It is my guess that when we move from vague charges to specific situations, we tend to find more agreement (and hopefully, a reason to be careful about making vague charges).
The fella who misogynistically and with hints of racism drunkenly states, "Danged welfare queens ought to be cut off the gov't teat..." when confronted of the reality of the single mother who has a child with cancer and is needing some assistance and the gov't provides it, that same fella might be willing to allow, "Well, I don't want to cut EVERYONE off, only those who abuse the system... Certainly not that poor mother..."
So, we all agree that we don't want an anarchist state, free of all gov't. We all agree that we don't want a heavy-handed dictatorial state. It's drawing the lines in between the two where we disagree. So, what if I offer a few fairly specific situations where I think obviously we need gov't intervention/regulation, other areas where I allow that it's questionable and yet other areas where gov't intervention/regulation is overkill? And what if you do the same?
OBVIOUS
1. Driving a motor vehicle while impaired - this is an obvious threat to innocent bystanders and can clearly be regulated.
2. Dumping toxic waste into a stream - again, the clear threat of reasonable harm to others.
3. Prohibiting an adult from marrying a five year old. Yuck.
Less Clear
1. Driving while impaired is clearly wrong. But where is the line drawn for "impaired..."? We use Blood Alcohol Content as a measure, often saying .08 BAC is "impaired."
This is, in some sense, an arbitrary line. Is everyone always impaired at .08? I don't know, but I hear that this is not the case. Some states may have higher standards (I believe that Colorado has a .05 standard), is that fair?
What about if someone wanted to make it .0001 BAC? Fair?
Probably not, but the point would be that the gov't can reasonably impose a regulation on a behavior that might cause harm to others and a line has to be drawn somewhere.
2. Obviously, we don't want people dumping toxic/poisonous/hazardous waste into our common waterways. Thus, we've created laws that prohibit, for instance, an individual or company from dumping waste auto oil into a storm drain. That drain leads to our waterways and just don't be stupid.
We WANT our gov't to regulate that behavior and stop by weight of law any who engage in such behavior. But where is that line?
If a company has waste fluids involved in their factory's processes and they clean it up before discharging it to the sewage system, is that good enough? How "clean" does it need to be? If mercury can cause harm to humans when found in water at .0001 parts per million (just made up the number), is it okay to say that company must clean it up to .0001 ppm? Or do we want to say .00001 ppm to be safe?
Where to draw the line can be vague and hard to say, but clearly drawing a line must happen and is a reasonable responsibility of the gov't.
I will say that I lean towards a more conservative take - that is, if it LOOKS LIKE, by our best current knowledge - that pollution at .0001 ppm is possibly dangerous, then we want to disallow pollution at a vastly safer/higher rate...
That is the good type of conservatism, seems to me.
3. Prohibiting three rational adults from marrying... If there is no harm, if everyone is in agreement and wanting this, if no coercion is involved... is it the state's responsibility to say yes or no?
On this topic, I would say that it's less clear as to whether the state ought to be involved or not. My inclination, though, is that polygamy has a history of being predominantly used in cultures that oppress/suppress women. It's almost always one man/many women and not the other way around. The women often have appeared (at least to me) to be overly meek and submissive and perhaps not in the best reasoning place to make the decision due to a harshly patriarchal culture that has encouraged (often by weight of "God will punish you if not" sorts of teachings) this submissiveness. For this reason, I lean against supporting polygamy and think the state has a reason to draw the line.
But I will allow that it's less clear and that an argument could be made that it's not the gov't's business, as long as no one is harmed and everyone is free to make their own rational adult choice.
TOO Much Gov't
1. Gov't saying that an adult can't purchase a twinkie to have as an unhealthy snack of their choice. The only harm there is potentially to the individual and then, only if taken in excess. Same for alcohol, tobacco or marijuana.
2. On the pollution front, I'm not sure where I'd say too much regulation is too much, but I'm sure there's a line I could agree to that's too much. I just think that society's right to clean air and water overrides an individual's or corporation's "right" (which doesn't exist, seems to me) to pollute, even at incredibly small rates.
3. Two adult men or women (gay or straight) wanting to get married. Clearly, the gov't has no business in dictating this, as long as everyone is a rational adult making a decision free of coercion.
=======
So, what about it? Can you offer instances of more specific regulations that you think are justified? That are too much? Some that you're not sure on?
How about this: I hate loud noises. When ambulances, overly-loud car stereos or motorcycles designed to roar pass by, I cover my ears. It causes physical pain (not great pain - I don't want to overstate the point - but extreme annoyance and a bit of pain).
Can the state reasonably regulate this? At certain times of the day, at least? Or in certain locations? I tend to say, Yes (well, except for the ambulance, which is loud for a safety reason).
You?
76 comments:
So, we all agree that we don't want an anarchist state, free of all gov't. We all agree that we don't want a heavy-handed dictatorial state. It's drawing the lines in between the two where we disagree.
Yes.
As a broad statement, I would like for government to do four things:
1. protect from crime
2. protect from invasion
3. enforce contracts
4. provide for children and the mentally ill/disabled who lack external means of support
I agree with your conclusion that there is a place for government for environmental protection. I would place this under category 1.
The problem is this: many ecologically damaging activities cannot be readily constrained within property lines. If I dump sulfur dioxide into the air above my home, it drifts over into the air above my neighbor's home.
These and similar activities are reasonable situations for government intervention.
Nuisance noise issues: again, a propertarian perspective provides clarity. Dan may play his disco music as loud as he wants, but it must not disturb me across my property line. If it does, Dan must desist.
My own (admittedly few) political priorities lie in reigning the federal government back into a legal fence that was once built around: the Constitution. The federal government currently engages in many activities prohibited by the Constitution. Here are just a few of them, listed off the top of my head:
the War on Drugs
Social Security
Department of Education
Department of Commerce
Department of Health and Human Services
TVA
Medicare
Department of the Interior
Department of Energy
Department of Transportation
Department of Housing and Urban Development
Department of Agriculture
NASA
National Endowment for the Arts
National Endowment for the Humanities
PBS/NPR
EPA
You might be able to argue that some of these agencies could serve a good and proper purpose. I would, for example, argue that the EPA should exist in some form. But for the moment, all of them are unconstitutional and should be abolished until such time as the Constitution is amended to permit their existence.
Since PBS has been in the news.. I really dont see the point in targeting this group (or NPR or the NEA.. ect). Not only are they small, but they provide a needed cultural home base.
As much as I like NPR, etc, I'm fine with including them in the discussion. The point is, What IS right-sized gov't...? What roles are legitimate for the (in this case) federal gov't to have their hand in, and what roles are not reasonable/appropriate for a federal gov't?
I agree with you, Parklife, that from a practical point of view, they are a bit of a drop in a great big bucket, but what is reasonable about the federal gov't providing money for public broadcasting? (That isn't to say there isn't a role, it's just asking the question.)
John, I know many libertarian and strict constitutionalists agree with your point that none of these things are constitutional. I'm not a lawyer or a constitutional scholar, but my understanding is that the Supreme Court disagrees with the strict Constitutionalists and that your position is not the legal understanding of what the Constitution says. If it were, then all one would have to do is appeal any of these roles before the SC and, poof!, they'd be declared unconstitutional.
Where am I mistaken?
The Supreme Court may declare that the Earth is flat, but that doesn't make it so.
The Constitution is a fairly simple document. It is understandable to anyone who can read and engage in some research. It is not written in a cryptic code or some long-lost language.
Article 1 of the Constitution invests in Congress all legislative power. It then spells out those powers. Some amendments (e.g. the 13th) expand those powers. Amendment 10 restricts Congress to those powers. X is not listed as a power of Congress in article 1 or the amendments, therefore X is unconstitutional.
In the place of X, apply each item on the list that I provided.
From time to time, it may be necessary to amend the Constitution. Article 5 covers this need.
John, here's my response.
Is it me or is the fact that the federal government regulates the number of transactions per month for savings accounts a little disturbing. Not only is it controlled it's a $75.00 fine per instance if you go over.
I know I can be naive, but I kind of thought the money in our bank accounts was ours to do with as we choose.
I'd say that is an unusual practice, if accurate. Why would they do that? Is there some reasoning?
On the face of that, I'd say that would be an example of silly over-reach.
Having said that, there are probably often extenuating circumstances and/or reasons that are not always obvious at first blush for some rules. I'd be opposed to kneejerk removal of rules simply because they don't make sense at first blush.
Dan,
I got caught by this last year and I was unable to get a clear answer.
Well, let me be clear: Gov't being a bureaucracy, I have no doubts that we could not find rules that we could live without and that gov't doesn't really have a rationally-sound responsibility to implement.
Some friends of mine have been trying to get a home built for several years and it took a couple of years to jump through the necessary building permit hoops, so I know it happens. But then, those permits are there for a reason, usually. Just not always good reasons.
Having millions of people, millions of jobs, billions of options and chances to cause harm and variations on those options, life in a society can be complex with no simple answers, sometimes. I understand the desire to shed ourselves of unnecessary gov't rules and, where it makes sense, support it. But I just don't think it's always that simple.
