jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
So paying the government is better than the victims receiving compensation, I don't think I agree with this.
Less Goverment More Freedom
- Thread starter budleydoright
- Start date
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
You are looking at this from a very narrow scope.
What we get with more regulations and bigger government is less and less jobs.
No one is saying that polluting is right, but like anything the federal government gets involved in, it over regulates to the point of being counter productive.
There can never be a happy medium with the government.
Killing the company = killing a person
Death sentence just isn't good enough for you is it?
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
what about the people who enforce the regulations and the people the companies employ to conform to the regulations?
you have a naive, simplistic view of things.
a restaurant has never had to fire anyone because they are required to store their meats at a certain temperature or throw away vegetables that are a day too old to serve, they have to hire people to make sure they conform.
the added bonus is that you don't get botulism.
and that's why i'm not a fan of the lobbyist..i know CR will disgree with me
..there's just gotta be some other way such as full-on conferences where the whole industry in particular are drawn together and they do some sort of survey with preconceived solutions in which to choose, but money doesn't exchange hands..there would be contingencies of representaives ie; SBA and others for example.
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
"a restaurant has never had to fire anyone because they are required to store their meats at a certain temperature"
And you say I have a naive view of things.
UncleBuck
Well-Known Member
enlighten me then, i am always willing to learn, even if i end up looking like a dumbass. do it to me before nodrama does, he's on a roll tonight."a restaurant has never had to fire anyone because they are required to store their meats at a certain temperature"
And you say I have a naive view of things.
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
What he said
The point here was that regulations were ignored, and the regulators failed to regulate. I would imagine the regulations we have in place are sufficient to keep something like this from happening if everything is done right.
There was a systematic failure of the entire process here. It wasn't a result of lack of regulation, rather a result of failure to inspect on the governments part.
Given the problem happened because the government had not inspected this facility in over 20 years, might it be possible that there are so many regulations that those assigned with enforcement thereof have to many to handle, and therefore perhaps fewer, but smarter regulations might be in order?
There was a systematic failure of the entire process here. It wasn't a result of lack of regulation, rather a result of failure to inspect on the governments part.
Given the problem happened because the government had not inspected this facility in over 20 years, might it be possible that there are so many regulations that those assigned with enforcement thereof have to many to handle, and therefore perhaps fewer, but smarter regulations might be in order?
ChesusRice
Well-Known Member
Without regulation
Gas stations wouldnt even think twice about selling 114 ozs as a gallon
MidwesternGro
Well-Known Member
More freedom to eat chicken tainted with salmonella infested cockroach droppings! Woo woo! USA USA!!! ::sticks sparkler up ass and dons an Uncle Sam top hat::
"Federal inspectors on Wednesday suspended processing at a poultry plant in California found to have been infested with cockroaches four times over the past five months.
The Foster Farm plant is one of three in central California being investigated for an outbreak of antibiotic-resistant salmonella.
The ongoing outbreak has sickened 416 people in 23 states according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta."
"Federal inspectors on Wednesday suspended processing at a poultry plant in California found to have been infested with cockroaches four times over the past five months.
The Foster Farm plant is one of three in central California being investigated for an outbreak of antibiotic-resistant salmonella.
The ongoing outbreak has sickened 416 people in 23 states according to the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta."
Less government.
Less government leads to a "crisis" or "emergency" which leads to even more government and for the people to give up something.
Rinse and repeat.
Heads they win Tails we lose.
Position/Opposition both actively gamed and played by the insider vipers, rats, jackals and owls.
Less government leads to a "crisis" or "emergency" which leads to even more government and for the people to give up something.
Rinse and repeat.
Heads they win Tails we lose.
Position/Opposition both actively gamed and played by the insider vipers, rats, jackals and owls.
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
What you meat eaters want to do is your business. Karma?
MidwesternGro
Well-Known Member
That bunny in your avatar look tasty!
jahbrudda
Well-Known Member
Not a very good example of pro regulation, gas stations all over the country are guilty of shorting customers.
So the regulation is failing.
How about environmental regulations that delay or kill land development?
Are spotted owls and yellow toed lizards more important than people needing jobs and homes?
Should environmental impact studies really take 1-5 years, is it worth the job losses to you?
Canna Sylvan
Well-Known Member
Say hello to my little friend.
canndo
Well-Known Member
The right - is either intentionaly obteuse here or just ignoring simple concepts.
