I've been running this through my head yesterday and decided to use it as an analogy of what's been bothering me about this group of benevolent nanny-staters who are pretty much regulating or trying to regulate every area of our lives right now. It's the example I love to use of the Hannityland political forums with its myriad rules and regulations and I'll get to the Crux of the Problem in a minute. Lista has been commenting on blogs that move too fast and she ain't seen nothin' yet. At say the Hannity Forum on Politics let's say you're a little slow or have been away and you see an older thread you think you could constructively contribute to that'll move the topic back to the front page and everyone gets annoyed and complains to a mod there (dunno how many they have at this point but they keep recruiting more) and it becomes a Violation. You see the front page moves so fast that you post a new thread and check in on it after two or three hours and it's already on page two or three. So in our example which is a perfect one btw (not like some Carvel shit) here's the reason why things never get better over there like some overregulated workplace where nobody has any fun anymore.
They don't know they have a problem, that they're overregulating.
It's done with benevolent intentions of course, it's necessary. They can theoretically see that overregulating can be a problem and they'll agree with you but that's just theoretical, they themselves are not overregulating. So you don't want people to buy sugary drinks with food stamps, that's not overregulating (although I have a problem with the original welfare and that's an even bigger crux of a deeper problem but for another day.) No liberal thinks of himself or herself as an overregulator, just perfectly reasonable rules and laws being codified here. It's like Saty sees herself as a socialist but not the kind who wants to run your life for you so it's like a nice positive twist to an old definition that nobody likes anyway (cake/eating it too). If you support drug testing in order to become a deli clerk or a cashier for God's sake that's not overregulation just having a reasonable policy in place because we want to see what people are doing and want to hire the Best. A bicycle helmut is for Your Own Good, it's a reg but not an overreg until we pass the next reg and We Will but that too would not be an overreg...geez what is an overreg anyway? and it's like Pink says, "you're just like a Pill, instead of making me better you're making me ill." It's like alcoholism and denial, we can never become what we're criticized to be. It's like how much masturbation is too much masturbation? One dude masturbates 2X a day and another guy masturbates 5X a day, who is one to criticize the other? If you go to the top Overregulator if there is such a thing he'll just tell you to accept your confinement, it's a perspective thing anyway and what one person views as a cage another will see as a mansion. In short a Liberal can never actually become a Liberal, that's just a dirty word anyway.
In short the moral of our little story is that it's not the Mods at Hannityland who are the Problem, it's YOU. The problem ain't LEE, he's just keeping YOU guys in check. You just have a bad attitude.
Z-man: Over-regulators really don’t think they have a problem. In fact, they truly, deep down in their heart of hearts, BELIEVE they have everyone’s best interest in mind; however regulations usually hinder and take away freedoms. Then there’s the whole issue of wack-jobs using these very regulations to find loop-holes to prove they were somehow a “victim” and sue for a gazillion dollars-- then the laws/regulations gets stricter and more restrictive… and on and on it goes.
ReplyDeleteOf course that's just my opinion.
"what one person views as a cage, another will see as a mansion."
ReplyDeleteNow there is the Most Insightful Statement in the Above Post and it is Part of the Problem. You see, some Liberals, that is the Poor Ones, would Absolutely Love to Live in the "Cages" of those who have more than they do. I guess they Feel that if the Rich are "Caged" a little more, they will be able to Expand their Own "Cages", for Poverty is a sort of Cage as well.
What I don't Like, though, if you really want to know, or for that Matter, even if you don't, is when they Regulate Based on Bad Science. The Environmentalists are WAY Out of Line with their Regulations, even to the Point of Putting Bogus Science Ahead of the Condition of our Economy.
Lista: IMO, If someone is feeling "caged in" it's up to him/her to find a way out--THAT should NOT be govt's responsibility, UNLESS the person is totally INCAPABLE. An entitlement attitude is NOT a disability. I should watch there, it'll end up in the DSM (Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders).
ReplyDeleteRegulation based on bad science...oh so true!! And science is ALWAYS changing! One day coffee is good for you, the next it isn't. That changed at least a half dozen times (it's back to being good for you again, by the way). Just using that as a quick example because I'm so tired right now, but you SMART people get the general idea.
"The Environmentalists are WAY Out of Line with their Regulations, even to the Point of Putting Bogus Science Ahead of the Condition of our Economy."