The rules regarding bank transactions are used to track possible drug and terrorist activity. There are legitimate state interests involved, and most folks in the course of their actions will not run up against them, which is one reason why the threshold is so high as well as the fine.
If the sole reason for the organization of state power were personal prosperity or the maintenance and expansion of commercial, financial, and economic interests, I might be more willing to listen to Libertarians. These are important social ends, to be sure, but there are other, equally important ends - and deciding which is more important at any given time is the reason there's this thing called "politics", so folks can gain power or access to power and make decisions based upon their own set of priorities - that are also the legitimate ends of state power. The police power. The maintenance of national sovereignty. Defense against external threats. The proliferation of non-state actors, both human and environmental, requiring multi-state, multi-national coordiation efforts. The degradation of the environment.
I could go on. There is no formula for balancing these interests. There is no hint or clue in the Constitution as to how we go about deciding how we act in order to move forward any particular agenda of social priorities. Again, that's why there's politics, and it has nothing to do with Administration or management. It embraces but also transcends them because we can only administer and manage what we have generally agreed are our priorities, and the way we do that is politics.
Here's a question to throw out there....
I get how discussions of limited government vs. however one wants to characterize our government now are probably interesting for historical reasons, and the sort of discussions that undergrads have after a beer too many.
But, since, practically speaking, we're never, ever, ever going to get rid of even a quarter of the stuff on the avg. libertarian's list of stuff to get rid of, what's the point, exactly?
Sure, there's stuff on John's list I wouldn't mind seeing gone and/or severely curtailed. There's other stuff that isn't on the list that should never have been created (I'm looking at you, TSA).
But arguing about a bunch of dead guy's interpretation of the Constitution to support an argument about whether we're going to get rid of government programs that We're. Never. Going. To. Get. Rid. Of. seems a little pointless....
.... Particularly when the parties having the argument about reducing the size of government are doing so using about a half dozen DARPA-invented technologies. ;)
(The $75.00 savings account rule isn't the only one like it. There are all sorts of rules about maximum amounts of money you can transfer by cash, etc...all either DEA or DHS rules. I would love to see the Democrat who proposes eliminating those rules because you know he/she is immediately going to get plastered as pro-drug and anti-security by the opposing Republican. Are we really surprised stupid rules like that keep building up?)
I was going to bring this up in the previous post as an example of the types of regulations referred to by those who insist fewer regs would help the economy. It is an easy example of unnecessary regulations that should never even have been contemplated. A few years back, some less than rational woman ordered a cup of coffee from a fast-food drive-thru. She spilled it and was, to some extent, scalded. She sued. The first problem here is that any judge actually chose to hear the case instead of refusing to do so. There are two ways to order coffee. One is, a cup of coffee and the other is a cup of ice coffee. The former, in all its variations, is always served, of all things, hot. How hot is irrelevant. When I order coffee from McDonald's, for instance, I assume it will be piping hot. This allows for the coffee to remain hot for as long as possible. I have always assumed it had to do with the notion that one might order coffee, bring it to work or home and drink it there, or, in other words, not immediately.
Now, perhaps it is sometimes served far hotter than it ever needs to be, and it is possible that in the case of the scalded woman, it may even have been hotter than it was ever intended to be. But to force companies to warn people that their hot coffee is hot seems completely idiotic. There are hundreds of such laws and regs that impose an unnecessary expense on business. "Keep hands from under mower when blades are moving" seems self-evident, but the lack of such warnings have allowed fools the ability to be compensated for their stupidity.
As to noise levels, there are already disturbing the peace laws in most municipalities, some of which have been tweaked to rule on legal decibel levels to deal with car stereos. I believe that blasts from a train are restricted during late evening hours. I don't think ambulances, or even police cars, use their sirens in the middle of the night.
Regarding corporate "rights" to pollute:
This situation, first of all, is based on the corporation's right to do business. Pollution that might be a result is a legitimate concern, but there is often the illegitimate suggestion that what the corporation does is not important and therefor the business must cease until pollution concerns are addressed. This ignores the people who feed their families as a result of employment with such corporations, and it also ignores the consumers of the products produced by that corporation. It could be something that is used by thousands of other corporations that produce things we all need. The pollution is a real concern, but so would be the loss of the jobs and the products that others depend upon.
Newer companies are more likely to consider this dilemma during the planning phase of their start up. Existing companies have a different situation and regulations imposed upon them can be crippling in a way that hurts far more people than the stock-holders.
I was going to bring this up in the previous post as an example of the types of regulations referred to by those who insist fewer regs would help the economy. It is an easy example of unnecessary regulations that should never even have been contemplated. A few years back, some less than rational woman ordered a cup of coffee from a fast-food drive-thru. She spilled it and was, to some extent, scalded. She sued. The first problem here is that any judge actually chose to hear the case instead of refusing to do so. There are two ways to order coffee. One is, a cup of coffee and the other is a cup of ice coffee. The former, in all its variations, is always served, of all things, hot. How hot is irrelevant. When I order coffee from McDonald's, for instance, I assume it will be piping hot. This allows for the coffee to remain hot for as long as possible. I have always assumed it had to do with the notion that one might order coffee, bring it to work or home and drink it there, or, in other words, not immediately.
Now, perhaps it is sometimes served far hotter than it ever needs to be, and it is possible that in the case of the scalded woman, it may even have been hotter than it was ever intended to be. But to force companies to warn people that their hot coffee is hot seems completely idiotic. There are hundreds of such laws and regs that impose an unnecessary expense on business. "Keep hands from under mower when blades are moving" seems self-evident, but the lack of such warnings have allowed fools the ability to be compensated for their stupidity.
As to noise levels, there are already disturbing the peace laws in most municipalities, some of which have been tweaked to rule on legal decibel levels to deal with car stereos. I believe that blasts from a train are restricted during late evening hours. I don't think ambulances, or even police cars, use their sirens in the middle of the night.
Regarding corporate "rights" to pollute:
This situation, first of all, is based on the corporation's right to do business. Pollution that might be a result is a legitimate concern, but there is often the illegitimate suggestion that what the corporation does is not important and therefor the business must cease until pollution concerns are addressed. This ignores the people who feed their families as a result of employment with such corporations, and it also ignores the consumers of the products produced by that corporation. It could be something that is used by thousands of other corporations that produce things we all need. The pollution is a real concern, but so would be the loss of the jobs and the products that others depend upon.
Newer companies are more likely to consider this dilemma during the planning phase of their start up. Existing companies have a different situation and regulations imposed upon them can be crippling in a way that hurts far more people than the stock-holders.
I'm not sure what relevance the McDonald's Scalding Coffee case has, but I thought actual facts about the case, including the fact the woman was scalded so bad she needed skin grafts.
So, yet again, another myth busted by reality.
Whatever "right size" government might mean, Alan is correct on a number of points, including the fact that once created, no matter how onerous or heinous they might be, certain boards, agencies, and regulations will continue because these things tend to have a life of their own. The closing of the Civil Aeronautics Board during the Reagan years is a unique instance where a government agency closed, its responsibilities folded in to those of another (the FAA).
There is no formula or hypothetical that can compete with the reality that much of what we have we're stuck with; that's why when Republicans take power they stick people opposed to them in control then use the Congressional power of the purse to starve them of the ability to do their jobs. Usually in ways that are harmful because many if not most of the government agencies people complain about (including the TSA; I think the whole DHS monstrosity should be dismantled, the various agencies sent back to the departments from which they were stolen) actually do things that benefit us, even if we don't like other things they do.
. . . and the first sentence above should read: "I'm not sure what relevance the McDonald's Scalding Coffee case has, but I thought actual facts about the case, including the fact the woman was scalded so bad she needed skin grafts, might help clear up confusion."
A myth, yet there are facts about the case? The point has to do with the result. I think I was pretty clear regarding those facts:
"Now, perhaps it is sometimes served far hotter than it ever needs to be, and it is possible that in the case of the scalded woman, it may even have been hotter than it was ever intended to be."
The POINT was that the result was warnings being put on cups to remind people that the hot coffee they just bought is hot. Useless and unnecessary burden (regardless of the intensity of the burden). Indeed, I'm not even willing to say that this particular case is what prompted the placement of the warning, but that it was merely an example of one type of regulation that is unnecessary.
Unnecessary, no-longer-needed laws and gov't bureaucracies exist not because they have lives of their own, but due to a lack of resolve in reviewing their usefulness in order to determine which should be retained and which eliminated. This type of thing is right up Romney's alley.
I don't drink McD's coffee, but if I remember, the caution is form injected into the lid. The "expense" or "burden" here is the creation of a new mold, which might have cost them all of a few dollars per mold. (A cost which was certainly passed on to the consumer.)
Yes, quite a burden.
I wonder, MA, can you think of any similar safety warnings on products that are not unnecessary, or should they all be removed? (Which, by the way, would cost businesses addtional money to remove them now that they're part of the manufacturing process.)
A further point in re civil liability and corporate responsibility a la the McDonald's scalding case. If you clicked the first link, you would have read that McDonald's had a policy of maintaining their coffee at 185 degrees Fahrenheit, plus or minus five degrees. An expert witness hired by the plaintiff testified that, at that temperature, the kinds of injuries the woman sustained should have been expected. The trial court judge called McDonald's practice reckless, careless, and willful.
