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.
Because NO company has ever cut corners chasing a fatter bottom line, eh?
Never said any such thing. We can agree to disagree. I do not, nor will I ever, believe in effect prosecuting and initiating force against anyone BEFORE a theoretical crime has been committed. I don't believe in initiations of force or aggression. "Regulations" are initiations of force before any crime has been committed. You have every right to assert your belief that it is okay to prosecute future possible crimes, that is your choice.
Never said any such thing. We can agree to disagree. I do not, nor will I ever, believe in effect prosecuting and initiating force against anyone BEFORE a theoretical crime has been committed. I don't believe in initiations of force or aggression. "Regulations" are initiations of force before any crime has been committed. You have every right to assert your belief that it is okay to prosecute future possible crimes, that is your choice.
That's absurd.
No regulation at all? Good luck with that. Under your theory it sounds like "law" is out the window as well.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,419,437 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow
Never said any such thing. We can agree to disagree. I do not, nor will I ever, believe in effect prosecuting and initiating force against anyone BEFORE a theoretical crime has been committed. I don't believe in initiations of force or aggression. "Regulations" are initiations of force before any crime has been committed. You have every right to assert your belief that it is okay to prosecute future possible crimes, that is your choice.
Would you feel the same way if say you had a small child killed in a fire because his PJs and bedding went up like a magnesium flare? After all, the makers could be prosecuted afterwards.
No regulation at all? Good luck with that. Under your theory it sounds like "law" is out the window as well.
What don't people get. If someone does harm someone they should be retaliated against. Otherwise, we shouldn't be assigning guilt prior to any harm. It would be like arresting someone that "might" commit a crime. Like imprisoning someone for shooting someone simply because they have a gun even though they never used it. Insane.
Would you feel the same way if say you had a small child killed in a fire because his PJs and bedding went up like a magnesium flare? After all, the makers could be prosecuted afterwards.
Prosecuted for what? If you want flame retardant underwear, buy them. If you don't don't. There is no negligence on the underwear maker's part because they burn. Unless they fraudulently said that they wouldn't burn when you bought them.
Are car manufacturers guilty of murder because someone crashed their car into a light pole? Wow, just wow.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,419,437 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by irspow
What don't people get. If someone does harm someone they should be retaliated against. Otherwise, we shouldn't be assigning guilt prior to any harm. It would be like arresting someone that "might" commit a crime. Like imprisoning someone for shooting someone simply because they have a gun even though they never used it. Insane.
And just how do you retaliate against someone who kills another or causes them permanent life altering injuries?
A life sentence, forfeiture of all worldly goods, whatever still can't restore the injured's life to normal.
What don't people get. If someone does harm someone they should be retaliated against. Otherwise, we shouldn't be assigning guilt prior to any harm. It would be like arresting someone that "might" commit a crime. Like imprisoning someone for shooting someone simply because they have a gun even though they never used it. Insane.
So we should expose millions to unnecessary potential harm? How absurd.
Sensible regulation mitigates harm before it occurs. That's the greater good. Its not at all like arresting someone.
The FDA has dramatic lowered the acceptable allowance of nontoxigenic bacteria in cheese because it thinks that reduces the limit of a harmless bacteria will make the cheese safer.
This is the primary problem with regulation as it exists today. It's not about lowering an actual risk, but rather doing something that sounds good, but has no actual effect other than making some things more expensive and putting some businesses out of business.
Remember the great recession? That was caused by a lack of regulation. It's perfectly intelligent to be against bad regulations, but to be against regulation in general is rather not intelligent. A free market requires regulation to stay relatively free.
Sorry you can't eat the cheese you like. Have you bothered to look up more information about this or is this just a knee jerk thread based off of something you read?
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.
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.
