The Libertarian world without regulations EXPLODES IN TEXAS'S FACE. Literally.

[SgtSpiderMan]

No, it is not.

kbate, who posted below, hates the idea of handling it legally because judges can be bribed, therefore, one must suspect that inspectors can be bribed...



As far as the "Regulators," where do they come from if not from the ranks of the industry being regulated (otherwise, how competent can they be?). If they are of the industry, and knowledgeable, then they can command top-dollar. If they are not employed it must be because they are then frustrated by lack of opportunity which may be of several types including incompetent, disgruntled or frustrated by a glutted field of applicants meaning that their only experience may be the glorified experience and expertise of Academia.



Bad players can never be eliminated. Accidents will always happen. Laws will always be skirted so it is best to be short on law and long on punishment. We are not long on punishment because regulation has led to a protected class of businessmen; too big to fail and big enough to purchase government indulgence.

What good would a severe punishment do if they've bribed everyone????

The guys who work for my local board of health are all former restaurant owners?

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

What good would a severe punishment do if they've bribed everyone????

The guys who work for my local board of health are all former restaurant owners?

If they have bribed "everyone," then there is no law, no regulation, no security and no Liberty.

No, they are probably political appointees and dilettantes who have no idea how things work in the real world and thusly the restaurant owner is in a no-man's land of uncertainty knowing that he may be shut down on a whim, not on business or health principle.



Or they are failed or frustrated restauranteurs as outlined above.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Now, there is one endeavor in which bribery and quid pro quo are not only legal, but part of the due process and that is called...

wait for it...​

POLITICS​

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

If they have bribed "everyone," then there is no law, no regulation, no security and no Liberty.

No, they are probably political appointees and dilettantes who have no idea how things work in the real world and thusly the restaurant owner is in a no-man's land of uncertainty knowing that he may be shut down on a whim, not on business or health principle.



Or they are failed or frustrated restauranteurs as outlined above.

& you have a cite for this of course....

 

[kbate]

There was no regulation saying drilling companies had to have the capacity to plug a leak. That tells me that the regulations were insufficient.

The reason the regulations were insufficient was because the regulations were insufficient.

That is a circle.

Try again. . .

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

& you have a cite for this of course....

Non-responsive.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

The reason the regulations were insufficient was because the regulations were insufficient.

That is a circle.

Try again. . .

Regulations can never be sufficient for the cover only the known.

They cannot possibly cover the criminal, the defective or the error in human judgement.

 

[kbate]

Regulations can never be sufficient for the cover only the known.

They cannot possibly cover the criminal, the defective or the error in human judgement.

Which is why apparently we should have had a regulation requiring BP to have an "Catastrophic Platform Failure Automatic Plugging System".

It is so obvious. Today that is.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Which is why apparently we should have had a regulation requiring BP to have an "Catastrophic Platform Failure Automatic Plugging System".

It is so obvious. Today that is.

Hindsight is glorious...



... especially when she's in tight jeans.

 

[mercury14]

The reason the regulations were insufficient was because the regulations were insufficient.

That is a circle.

Try again. . .

What you're saying only makes sense if you ignore the content of my posts. I don't care right now what the reason for insufficient regulations is. Consider that and then reprocess your spin.

 

[mercury14]

Regulations can never be sufficient for the cover only the known.

They cannot possibly cover the criminal, the defective or the error in human judgement.

Which is why apparently we should have had a regulation requiring BP to have an "Catastrophic Platform Failure Automatic Plugging System".

It is so obvious. Today that is.

The BP oil spill happened because of a known risk though. Try again.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

[TONE=hushed whisper]Shhh..., I see angry white posters...[/TONE]

 

[RobDownSouth]

Non-responsive.

Nope. YOU make a claim, the burden of proof is on YOU to back it up.

Sure, in a perfect world, libruls would play defense 24/7, but life isn't fair.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Sorry my dear friend, but that is not the way it went down. You brought up the example, you described Walmart as a product of the current Capitalist system and then you demanded I find a way to defend the evil practices of Walmart.

Walmart got big by one mechanism and one mechanism only.

When Big Business would have nothing to do with rural America due to lack of volume, Walmart brought volume to small town America and offered them the same savings that Big City America would not.

And stop ascribing positions to me. I never said anything remotely like that.

You can't help yourself! Now you're defending them again.

All kidding aside, the proper libertarian defense of Walmart is: they're a product of the modern mixed economy, who game that system better than anyone.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

Well at least now you are not equating them with the consequences of Laissez-faire Capitalism, but more properly of Interventionism...

 

[rosco rathbone]

Which is why apparently we should have had a regulation requiring BP to have an "Catastrophic Platform Failure Automatic Plugging System".

It is so obvious. Today that is.

They had one, it just didn't work as advertised.