A company policy put all consumers in potential danger of third-degree burns. We have a system of civil tort liability so that, absent Administrative oversight (such as OSHA, EPA, EEOC, and other alphabet soup organizations) corporations can be held accountable for actions that pose a hazard to the public.
So, I'm still waiting for relevance here in using this as an example.
As I more than hinted, it is not surprising that someone would focus on the actual example rather than the point of using the example. I don't need to have any better examples or even completely accurate details of this one for the point to remain valid. Nor does it matter that the cost of a warning label doesn't impress one as excessive. The point is that any cost at all was imposed unnecessarily. If a company feels a warning should be posted on its product, it will do so and will do so without gov't compulsion. If it feels such a label isn't warranted by virtue of the obvious danger of misuse or improper handling, they should not be so compelled simply because some idiot wasn't paying attention. That's all that needs be considered and not the cost, regardless of the cost being absorbed or passed on to other consumers, who, by the way, should not have to pay for the failure of that same idiot to pay attention.
As to other examples, warnings on explosives comes to mind. Firecrackers have warnings that seem unnecessary except to the certifiably stupid.
And yeah, I doubt any company now printing such warnings on their products would choose to spend money changing anything if it was costly to do so. But that really doesn't matter.
My initial point was simply that there is no doubt that there exist regulations that are unnecessary and there removal would allow businesses to operate more efficiently and profitably which is good for society as a whole, including providing revenues to the gov't as a result. Industries can make the case for which ones those might be and real debates can narrow down which get repealed.
No company (or individual, for that matter) wants to bear unnecessary costs and adding costs reduces profits which reduces tax revenues and the ability to expand, hire, research or squander as the owners of that profit see fit.
Wow, Art, you've managed to outdo yourself. You bring up the McDonald's Coffee Scalding case as an example not only of frivolous lawsuits, but how such lawsuits unduly burden corporations with excessive business costs. When the actual facts of the case are presented and demonstrate that using this particular case doesn't support your argument, you turn around and say that it doesn't matter what really happened in the example you used to bolster your argument because the principle is more important than the facts.
Did you know the original punitive damages the jury awarded the plaintiff that sounded so excessive - $2.8 million - represented two days of coffee sales for the corporation? Two days. Just coffee. That isn't an excessive cost. I'm figuring they paid ten times that to their attorneys defending the case. Even though the punitive damages were reduced on appeal, the principle here is simple: McDonald's had a corporate policy that put consumers of its products in danger not of some tiny red mark or even a blister on the back of their hand, but serious, long-term injury. It wasn't a fluke, or an accident; it was, as lawyers say, a legal fact, admitted at trial.
To turn around and say, somehow, that the facts of the case don't matter because McDonald's has since been unduly burdened with excessive costs because of a policy they implemented that seriously injured a customer who had a reasonable expectation she was not going to need skin grafts on her thighs because of her morning coffee is just plain nuts. To further claim the example is irrelevant even though you brought it up is too funny.
Why not use fracking in PA and NY? I mean, hey, it's not regulated, covered by state or federal environmental laws, and all those wells that are exploding and people getting sick and the leftover benzene and toluene? Since the gas companies do not have to reveal the chemical mixture of the liquid they pump under ground, there is just no evidence they are responsible for any of it.
That might have worked better for you because in that case, at least, there would have been plausible deniability. Instead, you ignore the actual facts, insisting they are irrelevant, and claim you're right anyway. I plan on doing that from now on. I'm just going to make something up, site something, and when I find out I'm wrong, I'm going to say, "Who cares?"
So, the government should not require "Black Box" warnings on psycho-active medication, because depressed teenagers should know already that those medications increase may increase their risk of suicide?
In spite of the fact that the manufacturers fought the placement of such warnings, we should just trust them.
Or the tobacco industry, we should have just trusted them to put the warning labels on their products that they fought tooth and nail against?
Yes, having the fox watch the hen house always works.
Wow.
Wow, Geoffrey, you managed to be so typical in missing the point. It had nothing to do with the specific details of the case, but rather the result. Because of the suit, which again, was not the fault of Mac's so much as the clumsiness of the customer (though I plainly indicated in the very first comment in which I brought it up that the actual temperature of the coffee might have been excessively hot, either by design or accident)---[Was it Mac's fault that the woman spilled the coffee, or did the transcript of the case determine that the Mac's employee spilled it? Hint: doesn't matter to my point.]---the result was an unnecessary warning on the cup that the hot coffee just ordered is likely hot. Unnecessary because when ordering hot coffee to go, one should expect that the coffee will be hot.
As it turns out, this and similar cases debated proper temperatures for sale of coffee and regulations intending to safeguard other clumsy people result in cold coffee for most. But the case I had in mind was clearly a result of the clumsiness of the consumer. I did find that the cups already had warnings, but apparently weren't good enough.
The bottom line here, and again, the actual and clearly stated point of my referring to this case, is that changes are mandated for something that isn't necessary in the first place due to the careless actions of some. The degree of burden to any given company is neither relevant nor is it for anyone like you to decide. It isn't your company and none of your damned business to what degree of burden a given regulation might be. This was merely an example of the argument that there are indeed regulations, thousands of them if not more I have no doubt, that can easily be eliminated and doing so would benefit growth of the economy by removing unnecessary obstacles that compel businesses to move overseas, where they won't be held responsible for the stupidity and/or carelessness of some consumers.
To further point out your inability to focus on or locate the point of comment or story, the facts of the case don't matter to the argument that there exist plenty of regulations that could be eliminated that would allow for freer market activity that would help to boost the economy. I wonder if you are trying to imply, as others here seem to imply, that there does not exist any regulations whatsoever that can be eliminated without millions of deaths as a result, or some other such horror.
Alan,
Why do you continue to bring up stupid examples? I have never said there is no place whatsoever for regulations or warning labels. But as such a well educated scientist, were you truly unaware that the human lungs were not designed to process tobacco smoke over and over again for years on end? Was that a truly surprising bit of info for you? Or maybe you do see no risk in putting your hands under the lawn mower when the engine is running. And why are any depressed teens prescribed any medication that might provoke a desire to kill themselves? It seems to me that if any regulation on such products is justified, it would be that it not be allowed at all.
Part of the problem here is that you think there is no responsibility on the part of the consumer. There used to be a saying, "Buyer beware" that apparently is no longer considered. No matter how stupid the consumer, it is always the fault of the manufacturer. Once again, we see the leftist mentality of abdication. Goldwater Republican, indeed.
The point, Art, which you clearly insist doesn't exist, is that you have no idea what you're talking about. Do people spill coffee? Yes. Should people who purchase coffee have a reasonable expectation that coffee won't be so hot so, if they happen to slop it on themselves, they'll need extensive medical treatment?
Since most reasonable people wouldn't blame the victim for scalding themselves; since most people would recognize an instituted corporate practice that posed a health risk to consumers as not adequately covered by a generic warning that the contents of the coffee cup are "hot"; since the amount of damages McDonald's incurred, both from the lawsuit and resulting change in warning labels, was minimal - I once again wonder why you keep insisting this case means what you say it does, when the facts of the case are quite clear.
Oh, that's right, you also said in a comment that you don't care about the facts. It's the point that's important. So, is the point that, if a corporation has a written policy regarding a product that is a potential health risk, it is up to everyone to assume the high risk regarding that product? To change the corporation, if the chemicals Chesapeake Energy pumps in to the ground in Bradford County, Pennsylvania to crush the shale deep underground and pump out the gas contains carcinogens, mutagens, and metabolic toxins, it is not incumbent upon the company to warn the people who's land is effected by these chemicals, but the people who leased the property to understand that hydraulic fracturing is an inherently risky, dirty practice, and they should expect their wells to explode, their cattle to die, and themselves and their families to get sick?
Because if that's what you're telling me (which is merely an extension of the principle you're defending in the McDonald's case, a principle about which you seem far more concerned than any actual facts), then I seriously gotta wonder where your priorities lie. Does state power exist solely to protect whatever interests corporate entities claim as their own? Should the minimal costs McDonald's incurred for following a policy that posed a risk to the health of consumers outweigh actual damage incurred by a customer as a direct result of that policy? Does scolding an individual for being careless feel better than ensuring a corporation doesn't injure a member of the public?
I ask these questions in all seriousness, knowing the answer beforehand.
Early on, someone asked why I was even asking the questions raised in this post. The reason is that it seems to me that we all agree on the principles involved... We believe that gov't has a right and a duty to regulate and set laws up for the protection of her people. Rules and regulations are just part of what it means to live in a society, we don't reject the notion of rules and regulations.
We just disagree on where to draw the line.
The thing is, it seems to me (and as Jon Stewart so cleverly emphasized and re-emphasized in his weekend debate with Bill O'Reilly), we don't have to all agree on every little regulation. We won't all agree on every little regulation and rule. That's okay. It doesn't mean that those who support a given rule or the legislators or bureaucrats who wrote the rule into being are dictatorial socialists.