More regulations is not bigger government, more regulation enforcers are. If a government says "henceforth no company will have holes in it's containment of toxic chemicals when placed close to major waterways". And then does not back that statement up with regular inspections - not much is going to change.
but the right constantly does the dance. They claim that more regulations are the problem while attempting all the while to keep there from being enough reources to actually enforce those regulations, oh and then they claim that more regulations don't work, because the ones we have don't, never mentioning that they never intended to pay for enough regulators to begin with.
Finally there is the "shit happens" crowd. Who hold up their hands in the midst of things like 300,000 people without decent water and say "who could have known?". Holes in containment, rotten barrels, low berms, close to major water way, upstream from drinking water intake - but.... hey, who could have fortold? As always, either they are fools indeed or they have a curious lack of forsight. The regulation and enforcement of big business practices by government means more freedom for the individual. The regulation and enforcement of the individual means less. Or we could look at it another way. If an individual person had dumped toxic chemicals in the waterway, for whatever reason, he would be soon be standing trial as a terrorist. But wait, aren't companies people too?
More regulations is not bigger government, more regulation enforcers are. If a government says "henceforth no company will have holes in it's containment of toxic chemicals when placed close to major waterways". And then does not back that statement up with regular inspections - not much is going to change.
but the right constantly does the dance. They claim that more regulations are the problem while attempting all the while to keep there from being enough reources to actually enforce those regulations, oh and then they claim that more regulations don't work, because the ones we have don't, never mentioning that they never intended to pay for enough regulators to begin with.
Finally there is the "shit happens" crowd. Who hold up their hands in the midst of things like 300,000 people without decent water and say "who could have known?". Holes in containment, rotten barrels, low berms, close to major water way, upstream from drinking water intake - but.... hey, who could have fortold? As always, either they are fools indeed or they have a curious lack of forsight. The regulation and enforcement of big business practices by government means more freedom for the individual. The regulation and enforcement of the individual means less. Or we could look at it another way. If an individual person had dumped toxic chemicals in the waterway, for whatever reason, he would be soon be standing trial as a terrorist. But wait, aren't companies people too?
The right does want fewer laws affecting business, you're right about that. But I don't think you can lay this one at their feet. If an inspector had made one visit to this place in over 20 years, it might have been avoided.
The simple fact is the "shit happenes" crowd is right here; not about this being a difficult situation to fathom, but it slipped the rough the cracks. I'm sure the budget of the appropriate agency was not neutered to the point that they can't get somewhere but once or twice a century. Shit happens, this place fell through the cracks. We can argue that republicans made the cracks a little wider, but there is no rational argument that they made them so wide for this to be predictable.
As to your point about criminal terrorism and individuals versus corporations. There is a major difference. First, no one said corporations are individuals, they said they are an association of individuals. Second, if a person did what you described, there were several intentional acts taking place with levels of intent that rise to dumping poison into the water. This cannot be said of the corporation. There were many individuals acting together, none intending to dump poison into water. Their intent was likely cutting costs. Because of this they are very likely guilty of negligence, res ipsa loquitor style. No one did anything with the culpability necessary to arise to a criminal standard, but if they did, and there is evidence, some heads will roll. But a corporation can offer something an idividual cannot, compensation to it's victims.
The real question is does the regulating agency share some of the negligence culpability for failing to inspect this place for over 20 years? I think they do, and as long as congress has not made it to where they are immune from such law suits (which is likely) they will be sued as well, either by the victims, or a cross action by the company.
canndo
Well-Known Member
I'll start somewhere in the middle here. You are trying to say on the one hand that regulations don't work, but on the other, that the problem was that no government official had visited the place in 20 years. Isn't the right the side that wants regulations to be "voluntary"? ARE you actually trying to claim that because no inspector showed up in 20 years, the company itself shouldn't have had to do anything? "cutting costs"? to the point of endangering the water supply for an entire city is an indigghtment of capitalism, now isn't it.
Again "if an inspector....". But you write as thouh inspectors simply arrive from on high and neglected this one. As I said before, a regulation is one thing, but "Big government" is not lots of regulations, it is lots of enforcers AND lots of regulations. No money, no enforcers.... and finally disaster - that is the free enterprise system, and you folks want it even more free?
That is NOT the "real question", if funds have been regularly cut for regulators. This argument happens over and over again from the Gulf spill, to Bengazi and yet you fail to address it. No money - no enforcement.
Giving compensation? Fat chance - check out The Exon Valdeze if you want to see how well civil remedies work. oh, again, I forgot, we all want tort reform too, right?
And lastly as to "no one said", [h=1]'Corporations Are People' - Mitt Romney[/h]