Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 65
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    37,450
    Quote Originally Posted by ciaban2.0 View Post
    Absolutely nothing we do in regards to climate change is relevant so long as China, India and the rapidly developing parts of Africa don't change.
    Bill Gates said that if we went to AOC's plan today we could make up for a lot of the damage other countries are doing. So, no, not irrelevant ... just far from enough.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    37,450
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    First Bolded: My point is, by eliminating 90% of all regulations you are going to have to make some tough choices about things that actually need regulation that under your law, must be eliminated. I imagine there are a lot of regulations that are redundant, superfluous, or negatives. Do I believe that 90% of our regulations are bad or serve no purpose? Absolutely not.

    Second Bolded: OK, well this seems like you don't actually want there to be any less things regulated, you simply want the regulations regulating them consolidated. That is far different than eliminating the underlying impacts altogether.

    Third Bolded: Speaking from the legal field, the reason most laws are so convoluted is because they have to clarify or address as many unique situations and variables as possible. If a law were 10 pages long, it would be litigated to death and it's substance so ambiguous that nobody would be able to discern what it's purpose is in a multitude of situations. Imagine if you had a law that said "don't steal". Nice and simple right? Everybody understands. OK, but now think of how ambiguous that actually is in a legal setting. Think of how many situations would arise where the phrase "don't steal" is essentially worthless. The same is true of crafting laws.

    Fundamentally I agree we can probably consolidate or make easier to read some regulations, and we can get rid of many others altogether. Do I think that we should eliminate 90% of our regulations? Heck no. Do I think that our regulations could be re-written from 50,000 to 10 pages and still be of any value at all? Absolutely not.
    I'm fairly confident we could get rid of 9 out of 10 regulations without giving up the key ones. We could probably get rid of 99 of 100 without giving up the key ones.

    I want the regulations we need re-written to have some flexibility and some restrictions on how they are applied.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    40,458
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    I'm fairly confident we could get rid of 9 out of 10 regulations without giving up the key ones. We could probably get rid of 99 of 100 without giving up the key ones.

    I want the regulations we need re-written to have some flexibility and some restrictions on how they are applied.
    I think this is because you are genuinely ignorant of how many regulations serve a positive purpose. To me this is like saying you could take out 99% of a car engine and still expect it to run.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    38,626
    Quote Originally Posted by ciaban2.0 View Post
    Why do I care if Trump is deregulating the government, just because he gets rid of a regulation doesn't make it inherently good or bad.

    We have a lot of out dated and silly regulations on the books anyway.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qij3aPKA9nE
    Here's an interview with Criminal Defense Lawyer on a book he wrote about our ridiculous laws.
    How to Become a Federal Criminal: An Illustrated Handbook
    Ok but I never said regulations were I inherently good or bad..

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    38,626
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    I'm fairly confident we could get rid of 9 out of 10 regulations without giving up the key ones. We could probably get rid of 99 of 100 without giving up the key ones.

    I want the regulations we need re-written to have some flexibility and some restrictions on how they are applied.
    Ur being way too extreme

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    40,458
    Quote Originally Posted by nastynice View Post
    Ur being way too extreme
    Like if we simply restricted it to "clean air and water", that by itself is probably close to 1% of all our regulations. All the various federal, state, city, etc. regulations governing water usage and air. So right there, we get clean water and air and nothing else.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    37,450
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    I think this is because you are genuinely ignorant of how many regulations serve a positive purpose. To me this is like saying you could take out 99% of a car engine and still expect it to run.
    Agree to disagree.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    37,450
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Like if we simply restricted it to "clean air and water", that by itself is probably close to 1% of all our regulations. All the various federal, state, city, etc. regulations governing water usage and air. So right there, we get clean water and air and nothing else.
    Three are probably far more pages of regulation we live under than you realize.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    40,458
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Three are probably far more pages of regulation we live under than you realize.
    Undoubtedly. And I think far more of those pages of regulation are for things like clean air, clean water, etc. than you realize.