ReplyDelete..Lista you are too young to remember. But I remember. Sulfuric acid piped directly to a river.
Raw initiating explosives dumped into streams. Dead fish for miles. Yes, the economy did well, it is cheap and efficient to just dump toxics into waterways. But the waterways are not owned by the offending business.
Like you, I have my problems with EPA regulations. As a former scientist, I argued with them constantly for my company. It is instructive in light of your 'bad science' feelings to know that science is overriden by lawyers when it comes to regs. IMO, when we use the term 'bad science' we
really mean 'science which I disagree with'. You know, bad politics, bad religion, bad folks etc.
BTW, I know an old guy that has never used seat belts in his life. Quite an independent fellow..he used to work for me! And it is hard to argue with his reasons..it is HIS life, he endangers no one else, and why should he be forced to do something against his will. So the entire area of regulation
is one of too little, too much, depending on very many factors. Like the good old Montana speed limit..drive as fast as you think you can safely go!
Government edicts and regulations are all bullshit anyways. All they do is great makework jobs for bureaucrats. Consider that despite the FDA, USDA, etc. We've had lettuce, spinach, pistachios, peanuts, eggs, peanut butter, etc end up being recalled. Of course in their feeble minds the problem isn't the complete and total ineffectiveness but rather a lack of power and authority.
ReplyDeleteSome humans have bad intentions which is why you don't want to give them the reigns of government's monopolistic powers.
Pamela,
ReplyDelete"An entitlement attitude is NOT a disability."
So True and yet Figuring Out what is an Attitude and what is a Disability is not as Easy as it Seems. Clinical Depression, for Example, is Often Considered an Attitude and People Expect those who Suffer from it to just "Snap Out of It." and yet they can't.
I always Remembered something that my Father Said about Money and College Grants. He Said that if you are Extremely Wealthy, you do not Need a Grant. If you are Extremely Poor, you can Get One, but if you are Middle Class, then you are Screwed.
After awhile, I began to View Disabilities that way. If you don't have one, you'll be Fine. If have one that is Severe Enough, you'll get Aid, but if you are just a little bit Slower then the Rest, you are Screwed.
Thus, the People who Work Two Minimum Wage Jobs just to get By. These sort of Folks are not even the Slightest Bit Lazy.
I Never Thought about Bad Science in Relation to Food. Yeh. That's Another Thought.
BB,
When I Spoke of Bad Science, I was Mainly Thinking of Al Gore and his Global Warming Baloney. There are a lot of Really Intelligent Scientists that are Arguing that this just isn't True.
"when we use the term 'bad science', we really mean 'science which I disagree with'."
No, Actually I mean Science that is Debated by Scientists. My Own Personal Opinion about the Science isn't worth anything because I'm not a Scientist, but if Scientists are Debating the Issue, then it Lacks Scientific Proof and we should not be Basing Decisions that Effect the Economy on such Things.
Some Regulations are Necessary, but the Government is all the Time Over Doing it. They Do Environmental Impact Reports, but do not Take the Time to also Consider Economic Effects and Weigh one against the other.
Soap,
ReplyDeleteYou know, if I was Going to Do Away with Regulations, I do not Think that I would Start with Food. What if the Recalls were not even Required? That wouldn't be Good.
Jamaican chef I knew said this. He drove a cab for a while and the poor had their tab picked up and he said to me the only people who make out in life are the rich and the poor, the middle class is screwed. It's always been that way.
ReplyDeleteBB: “Bad science” probably wasn’t the best phrase. Perhaps, like Lista mentioned, debatable or disputable science are better terms.
ReplyDeleteI’m not extremely fond of the EPA or even OSHA, as I’ve had quite a few encounters with the latter during my career days, but I do agree that it’s wrong for businesses to purposely pollute our waterways with chemicals that are KNOWN to be poisonous. That to me is just common sense, but as we know common sense isn’t common and there are greedy people in all walks of life, hence, we do need some regulation. So, where do we draw the line? It seems that as soon as we begin regulating it turns into OVER-regulation, as Z-man wrote.
I agree with your friend on the seat belt laws, even though I began wearing my seat belt long before it was ever a law. My husband doesn’t wear his, however, when he’s in the vehicle with our children and/or me, he has to at my bequest. I told him that it’s HIS choice not to wear a seat belt (law or not and he can pay the fine if caught) but it’s MY choice not to be crushed by his flying body if we’re ever in an accident. Oh and he knows if he goes through the windshield and ends up a veggie, I’m pulling the plug. That may sound mean, but I do believe that seat belts save lives, BUT, it should NOT be mandated by the gov’t.
