So what regulations do we ditch?

[ponderingturtle]

In a system as large as the US Govt it is very likely that there are regulations that cause more harm than good. The problem is identifying them and getting rid of them. You've hit the nail on the head. Campaigning to simply deregulate is just propaganda. Most responsible/reasonable politicians will admit that we need some level of regulation. So, what to cut? We need to audit the regulations by non-partisan sources. We should demand that politicians who campaign for deregulation should cite the regulations and the trade offs of changing or getting rid of those regulations.

Some of it seems to be at the business end that there is more interest in getting fines than in making sure companies understand the regulations to abide by them. Case in point the company I work for got hit with a major fine because a change in reporting requirements on lead.

 

[Toke]

This falls down at the "consent" part. You are assuming equal footing between employer and employee.

The assuming of equal footing is the core of libertarianism.

I cannot believe anyone can be dense enough to actually believe in it and therefore see libertarianism as a PR-stunt in the class war.

 

[Alferd_Packer]

the assuming of equal footing is the core of libertarianism.

I cannot believe anyone can be dense enough to actually believe in it and therefore not see libertarianism as a pr-stunt in the class war.

ftfy

 

[Alferd_Packer]

Some of it seems to be at the business end that there is more interest in getting fines than in making sure companies understand the regulations to abide by them. Case in point the company I work for got hit with a major fine because a change in reporting requirements on lead.

Then someone at your company was not doing thier job.

If you are emitting lead, then it would behoove you to stay up to date on the regulations.

 

[seayakin]

Indeed. I'm rather frustrated that the greatest American composition ever written is still copyrighted, even though the creator has been dead for almost three-quarters of a century. Getting rid of copyright laws wouldn't make the problem better, but going back to a system where copyrights were only the life of the author plus a few years seems fair.

I completely agree about copyright. (I don't know enough about patent law to comment.) However, I have difficulty with the life of the author from an administrative standpoint. In my first professional job part of my job involved managing an archive of music scores it it was often difficult to find out when some of the more obscure song writers died to determine what fell within the public domain. Frankly, I would much rather see a straight 50 or 75 years from creation of the item. Very simple to determine and I would hazard a guess that in most instances if someone can't make money off their creation in 50 or 75 years they will never make money off it.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Then someone at your company was not doing thier job.

If you are emitting lead, then it would behoove you to stay up to date on the regulations.

It had nothing to do with emitting lead just amount of lead on premises. In terms of copper that we still use our effluent stream has less copper in it than the tap water we get here.

It was that the reporting requirement went from at least 1000 lbs to 50 lbs. And so after talking to them and told we did not need to be concerned there was no notice that the requirements changed and we got hit with a massive fine.

Law enforcement is much more lucrative when the marks don't get told the rules.

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

(Malcolm): "What two or more consenting adults agree to do in the privacy of their own home, office, factory, or the great outdoors is their business, so long as no non-consenting third party is harmed (and "harm" has to be construed narrowly or you license unlimited State intrusion). If some home improvement contractor prefers to hire only gay vegetarian left-handed Chinese Methodists, that is, quite literally, his business."

This falls down at the "consent" part. You are assuming equal footing between employer and employee.

Not at all. Organizations are groups of people. I hold these truths to be self-evident: that no humans except for monozygotic twins are created equal, that even these start to diverge after conception, and that, with few exceptions, no remote bureaucratic authority can better address individual discomfort (whether from perceived inequal treatment or other causes) than will a policy of individual freedom. That is, the best remedy for unfair treatment by an employer is a competitive market for an employee's services.

 

[RandFan]

Then someone at your company was not doing thier job.

If you are emitting lead, then it would behoove you to stay up to date on the regulations.

Yeah, I used to bitch and moan when I got busted for not keeping up my bio-hazard waste manifests (I had a chemical developer that used silver). But you know what? It was my job and not the fault of govt if I failed to attach the invoice to the clip board and fill out the date and time of each pick up on the appropriate form. It wasn't their job to wait for me to dig through my paper work looking for invoices (they never did btw). After awhile of my boss yelling at me for paying fines I just followed the instructions and read the notices sent about bio-hazard waste disposal.

