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.
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
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..
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.
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.
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
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
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..
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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.