Like I've Said before, if only we could do both an Environmental Report AND ALSO an Economic or Economy Report and Weigh the Two against each other. In California, though, the Environmentalists always Win and the Economy Suffers Because of it. Perhaps if I lived in a Different State, I wouldn't Feel Quite as Strongly about it as I do, but I've Grown to Greatly Dislike Environmentalists, cause in California, they are WAY Out of Hand.
ReplyDeleteLista: I don't think living there has anything to do with it. I don't live there and I'm not too fond of the environmentalists.
ReplyDeleteCalifornia is known for cowering to the enviromentalists. It seems like they are always saving the trees over people or saving the rare fish and letting the house burn because the fish is in the water that's needed to put out the fire---or some such and such. Why is that? I've always believed PEOPLE first. But the environmentalists don't seem to view things through the same looking glass.
You Know, I get such a Kick Out of our Neighbors Answering Machine. It Says "Sorry, Can't come to the Phone Right Now. I'm out Back Barbecuing a Spotted Owl." I Laugh every time I Hear that. What a Guy! lol.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of Fish, though, a Bunch of Farmers, here in the North State, have gone Broke because they Shut Off their Water in the Name of some Endangered Fish in the Sacramento Bay. Unbelievable!!
"Soap,
ReplyDeleteYou know, if I was Going to Do Away with Regulations, I do not Think that I would Start with Food. What if the Recalls were not even Required? That wouldn't be Good."
The regulations presently in place which are meant to protect the general populace from food born illnesses have failed miserably.
What's more, the FDA and USDA, et al. are not endeavored towards protecting the American citizenry from food born illnesses in so much as they are intent on securing corporate interests (and this assertion is confirmed by former FDA and USDA heads and employees).
There are natural regulatory checks and balances within a free-market system. Neither in a free-market system nor by government edict are people going to be completely void of any harmful potentialities. However, all government edicts do is create makework jobs and aid in securing monopolies.
.
I Don't Throw Things Out, Soap, because the Effectiveness isn't Perfect. Nothing is Perfect. The Only Question that is Important is "Would it be even Worse if the Regulations were not there?" and I Believe that the Answer to that Question is Yes.
ReplyDeleteThe Natural Checks and Balances that you speak of are not Fast Enough. By the Time People become Sick and Realize that they should no Longer Buy from a Certain Grocery Store or Vendor, it is too Late and the Recalls would never Happen, because Recalls Create Publicity that Hurt Businesses, so they would Avoid Doing them in Order to Protect themselves, this would result in a Higher Number of Sicknesses and even Deaths than is Currently Occurring.
Your assumptions are based on unprovable assertions.
ReplyDeleteYou state that the recalls wouldn't happen because they "create publicity that hurt businesses".
Not recalling products and then having that negative publicity swirling around is just as detrimental to said businesses.
It just seems to me that there would be more Attempts at Cover Ups.
ReplyDeleteLeaving the Subject of Food, though, What about the Comment Made above by BB-Idaho? Even though I Presented Examples of how the Environmentalists have Gotten Out of Hand with their Regulations, BB Presented an Example of a Time in which such Regulations were Necessary.
Also, what about the Time in Our History in which the Factory Workers were being Mistreated with Severely Negative Working Conditions and because of it, the Unions were Formed, yet now the Unions have all the Power and are Taking Advantage of the Business Man, Insisting on Wages so High that People are Taking their Business Over Seas.
This is what Happens when there is no Government to Mediate and Keep Things Fair.
American Hypocrites:
ReplyDeleteThe only thing Americans hate more than big government is the absence of government protection.
http://www.slate.com/id/2260968/
I've Told you Many Times, Soap, that I Think the Answer is in the Middle and that I do not Believe in either Extreme (Excessive Regulations and Zero Regulation). This is the Subject that I am Referring to when I Speak of Extremes. You see, the other Subject that we Discussed (Globalism) is something entirely Different.
ReplyDeleteIn Relation to Regulation, there is nothing Hypocritical about Disliking both Extremes and Choosing to Find a Middle Ground. I've Been Consistent in this Position from Day One.
For over two hundred years the middle ground has brought us to where we are today. There is no middle ground between tyranny and liberty.