 

[Travis]

(Malcolm): "What two or more consenting adults agree to do in the privacy of their own home, office, factory, or the great outdoors is their business, so long as no non-consenting third party is harmed (and "harm" has to be construed narrowly or you license unlimited State intrusion). If some home improvement contractor prefers to hire only gay vegetarian left-handed Chinese Methodists, that is, quite literally, his business."

Not at all. Organizations are groups of people. I hold these truths to be self-evident: that no humans except for monozygotic twins are created equal, that even these start to diverge after conception, and that, with few exceptions, no remote bureaucratic authority can better address individual discomfort (whether from perceived inequal treatment or other causes) than will a policy of individual freedom. That is, the best remedy for unfair treatment by an employer is a competitive market for an employee's services.

Why the highlighted bit sounds like something we should use government to............regulate!

 

[Toke]

.....
Not at all. Organizations are groups of people. I hold these truths to be self-evident: that no humans except for monozygotic twins are created equal, that even these start to diverge after conception, and that, with few exceptions, no remote bureaucratic authority can better address individual discomfort (whether from perceived inequal treatment or other causes) than will a policy of individual freedom. That is, the best remedy for unfair treatment by an employer is a competitive market for an employee's services.

Is this supposed to be an argument for something?
Like since we are all slightly different there is suddenly no difference if power between employer and employee?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

Is this supposed to be an argument for something?
Like since we are all slightly different there is suddenly no difference if power between employer and employee?

We are not "equal". State attention to inequality, in the private sector is a waste of resources. The State will spend tax money monitoring and second-guessing employment decisions by private parties, when individuals can better defend themselves by finding another job.

 

[leftysergeant]

We are not "equal". State attention to inequality, in the private sector is a waste of resources. The State will spend tax money monitoring and second-guessing employment decisions by private parties, when individuals can better defend themselves by finding another job.

No. They can't just find other jobs. Read a news paper.

 

[rustypouch]

Why the highlighted bit sounds like something we should use government to............regulate!

Exactly. I have strong doubts that companies will do this all by themselves, unless there's a very strong motivation to.

 

[Travis]

We are not "equal". State attention to inequality, in the private sector is a waste of resources. The State will spend tax money monitoring and second-guessing employment decisions by private parties, when individuals can better defend themselves by finding another job.

And what if every business is boycotting the hiring of a certain minority?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

And what if every business is boycotting the hiring of a certain minority?

They lose to competitors who hire based on competence.

 

[nvidiot]

So if I consent to being a slave, that's okay so long as I consent to it?

Regulations are in place to prevent abuse.

 

[Chaos]

They lose to competitors who hire based on competence.

Which part of "every" do you not understand?

 

[Toke]

They lose to competitors who hire based on competence.

That may happen in some fantacy world of yours, in reality there is no big difference in competence.
Anyone can say "do you want fries with that".

BTW:
What does all these unique individuals you mentioned above do when faced with the same standard contracts from all employers, all with next to no rights, and a starvation wage?

 

[Malcolm Kirkpatrick]

So if I consent to being a slave, that's okay so long as I consent to it?

The classic Libertarian conundrum. If you want to kill yourself, no law will prevent it. If you don the ball gag and shackles yourself, no law can protect you.

Regulations are in place to prevent abuse.

Dream on. Regulations are in place at least as often to promote one group over another. Just consider Obamacare waivers, Mattel's waiver from application of the CPSiA, and the mother of all regulations, the minimum wage law, which protects high-priced (union) labor from lower-priced non-union labor, put in place at the Federal level with the explicit purpose to protect white employees of unionized Northern companies from competition from non-union Southern companies with predominantly black employees.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Case in point the company I work for got hit with a major fine because a change in reporting requirements on lead.

That sounds like a lot of spin. The company got fined, no doubt, for its failure to comply with the reporting requirements. (The Constitution prohibits ex post facto legislation. So they could not have changed the requirements after the fact and then cited the company for its failure to comply.)