It just means that the principles on which we all agree will not always please everyone. That' life.
Will the coal company like it when there are (what seem to them) to be "excessive rules" in place that "interfere" with their profits? Probably so. Will the people downstream of the coal mining operations like them? Probably so.
The point is, the gov't is in place to serve we, the people. We're not always going to agree on the rules and regulations we collectively vote for. Without a doubt, there will be some implemented that are a bad idea. Would it be a good idea to have a process to review rules and remove them if they were a bad idea or are outdated? Sure, and I think we can do that.
As a sort of related aside: If you didn't see the O'Reilly/Stewart debate this weekend, set aside the time to watch it. Not only is it fun and funny, the two friends make some great points (especially Stewart, says myself) and it was easily the best political debate of the century, in my estimation.
"Snarky..."? Maybe. Mainly, it is unnecessary.
You have pointed out his mistake. The mistake is obvious. Enough said.
Would you want Marshall to say, "Alan said I don't know how medicine works... is it okay if I call him a liar now, Dan?..."
Just make the correction and move on.
With all due respect, Dan, I believe you are wrong when you state that "all of us" accept the general proposition that some public oversight of private activity is necessary. Both John and Art have been very candid - they do not so believe; indeed, Art has gone so far as to insist that any problems in the use of a corporate product are the fault of the consumer, who should bear all the responsibility for whatever results from using a product that is distributed to the public without adequate warning.
To attempt some kind of false unity here is, based upon the actual discussion, kind of silly. I understand your desire to keep the discussion civil. I shall abide by the rules you've set up. I will not, however, take the next step and create an atmosphere in which the differences are of degree rather than kind, in an effort to tamp down the heat a bit.
Further on Alan's point as well, it is quite clear that Art has no idea what he's talking about on any number of topics, as clearly demonstrated in his comments. When confronted by that reality, it suddenly becomes "our" problem, that somehow Alan and I are the ones who are wrong, despite the fact that he has already set to the side the only example he cited as some kind of abuse of the regulatory process (which it wasn't, anyway, but rather an example of how our civil tort liability system works to check corporate activity absent Administrative oversight, another point I made that Art simply ignored). Both Alan and I have cited counter-examples, and Art has either ignored them or demonstrated any understanding of the topics involved.
That there are unneeded regulations is a discussion reasonable people can have. That there are regulations that overburden some corporations is also a discussion reasonable people can have. The thing is - someone here isn't being reasonable. It isn't Alan. It isn't me. John Farrier is being reasonable, I believe, even though I believe he is wrong all the way around; I don't think he's a bad person, or stupid, or evil, or doesn't understand the topic. I just believe the position he advocates would be dangerous for any polity to enact.
If we had no history of dealings with Art, I suppose we could give him some benefit of the doubt. Many years of interacting with him, however, have pretty clearly demonstrated both his modus operandi and the way discussions with him actually play out. He brings up a topic; when the topic is investigated - by others, because he is, apparently, too busy to do any actual research - and doesn't quite fit with the narrative in which he tries to pigeonhole it, he either ignores that, declares facts are irrelevant, or that somehow others have missed whatever point he was trying to make.
Does this make Art a bad person? I have no idea. It does, however, demonstrate serial ignorance that, when called by that name, becomes irrelevant to whatever larger point is at issue. That it would be so easy actually to learn about things via the internet before writing about them makes it more funny than sad at this point.
"The mistake is obvious. "
Mistake? What mistake. I pointed out that he intentionally said something he does not, in fact, know to be true.
That isn't a mistake, it's a lie, Dan.
And he doesn't know about possible side effects, clearly demonstrating that he doesn't know how medicine works, Dan.
You see, Dan, there are facts in this world. Do you agree? Intentionally misstating something, that is, stating something contrary to fact (Alan believes consumers should bear no responsibility for their actions), is a lie, not a mistake. Not being able to count to two is ignorant, but it isn't a mistake, nor a lie. Demonstrating with one's words that one has no idea how medications work is not a lie, nor a mistake, just ignorant.
And suggesting that I forget that MA has a years-long history of being a liar, making similar ignorant statements, and making obvious mistakes again and again, is just silly.
You do agree that there is a reality out there, right, Dan?
I asked a simple question, one simple enough for anyone to comprehend, "What are some examples of necessary regulations?"
What was snarky about that, Dan? What? I am absolutely dying to know, Dan. Please tell me what could you possibly find "snarky" about that question?
Because, if you agree that it wasn't, and you look at the "answer" I received from MA, then how is it exactly my problem that he's an ignorant liar, and how is it my problem for calling him out as such, when all he had to do, like any rational, reasonable person was to respond to the simple question?
You see, Dan, I actually ascribe to MA personal responsibility. If he's an ass, and he is, then it is his problem, not mine. So blaming me for his behavior is kinda silly don't you think? :)
"...it is quite clear that Art has no idea what he's talking about on any number of topics, as clearly demonstrated in his comments."
You've not shown this to be true by anything any of you have said or done. You'd need to stay on point to even attempt to prove this and clearly, you both stray in order to create the impression I don't know what I'm talking about. This is why you focus on the irrelevant aspects of the Mac's case rather than on the point I was trying to make. The truth is that the facts of the case ARE irrelevant to that point.
" Both Alan and I have cited counter-examples, and Art has either ignored them or demonstrated any understanding of the topics involved."
The lie here is that I'm somehow obligated to respond to everything you kids say, as if by not doing so it proves anything negative about me. There is also the lie that it is always you two who are possessed of such great understanding. I wouldn't wager on the percentages if I were you.
" The thing is - someone here isn't being reasonable. It isn't Alan. It isn't me."
A total lie. I would have been satisfied simply leaving the issue as I had first stated. But NOOOO! Geoffrey had to take a side road and focus on details of the case that were not relevant to my point. However, as I review my original comment, I find that my own speculations about the case, about whether or not the coffee temperature was purposely or accidentally set, whether there was a reason for the elevated temp and other aspects were very spot on without knowing with certainty any of those details. I addressed the possibilities and still made the point that it lead to changes (the warning was enlarged---an unnecessary expense).
"And suggesting that I forget that MA has a years-long history of being a liar, making similar ignorant statements, and making obvious mistakes again and again, is just silly."
This is a lie simply for never having been proven. It certainly hasn't been proven here on THIS thread. Alan's imaginings don't constitute proof of anything. But there is hypocrisy as well with this boy:
" Demonstrating with one's words that one has no idea how medications work is not a lie, nor a mistake, just ignorant."
yet demonstrating with one's words that...
"Part of the problem here is that you think there is no responsibility on the part of the consumer. "
...is a lie. I see.
I will give Alan this one, however, for all the good it will do me...
"I wonder, MA, can you think of any similar safety warnings on products that are not unnecessary, or should they all be removed?"
I did indeed misread this question. The "NOT UNNECESSARY" I read as "not necessary". Had I not made this mistake, I would have answered, "Not off the top of my head. I'll think on it."
You see boys and girl, the question of specifics regarding this reg or that is not the point. Given the time, I have no doubt I could come up with some regs that should find little debate about having outlived their usefulness or are simply stupid. But what's the point? It's a question to be hashed out honestly between industries and those seeking to regulate them. The only thing I was trying to say was a legitimate truth: regulation reform is an essential aspect of real stimulation of the economy. I know Geoffrey really wants to get into the fracking debate. But he's better off going back to arc welding because he doesn't know any more about what's true than I do on that subject, as there's so much nonsense mixed in with what is true on that issue.
So, boys. Got any more lies you wanna tell about me telling lies?
Art, you're so funny. You began this entire discussion with the McDonald's case, then went on to write about unnecessary regulations and the burdens on poor corporations from clumsy consumers and smart lawyers.
When the facts of the case were brought up - suddenly they're irrelevant! If the facts of the case are irrelevant, why bring it up? If the case doesn't support the argument you're making, why even mention it?
If your own words are meaningless when you choose them to be, how can we ever know if they're meaningful? Not to get all meta on you here, but, really, are we having the same conversation about public regulation of private business activity? Because, see, I was under the assumption that was the topic, and how we were moving forward. Now, I'm not sure what you were talking about at all. We looked up the things you said we should look up, and, voila! They don't work for you.
I want to change the rules of discussions I'm in.
I'm sorry for being so mean and taking the things you write as if they were substantive. That's my mistake.
I would say Art's comments were unbelievable.. but its not the first time. This all reads like he brought up a case without knowing anything about it. Then it gets pointed out to him and he runs for cover.
You see boys and girl, the question of specifics regarding this reg or that is not the point."
Shorter MA: There are unnecessary regulations, but I will not tell you what they are, because any examples are themselves unnecessary.
(But of course, if we tried that gambit we'd be called "cowards.")
Gotcha, MA.
Please let me know which part of this discussion is relevant to whatever conversation you thought you were having?
I thought we were having a conversation about the size of government, and in particular, specifics, given that the title of the post is, (go ahead, and scroll up there and see for yourself...I'll wait. See that?) Yeah, the title is "Right-Sized Gov't... Specifics"
But specifics don't matter to you. Does that actual topic about the size of government matter, or is that irrelevant to your "point" as well? What is YOUR topic for this post, since it clearly isn't the topic Dan wrote about?