ReplyDeleteThere is a Difference between Tyranny and Mediation. The Government is not Supposed To Cater to One Particular "Special Interest Group" or another. It is Supposed to Protect the Rights of Everyone Equally. "Equal Protection Under the Law"
ReplyDeleteAlso, what makes you Think that there is no such thing as the "Tyranny" of the Rich. Your Mention of the Federal Reserve is Actually a Good Example of this, for the Banks are Made up of the Rich. In Light of this, it is not Really the Government that is Controlling Things, but the Banks, so it is not Really the "Tyranny" of the Government, but of the Rich.
And what about the "Tyranny" of the Unions. "Tyranny" comes from all sorts of Sources, not just the Government.
Don't you see? The Liberals Think that the Rich are the Source of all Evil and the Conservatives Think that the Government is the Source of all Evil, yet Evil is Present Everywhere and that is the Reason why we need to have a Balance of Powers. Just as we Need a Balance of Power between the Three Branches of Government, so also we Need to Balance the Powers within Government and the Powers within the Free Markets.
"There is no middle ground between tyranny and liberty.'
ReplyDelete"Liberty may be endangered by the abuses of liberty as well as the abuses of power." James Madison
Thanks BB. Here is the Same Thing said in a Different Way.
ReplyDeleteThere is no Freedom without Law. Anarchy is not Freedom. If we did not "Regulate" Crime, People would not have the Freedom to Walk Down the Street without Fearing for their Lives. Likewise there is no Freedom without at Least some "Regulation".
"If we did not 'Regulate' Crime"
ReplyDeleteSince when do we regulate crime? Can I walk down a street in Detroit at 3 in the morning? It's often been said the only purpose of the government is to keep us safe and they can't even do this. CRIME is actually a very important issue but you don't see it mentioned much in campaigns these days because I guess we've gotten so used to it.
Pam re her husband who doesn't like to wear a seatbelt: "He knows if he goes through the windshield and ends up a veggie I'm pulling the plug."
ReplyDeleteOHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!
Z,
ReplyDeleteYou can not Argue that something is not Beneficial, just because it is not Perfect. That is a Classic Fallacy in Logic. If there were no Laws in the Attempt to Regulate the Behavior of Criminals, things would be even Worse. I might Feel Like Anarchy, yet True Anarchy is even Worse.
You Know, Pam's Point about her Husband not Wearing a Seat Belt is Interesting, because it Points to the Fact that there is really no such Thing as a Behavior that Only Effects Oneself.
"If there were no Laws in the attempt to Regulate the Behavior of Criminals things would be even Worse."
ReplyDeleteCriminals by definition don't obey the Law, that's why they're known as criminals. Sure the system's not perfect but we hardly have the handle on Crime that you seem to think we have.
Wanted to throw this out to soapie and I've toyed with the idea of blogging about it but didn't for fear of being misinterpreted maybe. Vigilantism, now I'm not for it but do you think it deters crime is the question and doesn't vigilantism take place when there is a vacuum in the government protecting us from crime?
Depends on the degree of vigilantism I suppose. I don't advocate going around and beating the hell out of someone who you might suspect guilty of something or another.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I a little vigilance goes a long ass way. Just ask Alex Jones.
Z,
ReplyDeleteOnce again, I'm stating that I know the System isn't Perfect. Another thing to Consider is that it is not Right to Judge Things based on what Goes on in the City. In More Remote Areas, Crime is better Under Control than in the Cities and all I'm saying is that without Laws and the Punishment of the Criminals that are Caught and Arrested, the Crime would be even Worse.
Vigilantism is an Interesting Subject. I was just Talking Recently with someone (a Libertarian) who thought that the Government should Butt Out of Family Affairs and that the Domestic Violence Job should be Returned to Vigilance Committees within the Churches. I don't know that I agree, but his Thoughts were Interesting.
Among this Guy's Explanation, he said that the "Jury of your Peers" originally meant a Jury of those who have Similar Belief Systems as yourself, thus, the Churches.
ReplyDeleteIn the olde days, in the era Hamlet took place in, if you did something to a member of my family I'm coming after you. No law, no prosecutor to say you've gone too far and that was that. Charles Bronson, it's emotionally attractive and it resonates and maybe it is a deterrent to crime after all. Juries, ah that's a whole other subject.
