Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 04-13-2010, 12:19 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,108,083 times
Reputation: 9383

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boompa View Post
The regulations were enforced, they were just too weak to force the owners to correct the deficiencies. They should be closed down until all deficiencies are corrected.
Thats not reasonable. Thats like suggesting one shouldnt drive a car until they make accidents non-existance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend View Post
And that's what you want? The government was too weak in its regulation so you want it to do nothing instead?

You really think that removing government regulations will miraculously change profiteers into nice people who create safety regulations to spend their precious profits on?
You are reading things not in existance. NO ONE has stated that you need to remove government regulations. NO ONE..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-13-2010, 12:25 PM
 
4,049 posts, read 5,032,096 times
Reputation: 1333
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
You are reading things not in existance. NO ONE has stated that you need to remove government regulations. NO ONE..
So you do want government regulation, i.e. not a free market..?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2010, 12:31 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,108,083 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend View Post
So you do want government regulation, i.e. not a free market..?
No one has called for removing governmental regulations.. All that was stated was that free markets DO NOT EXIST, and its not FREE MARKETS to blame for the death of these individuals, its an ACCIDENT.. nothing more, nothing less.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2010, 12:51 PM
 
4,049 posts, read 5,032,096 times
Reputation: 1333
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
No one has called for removing governmental regulations.. All that was stated was that free markets DO NOT EXIST, and its not FREE MARKETS to blame for the death of these individuals, its an ACCIDENT.. nothing more, nothing less.
Simplified answer: Yes, government regulation is better than free market.

By the way, no one has said it's a completely free market.

Less government regulation = closer to a free market. The problem occurred because of not enough government regulation (i.e. a freer market). Imagine if it was totally free...

The obvious direction to go to reduce accidents is more regulation, not a free(r) market.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2010, 12:57 PM
 
13,186 posts, read 14,978,392 times
Reputation: 4555
The GOP for forty years has attacked government regulation. Deregulation! Deregulation!

Boy these wingers have selective memories.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2010, 01:01 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,108,083 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend View Post
Simplified answer: Yes, government regulation is better than free market.

By the way, no one has said it's a completely free market.

Less government regulation = closer to a free market. The problem occurred because of not enough government regulation (i.e. a freer market).
You have absolutely nothing at all to backup that argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend View Post
Imagine if it was totally free...
If it was totally free, there would be ZERO accidents because they would strip mine the land and no one would be in the ground to begin with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend View Post
The obvious direction to go to reduce accidents is more regulation, not a free(r) market.
Actually this could lead one to argue, "anti free market proponents now responsible for 29 miners dead".. After all, strip mining wouldnt have people in the ground, so now YOU liberals are responsible for their deaths..

Would this argument be pathetic to make, absolutely, but that didnt stop all of you anti free market from being just as pathetic blaming this on free markets..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2010, 01:04 PM
 
41,813 posts, read 51,051,710 times
Reputation: 17864
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost View Post
But, regulations didn't make the mine dangerous, or did they?
If you factor in the time both inspectors and mines spend on absurd regulations then yes you can justify saying they contributed to it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2010, 01:10 PM
 
4,049 posts, read 5,032,096 times
Reputation: 1333
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest View Post
You have absolutely nothing at all to backup that argument.
That more regulation = more safety? You are seriously denying that?

Quote:
If it was totally free,
So now you ARE for a totally free market (i.e. strip all regulations). You need to quit flip-flopping.

Quote:
there would be ZERO accidents because they would strip mine the land and no one would be in the ground to begin with. Actually this could lead one to argue, "anti free market proponents now responsible for 29 miners dead".. After all, strip mining wouldnt have people in the ground, so now YOU liberals are responsible for their deaths..
Who's the one laying arguments with nothing to back them up? Would strip mining really be 100% safe? (for employees plus)

Quote:
Would this argument be pathetic to make, absolutely, but that didnt stop all of you anti free market from being just as pathetic blaming this on free markets..
Free markets don't create safety regulations. I think you realize that since you kept saying that no one was calling for eliminating regulations.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2010, 01:18 PM
 
69,368 posts, read 64,108,083 times
Reputation: 9383
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend View Post
That more regulation = more safety? You are seriously denying that?
There were 1,000 violations, that sounds like a hell of a lot of regulation.. Are you now telling me the 29 miners are safe? Thats YOUR argument?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend View Post
So now you ARE for a totally free market (i.e. strip all regulations). You need to quit flip-flopping.
You need better comprehension skills because no one suggested free markets are called for. I said IF we had free markets you would have strip mining and zero casulties. No flip flopping, just a lack of comprehension on your part..
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend View Post
Who's the one laying arguments with nothing to back them up? Would strip mining really be 100% safe? (for employees plus)
Tell me how many men go below ground during a strip mining operation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LogicIsYourFriend View Post
Free markets don't create safety regulations. I think you realize that since you kept saying that no one was calling for eliminating regulations.
No one claimed free markets = safety. I think you need to stop making up arguments and then arguing against them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-13-2010, 01:19 PM
 
31,387 posts, read 37,048,770 times
Reputation: 15038
Quote:
Originally Posted by thecoalman View Post
And your industrial professor probably has about 0 actual experience which is half the trouble.
You see that is one of the problem of you obtuse....

The man had over 30 years of field experience before retiring to teach.

Quote:
You're missing my point though, these mines already work under a ridiculous amount of regulations many of which are pointless and in the case of anthracite mines here pointless and possibly dangerous.
And once again, you willfully ignoring the fact that those "pointless" regulations have reduced mine accidents from averaging 1,500 per year to 62 per year.

That is the bottom line.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 02:29 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top