From: Brent on 10 May 2010 12:45 On 2010-05-10, Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Brent - how would ANYONE know about what harmful substances are in ANY > PRODUCT? how would you know? I don't. Which is why I don't buy FDA approved Apple Juice made from concentrate from China. I know how things are often done in china so I avoid it. How do you know? > you keep talking about some silly letter.. as if that is proof that > all companies will always tell you when there is a problem. Silly letter? You saying that government, run by bigger sociopaths than any corporation and without the checks that corporations would have in a free market somehow has our best interests in mind? Why? It has no reason to care, no reason to create any sort of system that does any more but lull us back to sleep so they can continue business as usual with their friends. > the tuna mercury regulations are for the companies to DISCLOSE the > levels of mercury in their product - that govt knows that it cannot > control on a worldwide basis - yet so the regulation was to warn those > who might be harmed ... disclosure... How is that possible without destroying the fish? The fish companies didn't add the Hg, it got into the fish because government said that it's favored businesses could dump toxins into the water. > just as we talk about industry disclosing unsafe conditions in their > products. When is government going to disclose the unsafe conditions it causes? Oh, that's right, it's "National Security", we aren't allowed to know.
From: Brent on 10 May 2010 12:53 On 2010-05-10, Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: > same deal with seat belts or laminated glass or structural standards > for side/front impact? > See what I am asking here is - should we have NO REGULATIONS or not? You really don't know when the safety devices were developed. Hint: When we had a freer market. Hint: safety glass became standard equipment in the 1930s. > Brent is essentially arguing that regulations don't work and cites the > failures. No, your reading comprension is a failure. I am telling you how government regulations come about and why they exist. "Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."-George Washington Making government your master with regulation is foolish. The regulation will always be designed such that it is to the benefit of those in bed with the state. > I'm asking .. are you okay with the basic concept of regulations and > required safety but disagree with individual instances? > so .. no mandatory safety features on cars? > yea or nay? You still don't get it. Eliminate all US automotive safety regulation today and you won't find cars without safety equipment because nobody will buy them. The difference between now and the distant past is not regulation, it's that the culture has changed and that people have the wealth to purchase the safety equipment. We could all have much better cars yet if it wasn't for the wealth sucking machine that the government is.
From: Brent on 10 May 2010 20:09 On 2010-05-10, Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: > hey.. aren't you the guy that thinks there should be a regulation that > says " keep right except to pass"? Why does that need government violence behind it? You don't need a costumed man with a gun and a badge to keep you from cutting in line at a grocery store, so why do you need him for simple driving courtesy such as keeping right except to pass?
From: Brent on 10 May 2010 20:23 On 2010-05-10, Larry G <gross.larry(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 10, 7:19�pm, Arif Khokar <akhokar1...(a)wvu.edu> wrote: >> Come to think of it, what I detailed above is an excellent example of >> the point Brent was making about government regulation. �Had automakers >> been allowed to equip their vehicles with less powerful airbags that >> deployed at higher collision speeds (i. e., designed for belted >> occupants), they certainly could have. �Unfortunately, government >> regulation forced them to equip their vehicles with airbags designed to >> protect larger unbelted occupants. �As a result, there were deaths and >> one decapitation from airbag deployment in a parking lot speed collision. > > ya'll are citing a one-size fits all issue with some kinds of > regulation in a specific instance - and what I'm asking is do you > support the CONCEPT of regulation but when we get down into the wees - > you have your druthers.. and I have mine? It appears you have a reading comprehension problem when it comes to examples being cited. He's giving an example of how government regulation, the system of it, the concept of it, the process of it, is faulty. No one person or small group can have all the information. The government is incapable of producing the variation that the free market is capable of. The free market could develop a load-cell in the seat and simple detect switches in the seatbelts that varies the airbag force. It could make the airbags user selectable. It could solve the problem that would still let people use the front seats of their vehicles as freely as they did 20 years ago. But government cannot allow that. Government, knowing it made a mistake cannot even admit to it and allow correction after 20 years. On top of everything else the small group of regulators cannot possibly have all the information that covers every individuals' choice. It has to force one-size-fits-all regulation on us as a collective. It's the very nature of government and its legions of enforcers that mandate one-size-fits all. They couldn't function even with the wide variety of toilet paper the market gives us, let alone diverse technologies, needs, and preferences.
From: Floyd Rogers on 12 May 2010 09:23
"Arif Khokar" <akhokar1234(a)wvu.edu> wrote > On 5/10/2010 7:40 PM, Larry G wrote: > ... > That can be done without regulation. Take, for instance, side airbags. > They're not required by the government but some cars are still equipped > with them. Anti-lock brakes are not required, but some models are > equipped with them. Stability control systems are not required by the > government, but some cars are equipped with them. > > IOW, we have safety features added to vehicles that weren't the result of > government regulation, but from the market trying to sell safety as a > incentive to buy. The consumer still has a choice not to pay for the > extra cost of one or all of those safety features though. You are only partially correct, Arif. 1) stability control systems are (or shortly will) be required for all vehicles in 2012. The recent recall of the Lexus GS470 was to correct a flaw in their system. 2) Although side-curtain airbags are not required, vehicles are required to take a side-impact test; those airbags are the best - and cheapest way - to pass the test with 5 stars. FloydR |