    Getting rid of 99% of regulations is essentially saying "I loved the movie Mad Max and wish we could be more like that".

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    37,450
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Undoubtedly. And I think far more of those pages of regulation are for things like clean air, clean water, etc. than you realize.

    Getting rid of 99% of regulations is essentially saying "I loved the movie Mad Max and wish we could be more like that".
    Okay. I disagree. There are pages and pages about the process required to calibrate torque wrenches. And literally thousands of other examples like that. We can assume reasonableness of action being enforceable in court, that can be true for regulations too. If the regs call for torquing a bolt we can assume the party knows how to torque right, and if they fail to do so and it actually results in something bad happening we can take them to court for being negligent without any other rules added.

  11. #41
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    40,458
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Okay. I disagree. There are pages and pages about the process required to calibrate torque wrenches. And literally thousands of other examples like that. We can assume reasonableness of action being enforceable in court, that can be true for regulations too. If the regs call for torquing a bolt we can assume the party knows how to torque right, and if they fail to do so and it actually results in something bad happening we can take them to court for being negligent without any other rules added.
    And if you take them to court under some vague "if you are torqueing a bolt you should know how to use it correctly" you would likely lose most of the time. What is "correctly torqueing a bolt"? Are there any other methods than the one you are thinking of? Are there different bolts that require different levels of torqueing? Were there extenuating circumstances where torqueing a bolt in that way was unfeasible?

    The exactness of the questions to cast doubt are voluminous. The reason most laws end up being bad is because they are too vague and your solution is to make every law vague. It's not a solution so much as an excuse to make lawyers the richest and most overworked profession on earth.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    38,626
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    Okay. I disagree. There are pages and pages about the process required to calibrate torque wrenches. And literally thousands of other examples like that. We can assume reasonableness of action being enforceable in court, that can be true for regulations too. If the regs call for torquing a bolt we can assume the party knows how to torque right, and if they fail to do so and it actually results in something bad happening we can take them to court for being negligent without any other rules added.
    This makes sense. If I leave a tire shop and my wheels flies off down the block, then of course they need to be responsible.

    You gave an example of a very necessary regulation.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    37,450
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    And if you take them to court under some vague "if you are torqueing a bolt you should know how to use it correctly" you would likely lose most of the time. What is "correctly torqueing a bolt"? Are there any other methods than the one you are thinking of? Are there different bolts that require different levels of torqueing? Were there extenuating circumstances where torqueing a bolt in that way was unfeasible?

    The exactness of the questions to cast doubt are voluminous. The reason most laws end up being bad is because they are too vague and your solution is to make every law vague. It's not a solution so much as an excuse to make lawyers the richest and most overworked profession on earth.
    A contractor hired to maintain something should have expertise in maintaining those things. If they are bad at the job they should be fired. If a maintenance company employs someone who doesn't know how to torque a bolt they should be fired. If by not knowing their job they put people at risk and someone gets injured they would likely be sued and lose.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    37,450
    Quote Originally Posted by nastynice View Post
    This makes sense. If I leave a tire shop and my wheels flies off down the block, then of course they need to be responsible.

    You gave an example of a very necessary regulation.
    You sue the tire company, you don't need government regulation for them to be encouraged to do their job right.

    And, as far as I know, the tire company isn't a government contractor so they don't have to meet government regs on calibrating their torque wrenches. I guess that's a place you want to add some more regulations despite them not being needed thus far.

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    38,626
    Quote Originally Posted by Scoots View Post
    You sue the tire company, you don't need government regulation for them to be encouraged to do their job right.

    And, as far as I know, the tire company isn't a government contractor so they don't have to meet government regs on calibrating their torque wrenches. I guess that's a place you want to add some more regulations despite them not being needed thus far.
    I do need the government requiring particular standards to helps ensure I dont have to worry about my tire flying off.

    Like I dont want to find out AFTERWARD the guy that just performed surgery on me never actually went to med school, y know

    How does that regulation slow down business anyway?

Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •