Woodruff wrote:PLAYER57832 wrote:thegreekdog wrote:While I'm maintaining my self-ban of responding to a certain Player's posts, I would note that Libertarianism does not support corporate control over government... that is not one of the intended or unintended consequences of Libertarianism.
A vacume will be filled. Corporate abuses are directly linked to a lack of government control. Cut government and companies are not going to suddenly decide that taking care of the evironment and saty are important even without being forced to comply. They can tell us to ignore the man behind the curtain all they wish, but pretending that the big blobbing voice is telling the real truth is how we got from "trickle down" [will save us] to an ever-widening gap incomes and decline in education, social services. We HAVE been down that route, its history.
Making government smaller does not at all equate to eliminating government, and the same applies to governmental regulations. We need to make them work smarter, not harder (the regulations, I mean).
This is absolutely true and I have said as much. However, if you look at why regulations, etc have expanded so much in the past few decades, it is largely to do with protecting the environment and worker standards. The liberaterian model is about removing most of that, when you look at the detailsa nd impact of what they ask. We need many more regulations and controls in those areas because we now realize that protecting the environment is not only more important, but far more involved than was thought in the past.
A construction company wants to put up a project of a certain size and they now have to do various environmetnal impact studies, etc. If its a government contract, they also have to ensure they comply with various minimum pay standards, equal opportunity standards, etc. All of that gets classed as "red tape".... right along with teh rule that says a home child care home is supposed to have 1 foot of "soft fill" under any play area (this is the reccommended standard nationally, the required standard is 6" of fill). In the first case, the problem is most people don't really and truly understand why much of what they are told they cannot do is just wrong. This is particularly true when it comes to water and streams... but I won't write a book here explaining it. The second is a bit closer to something most people can understand. On the one hand, I fully agree and understand that this is the safest standard. In fact, IF I were continuing in my business, I would be one of the few in town to comply with that standard. (others just don't have play equipment for kids) However, I look around and see essentially no homes meeting that standard (a few think they are, but are not really). I also remember climbing up on equipment with, well hard dirt or even pavement under it. I know, as a former EMT, fully the risk. BUT.. I also say that a lot of has to do with supervising kids and knowing the kids you have in your care. When it comes to kids, too often there is far more harm to be had from "protecting" them too much. In this case, as I noted, many places that watch children just don't have anything kids can climb. This is what the official agencies in charge of children here really wants (not guessing.. this is what I have been told).
OK, so what is the "red tape"? I would say definitely not the first. The second... maybe. I say it is a very well intended law, but that the real problem is that people need to take the time to make sure the center where they are dropping off their kids is not over-capacity, with undertrained staff, etc, etc, etc. That is FAR more important than having one foot of soft fill. but, the second is easier regulate. ANd, when this gets shaken out, because everybody understands kids and no one wants to think of kids at risk in even small ways, that kind of regulation gets passed, is often not much criticized. The first type gets all kinds of criticicism and disdain.
Or, to put it yet another way... one persons "silly regulation" is another persons "godsend." in many cases.
There ARE rules that need to be changed. There are paperwork requirements that no longer make sense in the days of such ready electronic processing. There are some rules that maybe were thought intelligent to protect the environment, for example, but that really cause more harm than good. And there are some that just seem plain stupid. BUT.. those types of rules are actually not as common as people think.