And if you're just going to randomly change the topic mid-sentence, couldn't you just ... you know ... do that at your own little corner of the web?
(And don't you think getting your pissed off because you don't understand how medication works is a little silly, given that example, like any other example according to you, is meaningless? Why so pissy about any example, when they're irrelevant to a conversation about a blog post ON "SPECIFICS"?)
MA can't add, misreads simple questions written in simple English, doesn't know the topic of the post, which was SPECIFICS ... And apparently doesn't get just how much he's embarrassed himself.
Isn't it always funny how, when MA starts going crazy his friends back away slowly and stop responding?
Now, Craig asked me a few posts back why I don't state my disagreement with Dan more often, going so far as to strongly imply that he doesn't believe that such disagreement exists. Y'all still out there, fellas? You're in agreement with MA, I take it? ;)
Here's the thing, fellas: I don't want to be a blog referee or babysitter.
I don't want to delete anyone.
I don't want to have to remind people to be polite.
It is fine to disagree, but please disagree about the topic, without engaging in personality comments. That's all I'm saying.
Alan, Geoffrey: I think that "the Right" raises a not unreasonable concern. We don't want a nanny state, we don't want the gov't telling us every little thing we can and can't do, we don't want businesses being over-regulated. It's not an unreasonable concern, seems to me. It certainly is a common concern for many.
Marshall (Craig, others more "right-ish"): Alan and Geoffrey are obviously well-informed on many topics and have great insights. They make cogent rational points.
Yes, we all agree that we don't want an overbearing gov't. At the same time, it is part of gov't's responsibility - as we ALL agree - to regulate and create rules to protect the population.
In THIS particular post, in trying to make this point, I asked if there were any specific rules/regulations that the gov't (we, the people) has implemented that are an example of TOO much
The first example offered was the gov't regulating how many transactions one can have in their savings accounts. Reasonable concern.
Geoffrey offered that this was implemented as part of approach to guarding against terrorism and drug trafficking. Efforts to stop terrorism and drug trafficking, for many folk, is a reasonable responsibility of the gov't.
We may disagree on that particular example - is it too much or not? Does it really help track terrorists? - but I would think we could all agree that neither side is wholly illegitimate. This regulation DOES sound strange, but at least there is a reason and we can disagree about whether or not it's over-reach.
Alan went on to make a good point, I think, about what would happen if a Democrat tried to get rid of this "drug and terrorism-fighting" tool - he would be castigated by the GOP as soft on terrorism and crime, right?
We don't have to all agree on each end every regulation. And we don't have to castigate the "Other Side" as either being socialistic/dictatorial or soft on crime if they disagree about a particular rule.
cont'd...
The second example, I believe, offered was the coffee warning labels.
Many people find it a bit silly to put a warning label on coffee saying, "Hey, this coffee is hot." Of course coffee is hot, that's the point, they would say.
Not unreasonable, seems to me.
Alan and/or Geoffrey responded that the facts in that particular case were that McDonalds had heated the coffee to an unreasonably hot level, creating a burn danger. In that particular case, I honestly don't know the answer: Is the warning label placed there as a part of gov't regulation or is it there as part of corporate policy to avoid lawsuits?
In either case, you may or may not disagree with the rule, that's okay. But at the same time, it's hardly an onerous rule - the coffee cups have lids that can have a warning or not with no additional cost. But whether that is a corporate rule or a gov't rule, I for one can at least see both sides of the question and don't find either to be wholly unreasonable.
Is saying "warning, this coffee is hot" silly? Yes, maybe.
Is requiring the label a danger to human liberty or a right to do business? No, not really.
We don't have to agree on each rule and we do agree that rules and regs need to be in place. We will always disagree on the specifics.
So, if anyone has a specific regulation that you think is onerous and a mistake, feel free to point it out. We may agree with you or not, or it may be the case that none of us have the full story on how that reg came to be and the reasoning behind it.
But we can do so without engaging in personal comments.
If Mr A makes a point that you find to be silly, you can respond, "I do not think that is a reasonable conclusion," if Mr A says something that is factually mistaken, you can say, "Those are not the facts. Here are the facts..." and offer them.
No need to say, "That's stupid" or "When you say X, you are also saying Y and Y is horrible..."
I think that people are tired of this approach to disagreement that has people making conclusions for you that you didn't make, or that engages in personal put downs. It is sufficient to say, "I do not find that to be a reasonable conclusion" or "Here are the facts."
At least, that is the tone I'd like to see with disagreements here. I don't have the time or energy to police you all.
Thank you.
OK, Dan - let's take your propositions and talk about them. You say none of "us" want a nanny state.
What's a nanny state?
Honestly.
What, exactly, do those two words mean?
I've heard the phrase, it gets used so much everyone assumes it means something important.
I don't.
I haven't a clue.
Does it mean a public sector that criminalizes the behavior of consenting adults, like Antonin Scalia thinks is appropriate? Does it mean a public sector that limits our exposure to uncomfortable images, words, and ideas, like those who demand we stop funding art through the NEA? Does it mean a public sector that gives the benefit of the doubt to corporate entities that have a long history of abusing the commonweal?
We cannot have a discussion of "regulation" if we're going to pretend there's a blank slate, some place above the world in which we actually live, with a history and people to which all can point. We cannot use phrases like "nanny state" that are meaningless except as cudgels some use to beat others.
That's first. On the specifics of the McDonald's scalding case. Is it, in fact, "silly" to put "hot" on a cup of coffee?
At first glance, most would say "yes", like you did. Suppose, however, as one among thousands of customers at a business that provides among other things coffee to its customers, you are with a group and someone hands you a cup of something. The place may also serve cold drinks. This may be your first time in the place, and you have no idea what someone has ordered for you. There are all sorts of reasonable scenarios in which informing people "This contains hot liquid" makes sense.
More information is always better than less. That's a good principle with which to work in daily life, with our family and friends, and in public. We cannot act unless we have all the relevant information necessary to move forward. So, putting "Hot" on a cup that contains a hot liquid doesn't cause needless harm to any business; it informs the public of something it is in their interest to know. And it provides a level playing field for everyone - businesses and customers - so no one can accuse a corporation of doing something untoward to their customers.
In the McDonald's scalding case, the jury concluded that putting "Hot" wasn't sufficient due to McDonald's stated policy that kept their coffee at a temperature so high it threatened grievous bodily harm. They were not asked to change their policy; they were ordered to change the warning to inform consumers the product was hazardous.
It cost McDonald's next to nothing to do so.
Silly? On the contrary. Sensible.
Well, looking at specifics was the point of this post. As I noted, as we look at specific instances of regulations, we would probably see that there is generally a reason that was sufficient for its creation in the first place.
In my experience, nearly every time we start talking about specifics, people will slow down the rhetoric at least a little and say, "oh, well, I'm not opposed to THAT, necessarily..."
As to what is a Nanny State? I think the term is generally used to suggest a problem with rules that unneccessarily interfere with human liberty... the state deciding for rational adults some position which adults should choose (or not) for themselves.
It would not include, rationally speaking, behaviors which might cause harm to others.
Thus, "the state" making a rule telling you you can't smoke, eat or drink A, B or C is being a "nanny state."
The state saying IF you ingest mind-altering/reflex-impairing substances, THEN you can't drive, that is being rational and responsible.
The state saying "This group of adults can marry (or have sex) but THAT group of adults can't marry (or have sex)" is being a nanny state.
The state saying adults can't force children into marriage or sex is being rational and responsible.
The state declaring that all bicyclists must wear helmets in every situation is being a nanny state (and I'm a fan of helmets, mind you).
The state saying cars have to stop at red lights and observe a speed limit is being rational and responsible.
My problem with some conservatives is not that I disagree with the problem of a so-called Nanny State, but with how they relatively too whimsically draw the lines for a Nanny State.
Craig: "My comments, or lack of comments, have nothing to do with my agreement, or lack thereof, with MA or any other commenter. "
That's fine. I just thought you were implying a few days ago that I was not honest about my point of view because I didn't disagree with Dan often enough for your liking.
Just sayin'. Good to see you weren't, in fact, implying that lack of agreement or disagreement should not be construed in either way. Thanks for the clarification.
---
Re: The Nanny State.
It is all whim and caprice. Whatever one wants to regulate is necessary, and whatever one doesn't want to regulate is unnecessary. Unless one can nail down *specifics* about the underlying POV one is going to use, terms like "Nanny State", "necessary" and "unnecessary" are all useless.
So, I think, for example that regulating the size of a big gulp, a regulation put in place by a REPUBLICAN, is silly, but that putting nutrition information on the labels of food is not. There is an underlying POV there that the customer should have informed consent before using a product. Debating one example or the other is silly, unless it gets to the underlying idea behind why one thinks those examples are necessary or unnecessary.
Thus, introducing examples like McD and then deciding they're not really examples of what you thought they were examples of, is just a silly red herring specifically designed to derail conversation with weapons of mass distraction, as usual.
When the adults want to have a conversation we see more reasoned discussion about underlying principles, how certain examples fit (or don't) those principles, etc., like the last few comments.
