Regulations, bad or good?

[psionl0]

If regulation was just about safeguarding people against the criminal actions of big corporations or individuals putting profits before public safety then few people would argue against it.

However, much regulation is simply to ensure that government is as big as possible.

 

[DC]

If regulation was just about safeguarding people against the criminal actions of big corporations or individuals putting profits before public safety then few people would argue against it.

However, much regulation is simply to ensure that government is as big as possible.

then you should remove those regulations that are not needed.
you got some examples?

 

[psionl0]

then you should remove those regulations that are not needed.
you got some examples?

Do you know how many new laws and regulations are created by governments each year? Multiply that by the amount of work bureaucracies make people do to comply with all of these regulations (which creates a need for bigger bureaucracies) and it becomes apparent that the basic need for fundamental regulations has long been surpassed by a process that simply increases the size of government.

 

[Loss Leader]

What do you think? could we do without regulations?

It is impossible to do without regulation. So long as consumers can choose a product that works over one that will kill them, there will always be some mode of regulation. The question is whether it is a good thing to privatize regulation.

This generally involves letting a product injure or kill somebody and then suing the manufacturer. A costly suit (as when a car is unsafe at any speed) will induce the corporation to build a safer product. The cost of regulating is borne entirely by the consumer.

In many instances, socialization of the regulatory function is necessary to protect lives that the company could never compensate. A bad drug that kills 10,000 people would bring so many suits for so much $ that it's cheaper for everyone just to force the company to test the drug and prove to the people that it works.

 

[CDFingers]

Whether cats kill for fun is sort of a lame comparison, as the cats eventually eat what they kill.

Unregulated capitalism eats before killing...

CDFingers

 

[oggiesnr]

Do you know how many new laws and regulations are created by governments each year? Multiply that by the amount of work bureaucracies make people do to comply with all of these regulations (which creates a need for bigger bureaucracies) and it becomes apparent that the basic need for fundamental regulations has long been surpassed by a process that simply increases the size of government.

Examples please.

 

[Ranb]

in another Video Friedman shows an example of governmental regulation where someone is testing toy guns for children on noise-levels.

which seemed very laughable is actually quite important.

Which makes it all the more strange that a government would discourage the use of devices that reduce the noise of real guns, or prohibit their use by anyone. I am involved in a problem regarding firearm noise, and the local politicians are part of that problem. Regulations and statutes are getting in the way of making the area around my gun club a better place to live. An example of regulation just because they can.

Ranb

 

[DC]

Which makes it all the more strange that a government would discourage the use of devices that reduce the noise of real guns, or prohibit their use by anyone. I am involved in a problem regarding firearm noise, and the local politicians are part of that problem. Regulations and statutes are getting in the way of making the area around my gun club a better place to live. An example of regulation just because they can.

Ranb

a lot Parents discourage their kids to play with real guns.

I think there is a bit of a difference, and with silencers i thought the problem is crime. But i cannot see why that should not be allowed in a Gun Club. There it seems to be a huge advantage for surrounding people. But as far i know, Here you can get a license for Silencers, but most don't use them in gun clubs.

I think its more an example of bad or incomplete regulating.

 

[Ranb]

There is very little silencer related crime in the USA, even less with registered (no license, just pay a tax) silencers which are the only ones that are legal to own. It is a matter of perception. Even many gun owners think of silencers as tools for the police military and criminals, not as safety devices.

But my current problem is not with silencers intended for use on portable firearms. It is devices that are not attached to the gun, like shooting boxes (for inserting the rifle barrel), sound isolated shooting enclosures, berms, baffles etc. Anything used to reduce firearm noise is illegal where I live. The State uses this statute to keep guns noisy and does not stand in the way when people move in close, then complain and file lawsuits.

The local government is very aware of the problems, but refuses to do anything about it. They could zone property to keep homes and schools away from shooting areas, or allow the use of devices to reduce noise. But any attempt to do something about the noise (other than ban shooting) is not allowed to be passed into law.

Ranb

 

[DC]

There is very little silencer related crime in the USA, even less with registered (no license, just pay a tax) silencers which are the only ones that are legal to own. It is a matter of perception. Even many gun owners think of silencers as tools for the police military and criminals, not as safety devices.

But my current problem is not with silencers intended for use on portable firearms. It is devices that are not attached to the gun, like shooting boxes (for inserting the rifle barrel), sound isolated shooting enclosures, berms, baffles etc. Anything used to reduce firearm noise is illegal where I live. The State uses this statute to keep guns noisy and does not stand in the way when people move in close, then complain and file lawsuits.

The local government is very aware of the problems, but refuses to do anything about it. They could zone property to keep homes and schools away from shooting areas, or allow the use of devices to reduce noise. But any attempt to do something about the noise (other than ban shooting) is not allowed to be passed into law.

Ranb

I would say start a peoples Initiative when you can in that state. Or whatever mechanism you use to make the gov work like the people want.

 

[Ranb]

I am actively lobbying the state government for now. I have been thinking about the initiative, but have to learn more about them. They seem to work ok when it comes to limiting government or taxes, but I do not think people will care too much about a gun control initiative unless it is to put more restrictions on them.

Ranb

 

[DC]

I am actively lobbying the state government for now. I have been thinking about the initiative, but have to learn more about them. They seem to work ok when it comes to limiting government or taxes, but I do not think people will care too much about a gun control initiative unless it is to put more restrictions on them.

Ranb

sell it as restriction then
Gunclubs near schools etc, must have noise protection. and other may have.

 

[Ranb]

Hmmmmmmmmm. Adding another restriction that happens to help silencer owners like myself, but creates a burden for others is going to make me very popular indeed hahahahahhaha. Requiring a certain amount of sound isolation for rifle ranges located near residences is a good idea, until the county uses it as a means of forcing the clubs to upgrade (if they can afford it) or go out of business.

The rifle ranges in Washington State are already exempt from noise regulations. Why this does not shield them from noise lawsuits I do not know.

Ranb

 

[CDFingers]

Regulations on capitalism are supposed to protect the weak from the strong and to protect global finance from predation.

CDFingers