The problem with Deepwater Horizon was, once a chain of bad luck, bad timing, bad decisions and cut corners had led to the blowout, it was too deep underwater to be controlled.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Well at least now you are not equating them with the consequences of Laissez-faire Capitalism, but more properly of Interventionism...

That was my whole point. A clearheaded libertarian response to the walmart problem is "so what? walmart is statist. not a problem for free enterprise." And yet certain libertarians have what is to me an amusing kneejerk tendency to defend the likes of walmart, on the principle that "if leftists hate them..."

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

That was my whole point. A clearheaded libertarian response to the walmart problem is "so what? walmart is statist. not a problem for free enterprise." And yet certain libertarians have what is to me an amusing kneejerk tendency to defend the likes of walmart, on the principle that "if leftists hate them..."

I think you are ascribing. I do not defend Walmart because the refuse to unionize (yes, I recognize your tendency to Anarcho-syndicalism *chuckle*) but because they brought value to their customers. They did it well enough that they grew big. They still do it well enough that they remain big. Now Kmart was there before them, refuses to unionize, chose a different target market (the suburbs) and yet, as big as they used to be, they are now struggling to maintain market share. They have every equal opportunity to "game" the system, but it is their model, and savvy competition that is doing them in. Walmart's strength is that no one wants to compete for their base; it is as if the competition was all fatcat NE RINOs...

... like Chris Christie!

 

[kbate]

What you're saying only makes sense if you ignore the content of my posts. I don't care right now what the reason for insufficient regulations is. Consider that and then reprocess your spin.

No, what you said was that lack of regulation is proof we need more regulation.

That you worded it two different ways is meaningless. You used your conclusion as your question.

There was no regulation saying drilling companies had to have the capacity to plug a leak. (This says, There was a lack of regulation.)

That tells me that the regulations were insufficient (which leads you to the conclusion that, "We had a lack of regulations".)

 

[rosco rathbone]

I think you are ascribing. I do not defend Walmart because the refuse to unionize (yes, I recognize your tendency to Anarcho-syndicalism *chuckle*)

I find left- or socialist-libertarians to be the most congenial to my personal motivations, emotions and hatreds, and I like that they're the conscience of libertarianism, keeping it honest, but I don't think it's likely that we're going to end up in worker owned collectives any time soon. I was at Occupy Wall Street 10 and 12 hours a day for the first 6 weeks and it was a clown and pony show. The anarchist-grad student organizer kids used to come over to the union table as if we were a delegation from another planet.

Walmart's strength is that no one wants to compete for their base; it is as if the competition was all fatcat NE RINOs...

... like Chris Christie!

I suspected as much. Walmart is a non-urban phenomenon. Diabetic proles and FOX tv viewers shop there. Liberals hate it, they look down their noses at it. Thus, it must be defended.

 

[kbate]

I suspected as much. Walmart is a non-urban phenomenon. Diabetic proles and FOX tv viewers shop there. Liberals hate it, they look down their noses at it. Thus, it must be defended.

Liberals shop there too. They like the prices and can feel good about helping create jobs in China and India even while they revile the corporate anti-union people eating monsters who run the company.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

See my thread, the most trusted name in news...

Hating Walmart and FOX is no longer a majority position.



They both seem to be focused on delivering what the customer wants instead of demanding the customer want what they deliver...

 

[mercury14]

No, what you said was that lack of regulation is proof we need more regulation.

That you worded it two different ways is meaningless. You used your conclusion as your question.

There was no regulation saying drilling companies had to have the capacity to plug a leak. (This says, There was a lack of regulation.)

That tells me that the regulations were insufficient (which leads you to the conclusion that, "We had a lack of regulations".)

You need to back up. You started this and my comment was in reaction to your claim that the BP oil leak was a product of regulated industry. I said I disagreed since insufficiently regulated industry is not really regulated industry. Not in a real way anyway. I'm saying your comment wasn't very accurate, which was true.

In order to duck criticism you took my comment out of context. That way it made less sense and the conversation no longer addresses your original statement which was bogus.

 

[kbate]

You need to back up. You started this and my comment was in reaction to your claim that the BP oil leak was a product of regulated industry. I said I disagreed since insufficiently regulated industry is not really regulated industry. Not in a real way anyway. I'm saying your comment wasn't very accurate, which was true.

And I'm saying is that you are using circular logic to prove your desire for more regulation. I have few apples, so I should have more apples is not a valid argument.

The industry is regulated, licensed and monitored. Sadly not well enough, for many reasons.

That the regulations are not comprehensive does not make the industry unregulated - you can always find one more thing to make a law about and it is easier after an accident to learn where laws can be strengthened than before.

It is a known risk that mental health patients might harm others, we should have regulations preventing this - the mental health field is unregulated.

 

[RobDownSouth]

No, what you said was that lack of regulation is proof we need more regulation.

Classic kbate...reinterpreting her opponent's thesis and then attacking "their" position.