, regulations do not help, but hinder. Your example of citing the Courts decision plays into why regulations are not the be all, end all of solutions.

Applying critical thought, one would have to say that something that occurs in the atmosphere cannot contaminate or pollute the atmosphere. A pollutant or contaminate would be something that did NOT exist prior to mankind affecting it.

 

[Greenbeard]

What this means (since you only seem to be able to read and fail to comprehend) is that in the CONTEXT of this thread, regulations do not help, but hinder. Your example of citing the Courts decision plays into why regulations are not the be all, end all of solutions.

Regulations are not the be all, end all of solutions? What a revelation!

A novel thought--certainly not one that's occurred to every other person who's ever lived. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Darkwind]

What this means (since you only seem to be able to read and fail to comprehend) is that in the CONTEXT of this thread, regulations do not help, but hinder. Your example of citing the Courts decision plays into why regulations are not the be all, end all of solutions.

Regulations are not the be all, end all of solutions? What a revelation!

A novel thought--certainly not one that's occurred to every other person who's ever lived. Thanks for sharing.

So.....?

You got nothing I take it. Not surprised.

 

[Greenbeard]

I eagerly await more obvious truisms. Perhaps "a stitch in time saves nine"? I'm sure you're chock-full of 'em!

 

[candycorn]

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.

A swing and a miss.

Let us take the Clean Air act as an example. The law clearly gives the EPA the authority to regulate particulates in the atmosphere, I am pretty sure we can both agree on that. I will go out on a limb here and guess that you, being intelligent, will admit that carbon dioxide is not a particulate. Despite the fact that carbon dioxide, not being a particulate, is not a pollutant as defined by the Clean Air Act. Despite this, the court managed to decide that gases that are naturally part of our atmosphere are pollutants. Legislation had nothing to do with this.

The Court found that greenhouse gases fall under the legislative definition of air pollutant (which does not mention particulates) and thus the EPA is required to promulgate regulations on them.

The term ‘‘air pollutant’’ means any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (including source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air. Such term includes any precursors to the formation of any air pollutant, to the extent the Administrator has identified such precursor or precursors for the particular purpose for which the term ‘‘air pollutant’’ is used.​

Read a ******* primary source once in a while. Your carefully chosen example proves Flopper's point.

You really have to wonder if QW was dropped on his head at birth.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

A swing and a miss.

Let us take the Clean Air act as an example. The law clearly gives the EPA the authority to regulate particulates in the atmosphere, I am pretty sure we can both agree on that. I will go out on a limb here and guess that you, being intelligent, will admit that carbon dioxide is not a particulate. Despite the fact that carbon dioxide, not being a particulate, is not a pollutant as defined by the Clean Air Act. Despite this, the court managed to decide that gases that are naturally part of our atmosphere are pollutants. Legislation had nothing to do with this.

The Court found that greenhouse gases fall under the legislative definition of air pollutant (which does not mention particulates) and thus the EPA is required to promulgate regulations on them.

The term ‘‘air pollutant’’ means any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (including source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air. Such term includes any precursors to the formation of any air pollutant, to the extent the Administrator has identified such precursor or precursors for the particular purpose for which the term ‘‘air pollutant’’ is used.​

Read a ******* primary source once in a while. Your carefully chosen example proves Flopper's point.

Funny, nothing there includes naturally occurring gases, which might explain why the court actually ordered the EPA to make an offical detiremination about greenhouse gases and tailpipe emissions under the theory that Congress actually gave them the authority to regulate the world's climate. As I pointed out, Congress has since said they specifically did not authorize that, and several states have filed suit challenging those regulations.

Nonetheless, it actually proves my point, not Flopper's, because the EPA read the law and determined that regulating greenhouses gases from tailpipes would not work, and that they law did not cover it. The court took an activist approach and created new law. It had nothing to do with Congress.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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 have ignored several excellent regulatory acts that have saved and enhanced lives and health, and you ignored them.

Fail, QWB Doosh,

 

[Mac1958]

You really have to wonder if QW was dropped on his head at birth.

My brothers tell me they dropped me on my head often as a baby when they would use me as a hockey puck. Sadly, that does explain a great deal.


.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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 have ignored several excellent regulatory acts that have saved and enhanced lives and health, and you ignored them.

Fail, QWB Doosh,

Have I?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Yup.

 

[Flopper]

A swing and a miss.