Alan, perhaps I'm wrong, but I haven't made any comments relating to you disagreeing with Dan in the last few days.
I believe the only question I have about your honesty or lack thereof is related to the lie you told about me in a post a while back.
Other than that I have no basis on which to judge your honesty, or lack of honesty.
Glad I could clear up your misconception.
Sorry, Craig, you misunderstood. But if you want to be left out of "it" you could, perhaps, stop posting about it. Or, I suppose, you can keep posting over and over and over about being left out of something. :) Either way, it's up to you. As I've said, "That's fine" and am happy to leave it at that, once you decide to stop posting about how you don't want to be posting.
And, BTW, we won't allow the word "lie" to be used here. Didn't you get the memo? :)
Alan,
I don't think I actually misunderstood. I made a small comment earlier that was on the topic. That's it.
Much later you, brought me in on something that is off the topic of the post.
I'm sure that you believe that somehow I initiated this little byplay. However the facts seem to suggest otherwise.
As to using the term lie, I can either use the accurate term or I can lie myself. I'll stick with accurate.
Will we carry on with this, "So, you can quit now, any time you want..."
"No, YOU can quit now any time you want... we've nothing really to say to each other, you know..."
"So, why don't you quit commenting?"
"I have! I have! Why don't you let it go?"
"Oh, I never was holding on in the first place, I was just curious as to how long YOU will carry on..."
"But, don't you see? I'm already done, I've let it go."
"So, it's over?"
"Yes, it never really even started..."
...will we continue that line of discussion much longer, or will my summary suffice?
Dan,
I'm done my point is made. A simple I'm sorry to my comment from the 9th would have eliminated much of this.
The state declaring that all bicyclists must wear helmets in every situation is being a nanny state (and I'm a fan of helmets, mind you).
The state saying cars have to stop at red lights and observe a speed limit is being rational and responsible.
...
Dan.. Even thats a blurry line. CA makes minors wear bike helmets. We also require all motorcycle riders to wear helmets.. passengers in cars have to wear seat belts. Recently, the "nanny state" has even strengthened requirements on child car seats. The evil result of this intrusion into our lives has been a few more tickets handed out and many fewer injuries.
Alan's description of "nanny state" as whim and caprice is in keeping with my own sense that it's meaningless.
I find the restriction of oversized soft drinks served in New York City kind of silly, but hardly some huge offense against freedom. On the other hand, the matter of labeling fast food items is, I think, all to the good, because more information is always better. This measure allows consumers to understand exactly what they're purchasing. The argument that, "Well, it's fast food, did you expect all sorts of goodness?" is beside the point. Of course not. That isn't the issue. Knowing in detail what it is they're purchasing, whether or not it changes their buying behavior, is always a good thing.
Parklife's comments about helmet and seatbelt laws is a good one, I think, because here we have pretty clear conflicting interests. Do individuals have some kind of absolute right to decide whether or not to wear a helmet when riding a bicycle or motorcycle or a seatbelt in a car?
Because there are social costs incurred when people do NOT wear helmets and safety belts, it seems (to me) fair enough to create a system where those social costs are reduced by producing incentives to alter private behavior. If it were the case that a motorcyclist not wearing a helmet did not produce any social cost if an accident occurred, I would be inclined to say, "Yeah, that's pretty intrusive." In fact, however, there are all sorts of costs we the people end up paying - lost time on roadways blocked by accidents; the cost of taking care of an accident scene; the police, fire, ambulance services that are involved in control of the scene; should a rider not have health insurance, there are additional costs we have to pay for health care, including long-term care for seriously injured individuals. While it may well be the case that there is a measure of personal responsibility involved (something with which I completely agree), the fact remains that forcing the individual who creates a mess due to poor judgment to bear all the costs leaves out the fact those costs are being paid by the public at large. If something as simple as passing a law requiring helmets or safety belts reduces those costs overall by reducing the types and severity of injuries as well as the occasional ticket from a police officer for violating the law, that benefits everyone.
Thank you Geoffrey for posting that. Sometimes I expect that everybody knows there are these associated costs. But, I suppose, that isnt always clear.
I saw this today:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/wp/2012/10/10/why-exactly-should-the-government-fund-pbs-and-npr/
"So the big worry is that an end to government funding would leave pockets of the country without public radio and TV, replaced by commercial stations that are less affordable, more saturated with advertising, and less educational. (The track record of The Learning Channel, which was privatized in 1980 and now features shows like "Toddlers & Tiaras," does not inspire confidence.) This would prove less of a problem in urban areas, where local affiliates could thrive on donations. Poorer and rural regions might not fare so well."
One concern I have is (in some examples) its regulation that defines us. What and how we regulate impacts our lives and our culture. Yes, we can all find regulation that we dont like in some way, but removing it or changing it speaks to who we are as Americans. Not funding PBS, NPR, ect.. (besides the elimination of jobs) would say that our society values commercial interests over children, over education, over all kinds of good things.. not to mention the costs associated with a less educated kid that is less engaged with the world around them.
I'd also say, in the helmet case, that the notion of personal responsibility is pretty fictional.
Because it turns out that the biker isn't the only person on the road.
But I'm not sure how requiring a helmet or not actually increases or decreases the size of government. Eliminating those laws isn't going to put a dime toward eliminating the deficit, for example.
Whether they're intrusive on personal freedoms is an interesting conversation, but not one that actually impacts the "size of government" discussion in the monetary sense.
(Dan, you need to add bursts of maniacal laughter to your summary, and then it would be accurate.) :)
Parklife wrote:
One concern I have is (in some examples) its regulation that defines us. What and how we regulate impacts our lives and our culture. Yes, we can all find regulation that we dont like in some way, but removing it or changing it speaks to who we are as Americans. Not funding PBS, NPR, ect.. (besides the elimination of jobs) would say that our society values commercial interests over children, over education, over all kinds of good things.. not to mention the costs associated with a less educated kid that is less engaged with the world around them.
What we fund does indeed say who we are as a culture. That's why it's important that cultural funding be entirely voluntary--so that it can be an accurate measurement of cultural values.
If there is truly popular support for PBS and NPR, then these agencies will be self-supporting.
Taxation is coercive. It takes money from people without their consent. Charitable giving, however, is voluntary. It expresses what people really value and appreciate. What people voluntarily give to PBS and NPR (or anything else) expresses their values. What is taken from them does not express their values.
Simply put: coerced virtue is no virtue at all.
Parklife, I would like to briefly address one phrase that you used:
(besides the elimination of jobs)
This phrase is an expression of the Broken Window Fallacy. It assumes that money kept by taxpayers instead of taken from them and spent on the salaries of PBS and NPR employees is not used productively.
John Farrier presented what I like to call The Pretend Fallacy Fallacy. Someone comes up with an idea that sounds really good and reasonable and logical, but is belied by a whole history of actual practice that makes it nonsensical.
Parklife, let me put it another way....
Let's say that I pick your pocket and use the money in your wallet to buy My Little Pony episodes on iTunes. I couldn't then say "Parklife likes My Little Pony" because you had no choice in the matter.
Now if you chose, of your own free will, to open your wallet and buy those MLP episodes, then I could say "Parklife likes My Little Pony."
NPR and PBS don't reflect the values of society accurately because they are partially funded by coercive measures. Or better put: NPR and PBS don't reflect the values of society as well as the free market can and does.
John Farrier equates taxation with theft. Which would be true if the government stole our money. They do not. They have legal entitlement to it, according to the Constitution.
Furthermore, the decisions about how that money is distributed - DoD, NPR, State Department Security - are made by our elected representatives. Now, he may not like NPR, just as I am no fan of the policy of unconstitutional war-making against Pakistan and Yemen using UAVs. The thing is, though, our representatives vote in Congress to spend money in these ways (or not, as is the case with State Department Security). At the end of the day, part of the social contract in the United States is clear: when money is legally collected, then disbursed through various Departments and agencies, it's legal.
Coming up with fancy ways of claiming it's actually theft that neither represents the will of the people nor even a legal action belies what actually happens. Which is yet another reason why I'm not fond of Libertarianism. It doesn't understand, at its most basic level, that we have a reality, including a political and social reality, within which we all live. Should John Farrier wish to live somewhere they don't insist on paying taxes or using the power of the state to regulate our common life, he is more than welcome to go there.
Far too much blood has been shed creating our nation, and it works pretty well by and large, to suddenly say, "None of this has ever been legitimate."
I'm sorry to keep waiting those who clamor for the opportunity to find fault in me where it doesn't exist. Now, I'm not particular incited by the opinions of and personal attacks on me from people of such low character, but I don't mind responding to their weak sauce attempts to paint me as "moronic" or "ignorant".
As regards, Micky D's, for example, I'm accused of not caring about facts. But again, the specific facts of the case I brought up aren't important to the point I made. If I'm guilty of anything here, it for not coming up with a better example for my point; a dangerous thing to do considering the inability of some to understand or focus on the point. Clearly, what I was offering was a "type" of regulation as opposed to a specific incident where the type was put into place, regardless that the effect on the company was the same.
The type of regulation is that which is put into place due to consequences of someone's own incompetence or carelessness. In the Mac's case, I intuited what a review showed to be accurate, that the temperature was set as high as it was for a reason. While some products might carry dangers not apparent without a clear warning, what warning is necessary for dealing with a beverage purposely purchased hot? Was this a case where the consumer was a first time customer unaware that carry-out coffee is really, really hot? The details of how the coffee was spilled clearly show poor judgement on the part of the scalded. That Mac's was made to spend on red cent due to this mishap is a clear miscarriage of justice.
There was once a financial adviser who made a business out of selling tapes and courses. At a seminar, he spoke about car insurance and seeking the best deals. One couple sued the adviser when he dropped his costly insurance and got into a serious accident before getting another policy with a new company. I've listened to this particular adviser, the late Charles Givens (who also wrote "Hang On Sloopy") and read his materials and nowhere does he even hint that one should drop auto insurance and then drive around without it. A jury awarded the idiot big bucks out of Givens' pocket with the reasoning that the idiot actions were compelled by Givens' advice (though it wasn't ever intended that it be done as the idiot did it) and that Givens' could afford it.
I bring this up because of Geoffrey's comments that my Mac's example might be a better argument for tort reform (or words to that effect---I have to be really careful making sure that I qualify my conclusions of what some people say for to avoid further goofy charges of lying). But the topic is "Right-sized gov't". I was certain the one branch of gov't was the judicial branch. In fact, I found this site just for him which explains it all. (See Alan? I can use the interwebs just fine.)
Though I hadn't meant to, it seems I stumbled into another area with legitimate possibilities for reducing the size of gov't: Tort reform. Thanks, Geoffrey.
I would also like to say that reducing the size of gov't, does not only entail looking at money spent. It has to do, in my opinion, with how the money is spent. Some here would complain about increased military spending. But defense is a legitimate and Constitutionally mandated function of the federal gov't. The amount we spend on that might be huge. But if we are not looking to be the most feared nation (for the purposes of eliminating the thought of messing with us by bad guys), then we aren't really concerned with defending the nation. For the military, the aim should be reducing or eliminating wasteful spending.
But beyond some infrastructure of federally owned and operated items, there isn't all that much the feds should be spending money on, or, and this is my point here, even involving themselves regardless of how much tax dollars are spent. Alan wondered about the helmet laws and that the costs of such might be negligible. But this is similar to actions some would say are examples of the gov't interfering in personal lives.
I don't particularly think helmet laws are righteous even though I'd likely employ a helmet more often than not if I had a bike. But part of the pleasure of riding, I am told, is feeling that breeze. If I wore a helmet, it would be my decision for my own protection should an accident occur. But as a professional driver, I know that one would be hard pressed to find an accident that wasn't preventable. Those that take pains to protect against the possibility should not be forced to do anything they don't need to do. And it's not the gov't's role to do the forcing.
John,
Re: Marshall Art, do you ever feel like its a sneak attack? He pretends to be conservative to make poorly formed arguments. A bit of a straw-man coming to life..
As for NPR/PBS, even though it may be more difficult for them to be successful in a completely open mkt. they can (and do) still represent our culture. Educational programs should be available to all children regardless if the ratings are high enough. This is because the culture wants this option available. Even though I have no interest in children's programs, it still has value to me.
Maybe a park would be another.. similar example. Many individuals do not go to the park. Many developers would rather use the space for something else. However, planning departments and cities have requirements that "force" green space. Overall and in the long term, the city might enjoy a higher standard of living through this requirement, but its not from individuals choosing.
I can't wait to read what Art has to say about tort reform. From not knowing anything about government regulation to not knowing anything about the law and how the civil tort system works, it should be enjoyable.
And to see another Art in action - making a claim about something that is demonstrably false, having that claim debunked, then saying the facts don't matter, click here and scroll down to the long comment thread and discussion about Elizabeth Warren's activity as an attorney.
Facts. If they don't work for you, they don't matter!
Wow. I've even explained the point and Geoffrey still doesn't get it. I've asked before: what university did you attend? I want to make sure my daughter doesn't want to go there if you are an example of their graduates.
I haven't seen much from you (or Alan, for that matter) that demonstrates the level of understanding of gov't regulation or tort law you think you've a right to expect from me. You haven't even offered an opinion for why Mac's should have been made to pay for the woman's clumsiness. You point to the facts of the case, but they bolster my point by proving the woman was clumsy. So you haven't shown how a review of the facts changes anything about my position regarding consumer stupidity or carelessness leading to burdens (of any degree) on business. Those facts are still irrelevant except where they help illustrate my point, for which I thank you.
Parklife,
Children's programs that have poor ratings do not deserve financial support from anybody. If the ratings are poor, no kids are watching, which is why the ratings are poor.
But assuming for the sake of argument that their ratings are always sky high, they would still likely exist on free TV because the ratings means profits for the producers of the show. Advertisers pay big bucks to run commercials during shows with high ratings. Kids need bathroom breaks, too and don't care about commercials breaking up the action with Cookie Monster. There's no way Sesame Street would be lost if PBS would disappear. IN fact, PBS could run more commercials and pledge drives to easily make up for what little funding from the feds that Romney might be able to eliminate.
PBS programs have no value to anyone who doesn't watch them. If they insist on supporting themselves as they do, then they should sink or swim by their choice. I have no doubt they'll survive without federal funding. Of course, you might have to up your pledge. You do support them financially, don't you?
BTW, I'm still hoping you could one day elaborate and provide an explanation as to what makes my arguments "poor". I know you like to defer to Geoffrey and Alan, but they haven't proven anything either, despite their going on about my alleged shortcomings.
Parklife wrote:
Re: Marshall Art, do you ever feel like its a sneak attack? He pretends to be conservative to make poorly formed arguments. A bit of a straw-man coming to life..
There's personal tension between some regular commenters here, but I'd rather not get involved in it.
As for NPR/PBS, even though it may be more difficult for them to be successful in a completely open mkt. they can (and do) still represent our culture.
If they are unable to compete in the free market, then this is obviously untrue.
Educational programs should be available to all children regardless if the ratings are high enough. This is because the culture wants this option available.
Again, if these programs are unable to compete in the free market, then this is untrue.
I think that we're talking past each other. Please clarify something. I've argued that the free market is a more accurate measurement of a culture's aggregate values than a coerced market. Am I wrong? If so, how?
Maybe a park would be another.. similar example. Many individuals do not go to the park. Many developers would rather use the space for something else. However, planning departments and cities have requirements that "force" green space. Overall and in the long term, the city might enjoy a higher standard of living through this requirement, but its not from individuals choosing.
I suppose that it is possible that doing so creates a higher standard of living.
When we're talking about the proper scope of government, we're asking ourselves a question: "What is so important to me that I am willing to use force to achieve it?" Or more bluntly and personally: "What would I be willing to take from someone at gunpoint?" For some people, it's a lot, for others, not so much.
I've listed four things that I think that government should do; that is, four things that I would be willing to use force to achieve. I try to keep the list as short as possible because force is evil (and thus government is inherently evil) and I would like for evil to be limited as possible.
I would not use force on another person in order to fund a park.
But that's just me. There are people who regard me as a statist and that my four areas of government activity should be reduced, rather than maintained.
John, if I politely may say that this whole notion of taxation = the taking of stuff by force and/or theft is part of why the libertarians and more conservative types who use such language don't come across as persuasive. It's an agreement, a social compact.
Taxation is more like rent: It's just the stuff you have to pay in order to live in this house. To call it "theft" or suggest that it's "taking at gunpoint" is similar to the landlord being accused of theft if they insist that their tenants actually pay rent.
I just don't think it's a winning argument for the more libertarian types.
Yes, I think we can all agree that there are taxes we don't like to pay that go for stuff that we don't personally approve of. Yes, it can be a blow-off relief to rant about the "thievery" of those danged representatives taking from the poor and giving to the rich (or vice versa), but we really must remember that such language only works as metaphor and rant, not to be taken seriously.
Seems to me.
Dan wrote:
John, if I politely may say that this whole notion of taxation = the taking of stuff by force and/or theft is part of why the libertarians and more conservative types who use such language don't come across as persuasive. It's an agreement, a social compact.
The old saying is that democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Under your model, the sheep consents with the result.
At some point, before we reach Godwin's Law territory, can you say that a person does not actually consent to be ruled? Where is that point? Or what would have to happen before you can say 'This person does not actually consent to being subjected to this state activity'?
When police smash into the homes of innocent families, point guns at them, scream and handcuff them, after they have, of course, shot the resident dogs, all in the name of this insane War on Drugs, can we say 'This person does not actually consent to being subjected to this state activity'?
When police imprison people for engaging in lawful business practices, can we say 'This person does not actually consent to being subjected to this state activity'?
When children are openly sexually molested by uniformed government agents at airports, can we say 'This person does not actually consent to being subjected to this state activity'?
When American citizens are detained indefinitely without trial, can we say 'This person does not actually consent to being subjected to this state activity'?
Yet you say that arguments against the legitimacy of government cannot "be taken seriously"?
Taxation is more like rent: It's just the stuff you have to pay in order to live in this house. To call it "theft" or suggest that it's "taking at gunpoint" is similar to the landlord being accused of theft if they insist that their tenants actually pay rent.
If you refuse to comply with the mandates of the state, in the end, the state will send armed men to you to ensure compliance. If you doubt this, consult Muhammad Ali on his own experience.
Or do you doubt this? Do you actually, truthfully, doubt that the state will tolerate open defiance of its commands? Do you doubt that open, continued defiance will not result in the use of physical force against a citizen?
There are also at least two problems with the rental analogy:
1. It assumes that all property is actually held by the state. A person does not actually own anything; he merely leases it from the state temporarily and at the mercy of the state. One that, as I previously mentioned will shoot his dog, imprison him and sexually molest his children at airports.
2. You can withdraw from a rental contract. You can't withdraw from the state.
Yes, that is what I say, John. That is how it seems to me.
Your examples - all of which we could probably come close to agreeing upon - are outliers and not the same as the social compact that includes taxation or, more accurately, "rent."
Is it a perfect system? Of course not, nothing in this world is.
Would there be less abuse/misuse of gov't if there were less of it? Almost certainly.
And in its lessening, there would almost certainly be an increase in abuse/misuse of liberty and corporate/individual power.
It's a balancing act.
Regardless, taxation is not in any reasonable sense, "Theft," that is my point. It is not taken at gunpoint. I willingly pay my taxes because I recognize we have common needs and that is one way to pay for them (perhaps not the only way, but certainly one way). Does my willing payment of taxes mean I agree with how all of it is used? No, of course not. No one does. I'd say that it's utterly impossible to have a tax system (something that is needed in some form in any civilization) where everyone is always in agreement with how that money is then spent.
It doesn't make it theft or forcible taking.
John, do you willingly pay taxes and you just (like everyone else) disagree with how it's spent in some areas? Or do you only pay taxes because you're "forced" to?
If you only pay because you're forced to, does that mean you'd be a freeloader off of everyone else if you could? I don't believe that about you, so I'm sure that wouldn't be your answer.
I've argued that the free market is a more accurate measurement of a culture's aggregate values than a coerced market. Am I wrong? If so, how?
...
b/c individuals act differently than groups. Improving the quality of life for an individual is different than a group.
The most "open" market I can think of is the sale of art. God help us if this is our goal. This market is erratic (at best) and filled with back room deals... different prices for different customers... not to mention the product... authentic is mixed with fake.
Here is another example of regulation.. right now toy companies are freaking out.. why? B/c they are being regulated on the chemicals they use to make their product. There are chemicals, already known to be hazardous, that they use. They want to keep selling hazardous toys to kids in order to turn a profit.
Im not sure how the executives sleep at night.
"There's personal tension between some regular commenters here, but I'd rather not get involved in it."
I agree, John, and I'm ashamed I let myself get dragged into it by the usual suspects. I am more than willing to be shown I'm wrong. Though I'm a moron, I'm pretty sure it can be done without personal attacks. However, just as Dan himself has asserted at other blogs, I feel compelled to defend myself against false charges.
As to your comments, they make the most sense I've seen here. I'm a little less with you on taxation, though it seems you're only trying speak in a general sense there.
I have to say...I'd buy the libertarian view that all taxation is theft if ... if they'd, you know, demonstrate that they're really so annoyed by being constantly and so willfully stolen from that they'd move elsewhere. Prove, that is, the strength of their convictions.
Strange, it seems, that they're perfectly willing to stay in the country that provides such a high standard of living while "stealing" from them significantly less than most of the other options they might consider.
If you feel the government is doing things without your consent, John, then you can always move, right?
If you look at the historical record - I know facts are always troubling - the Democrats are ALWAYS better at reducing the relative amount of federal spending; finding intelligent ways to reduce the size of the federal workforce without interrupting services or mandated oversight; massaging tax and fiscal policy to create a climate for economic growth. The past thirty years are an object lesson that, given the power of the purse, when the Republicans are given the power of the purse, they turn it upside down and hand out everything inside to their friends. When that runs out, they start snatching other purses and give out that money, too, promising to pay it back someday.
So, color me unimpressed with the "arguments" and "principles". As soon as someone starts talking about things that actually happened - and it isn't like everything from lowering taxes to reducing the amount of federal intrusion in the market haven't been tried - I'll let folks pat themselves on the back.
My most direct answer to Dan's query - the right-size government is whatever the people, through their elected representatives, declare it to be. What part of representative democratic Republic is so hard to understand?
Dan wrote:
Yes, that is what I say, John. That is how it seems to me.
Dan, would you clarify to which of my questions this statement answers?
Regardless, taxation is not in any reasonable sense, "Theft," that is my point. It is not taken at gunpoint. I willingly pay my taxes because I recognize we have common needs and that is one way to pay for them (perhaps not the only way, but certainly one way). Does my willing payment of taxes mean I agree with how all of it is used? No, of course not. No one does. I'd say that it's utterly impossible to have a tax system (something that is needed in some form in any civilization) where everyone is always in agreement with how that money is then spent.
I agree that it would be impossible, which is why government is inherently evil. A necessary evil, but an evil.
Because it is evil, I desire to keep that evil down to a minimum. Am I willing to use theft to fund a criminal justice system? Yes, because that's necessary for a functional society. Am I willing to use theft to fund public television? No, because society can function just fine without public television.
It doesn't make it theft or forcible taking.
So if I refuse to pay taxes for something, the state will not use force to take my money away from me?
John, do you willingly pay taxes and you just (like everyone else) disagree with how it's spent in some areas? Or do you only pay taxes because you're "forced" to?
I pay some taxes to fund areas that I think are legitimate areas of government action. I pay other taxes because I would go to prison if I did not.
If you only pay because you're forced to, does that mean you'd be a freeloader off of everyone else if you could? I don't believe that about you, so I'm sure that wouldn't be your answer.
If given the option to pay lower taxes in exchange for the termination of government "services", I would gladly do so. I would, for example, forgo the "services" of the DEA in exchange for never paying taxes for it again.
If I am a freeloader for paying taxes to the DEA--which is against my wishes--then so is the person who pays protection money to a mafia organization.
Parklife wrote:
The most "open" market I can think of is the sale of art. God help us if this is our goal. This market is erratic (at best) and filled with back room deals... different prices for different customers... not to mention the product... authentic is mixed with fake.
Do you think that government regulation would improve the art market? Would there be fewer backroom deals and fewer incidents of price differentiation?
Marshall wrote:
I agree, John, and I'm ashamed I let myself get dragged into it by the usual suspects. I am more than willing to be shown I'm wrong. Though I'm a moron, I'm pretty sure it can be done without personal attacks. However, just as Dan himself has asserted at other blogs, I feel compelled to defend myself against false charges.
My general rule is to disengage people who lob personal insults at me.
I like Dan. I often disagree with his politics but I have no doubts about his character.
As to your comments, they make the most sense I've seen here. I'm a little less with you on taxation, though it seems you're only trying speak in a general sense there.
I'd like to clarify that I'm not calling for the abolition of taxes or the state. I'm just saying that they're a necessary evil, not a general good. Government is inevitable, but it should be avoided whenever possible. And it's possible to avoid it on many occasions.
It is a healthy for the citizenry to regard government with great suspicion. As Jefferson said, "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty."
I want politicians to look at people like me and think, "These people are watching me like I'm some sort of criminal. I'd better keep on the straight and narrow so that I can keep my job. No graft for me."
I've never understood how some people can simultaneously think:
1. politicians are generally crooks
2. let's give them more power
John Farrier wrote:
"I've never understood how some people can simultaneously think:
1. politicians are generally crooks
2. let's give them more power"
I'm just wondering where anyone, anywhere, whether in this conversation, in other conversations, basically at any place and time has ever made a claim like this.
As soon as you find it, let me know.
As for the whole "necessary evil" and "avoided whenever possible" stuff, again - I just want to know, from actual human experience - I realize referencing reality is tiresome - government has both been avoided as much as possible and yet the people were governed, or governed themselves, well. Since in a representative democratic Republic the government is us, your statement is both practically and logically incoherent. We cannot avoid ourselves.
Again and again and again, I wait for actual examples, and instead I get repetitious boilerplate I could find on a libertarian website. Not actual, you know, human experience let alone thought.
So, again: Yawn.
We the people...
Why do you feel we're evil, John? How terribly Calvinist of you!
John,
I cannot say that I dislike Dan. I don't know him personally. I can say that his character is suspect when looking at the thinly supported arguments for his positions on a variety of topics. Thus, I prefer to speak on this thinking rather than on him personally. There is quite enough there for that.
It was said to you:
"As for the whole "necessary evil" and "avoided whenever possible" stuff, again - I just want to know, from actual human experience..."
...a not totally strange request. For example, if you were to have said something, say, about the manipulative effects of capitalism, I'd be inclined to wonder, from your actual human experience, just what the heck you mean. As to your views of gov't, you might want to respond with a list of books for your interrogator to read so that he can begin to understand how you might answer. THAT'S an accepted manner of response these days.
Just sayin'.
Post a Comment