Good god man lol.
Tell me whats better: regulations that would keep a person from dying/getting ill in the first place, or a lawsuit from a poor family suing a wealthy corporation over a death of a relative?
Hmm.
regulations are always after the fact. If they prevent someone from dying, that means someone already died from the thing the regulation prevents. In other words, regulations are no more proactive than lawsuits.
Next stupid argument.
What the ****?
Okay sure, maybe a lot regulations have been inspired by people dying from something and then the fed gov steps in and prevents it from happening again? Lol why is that a bad thing? Of cokes they are proactive.
Man your brain is fried. Maybe it was Fox News that did it. Maybe it was your family dinner table growing up. Either way, you need a serious wake up call.
You were just whining that lawsuits are filed only after someone is harmed. The same goes for regulations. Furthermore, how are regulations enforced? With fines. In other words, they do the same thing lawsuits do: impose a cost on the perpetrator for the harm he causes.
Lol the obvious difference between regulations and lawsuits is that regulations keep illegal behavior from happening in the first place.
hmmm, no they don't, tard. First, you've already conceded the point that regulations are imposed after the fact. Second, before the regulation was enacted, the behavior wasn't illegal, so your argument begs the question. And third, regulations are enforced by imposing fines on corporations and local governments. If they prevented illegal behavior, then no one would ever be fined. Since that obviously isn't the case, they obviously don't prevent illegal behavior.