Let us take the Clean Air act as an example. The law clearly gives the EPA the authority to regulate particulates in the atmosphere, I am pretty sure we can both agree on that. I will go out on a limb here and guess that you, being intelligent, will admit that carbon dioxide is not a particulate. Despite the fact that carbon dioxide, not being a particulate, is not a pollutant as defined by the Clean Air Act. Despite this, the court managed to decide that gases that are naturally part of our atmosphere are pollutants. Legislation had nothing to do with this.

You struck out on this one. If you look through the law, you'll see Congress gave the EPA wide authority in defining air pollutants and the court agreed. Pollutants are not limited to just suspended matter. In a 5-4 decision in Massachusetts v. Environmental Protection Agency, the Supreme Court held that “greenhouse gases fit well within the Act’s capacious definition of ‘air pollutant’. The Act defines "air pollutant" as "any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive . . . substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air".

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCODE-2008-title42/pdf/USCODE-2008-title42-chap85.pdf

The Constitution of the United States clearly limits the ability of Congress to regulate the speed limit in front of my house. That simple fact often escapes the statists who believe that government is the best answer to everything.

I was not suggesting that the federal government had that authority. I was trying to illustrate that when a law is passed, regulations may be required because there're isn't enough detail for implementation.

I do have to agree that regulations are clearly for the benefit of those being regulated. In fact, I made that point way back in my OP if you care to go look. Regulations limit competition, and hurt consumers. They are often written to specify not just a goal, but a specific method of meeting that goal.

Some regulations such as those protecting endangered species may not be in the best interest of businesses and their customers because the purpose of the regulation and underlying law are to preservation wildlife for the benefit of current and future generations. Regulations that limit hazardous material dumping and preservation of natural resources, transportation of hazardous materials, and use of airspace are there to protect the public, not to increase corporate profits.

However, that is certainly not the case with all regulations. Brokerage and bank customers would certainly not be better off without the SEC, bank reserve requirements, and mandated audits; restaurant customers are better off with health dept. regulations; operation of nuclear power plants without any regulation or oversight would unthinkable. I could go on, but...

Actually, they aren't meant to carry the weight of law. Funny thing though, federal prosecutors want to use regulations to turn people into felons. Ever wonder why they do that?

Whether they were meant to or not, they do. Prosecutors certainly use regulations to prosecute violators as they should. However, those same regulations provide protection for companies that follow the law.

And other sill jump to the erroneous conclusion that because they are promulgating and enforcing regulations, they are doing their job. What, exactly, is your point here?

My point is that there's a lot of objections to regulations that do not exist. Because the regulatory authority publishes a set of recommendations and guidelines does not mean it's a regulation.

 

[Flopper]

A swing and a miss.

Let us take the Clean Air act as an example. The law clearly gives the EPA the authority to regulate particulates in the atmosphere, I am pretty sure we can both agree on that. I will go out on a limb here and guess that you, being intelligent, will admit that carbon dioxide is not a particulate. Despite the fact that carbon dioxide, not being a particulate, is not a pollutant as defined by the Clean Air Act. Despite this, the court managed to decide that gases that are naturally part of our atmosphere are pollutants. Legislation had nothing to do with this.

The Court found that greenhouse gases fall under the legislative definition of air pollutant (which does not mention particulates) and thus the EPA is required to promulgate regulations on them.

The term ‘‘air pollutant’’ means any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive (including source material, special nuclear material, and byproduct material) substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air. Such term includes any precursors to the formation of any air pollutant, to the extent the Administrator has identified such precursor or precursors for the particular purpose for which the term ‘‘air pollutant’’ is used.​

Read a ******* primary source once in a while. Your carefully chosen example proves Flopper's point.

Funny, nothing there includes naturally occurring gases, which might explain why the court actually ordered the EPA to make an offical detiremination about greenhouse gases and tailpipe emissions under the theory that Congress actually gave them the authority to regulate the world's climate. As I pointed out, Congress has since said they specifically did not authorize that, and several states have filed suit challenging those regulations.

Nonetheless, it actually proves my point, not Flopper's, because the EPA read the law and determined that regulating greenhouses gases from tailpipes would not work, and that they law did not cover it. The court took an activist approach and created new law. It had nothing to do with Congress.

That was the EPA under Bush who didn't think pollution was harming the environment.
"It isn't pollution that's harming the environment. It's the impurities in our air and water that are doing it."

 

[SniperFire]

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 have ignored several excellent regulatory acts that have saved and enhanced lives and health, and you ignored them.

Fail, QWB Doosh,

When he gets nailed and shoved up his ass, he just spins off.

This is a troll thread at this point.