ReplyDelete"if you did something to a member of my family I'm coming after you. No law, no prosecutor to say you've gone too far and that was that. Charles Bronson, it's emotionally attractive and it resonates and maybe it is a deterrent to crime after all." ...seemed to work for the Hatfields and McCoys. Domestic violence?
ReplyDeletePshaw, out here in 2nd Amendement country it is a popular sport. Again this week some guy did in his wife then put the ol deer rifle to his head.
..family affair, I guess.
Well you always have ones to give vigilantism a bad name BB. Instead of shooting some sick clown who's raped 22 kids, I mean who can disagree with that...in Death Wish Paul Kersey was extremely selective...they'll gun down the boss or the guy who cut them off. Moderation:)
ReplyDeleteActually Z,
ReplyDeleteWhen I said Domestic Affairs, I did not just Mean when someone else does something to my Family, but also when there is Mistreatment and Abuse within the Family. In this case, someone from Outside of the Family Needs to Step in.
All too true and yet too many women love their abusers. Gotta go to work at 3:)
ReplyDeleteI Actually Wrote the Below for a Comment on a Different Post, on another blog, but it Relates here as well, so Perhaps I Might Actually Post it in Two Places.
ReplyDeleteWhat I want to Know is just how Far to the Right some Libertarians (on this Blog, Soap) are Willing to go.
Do you know that I Actually met a Libertarian Recently who Thinks we should go Back in Time and Set up Vigilance Committees to Impose Law, rather than the Government. I Guess what he Actually said was that the Government should Stay Out of Domestic Disputes and that that Job should Return to the Churches.
He Explained how the Original Meaning of the Phrase "Jury of our Peers" was a Jury made up of those with Similar Belief Systems as themselves, thus, the Churches.
The Problem is that Back when there were Vigilance Committees, we had this Group Known as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK) and my Friend Claims that the KKK Actually Started as a Vigilance Committee, yet as we all Know, that is not what they are Known for. The Wikipedia Describes them as a "Far Right" Group whose Main Focus was "White Supremacy, White Nationalism and Anti-Immigration". They were Known for all Sorts of Racism and Terrorism and were Considered a "Hate Group".
The Other Common Occurrence during the Era of Vigilance Committees was the Witch Hunts, which Resulted in many Deaths at the Hand of the Churches.
How Far Right are you Willing to Go, Soap? Do you Actually believe in Anarchy? And what about Vigilance Committees? Certainly you do not Support some of the Stuff I just Mentioned.
"too many women love their abusers."
ReplyDeleteThe Reason for this is that they have such a Low Self-Esteem that they Actually Believe that they Deserve the way they are being Treated. Some of them also Feel Trapped, because they do not Believe that anyone else is going to Love them and/or if they Leave their Abuser, he is just going to come after them.
In Such Situations, the Abused are Continually Put Down and this Perpetuates their Lack of Faith in themselves. Some Abusers too can be Quite Charming when they are not being Abusive. They are Control Freaks and Reward Obedience. In the Void of Complements and Love, when it is Finally Given, the Appeal is Significant, because of the Previous Long Drought, so the Appeal of Obedience in Order to Receive a Reprieve from the Insults is Actually Appealing.
It Takes Ego Strength to Escape this Cycle, yet Ego Strength is exactly what these Women do not Have.
If you have to Go, Z, then Go. My Comments will Still be here when you get Back.
How far are you willing to go? Good question and the logical tailend of extreme libertarianism is of course anarchy. You know the late Aaron Russo posed a very interesting question at the beginning of one of his films. He asked the audience this question: when you're driving and you see a cop behind you do you feel safe and secure or uncomfortable? Most folks said uncomfortable. Now this really shouldn't be but it is and it's one of the reasons I'm a libertarian but not in that extreme sense. For me on the positive side the cop represents Law and Order but on the negative side and this is significant he also represents the Power of the State hence I think this is why you get such mixed feelings about them. You call them in an emergency but don't like them driving behind you although I think conservatives like to say they're pro-cop all the time.
ReplyDeleteWell, I'm Glad for Cops and I'm Glad for a Few Laws.
ReplyDelete& you're especially glad when they're behind you when you're driving.
ReplyDeleteIf I'm not Breaking the Law, then why should that Matter?
ReplyDeleteOh my dear but there are a thousand laws to break, you may not even know them all. Now not only do cops represent the Power of the State but they may at times be called upon to enforce a Political Agenda (think pro-life protestors, what have you).
ReplyDelete