better do your homework BEFORE you open you business... sorry but these women get no sympathy from me, ignorance to the code is not an excuse or reason to be exempt. remember that the govt is not some amalgamation of other-world creatures that we would not or could not understand. if these women disagree with the code then petition to have it amended and vote for the lady/gentlemen that would abolish it. when/if something negative happens as a result of the code being abolished don't complain that there is no regulation, can't have your cake and eat it to
Well, they get sympathy from me. The regulations they must comply with amount to extortion because many of those rules do not even rationally apply to their circumstances. Even when the regulations do apply, they are rigid and compliance is prohibitively expensive. Such well-intentioned rules are better enforced through the free market, transparency, and lawsuits assessing actual damage. As Milton Friedman would say, we have to look at the net effects of our laws and not merely their intent.
Anon, the process you describe for changing the regulations is likewise prohibitively expensive, breeding accumulation, complexity, and corruption. We all break the law regularly because it is so complex, giving power to the whims of law enforcement and arbitrary enemies.
"Such well-intentioned rules are better enforced through the free market, transparency, and lawsuits assessing actual damage" the rules are in place to prevent the lawsuit from happening in the first place. Abolish all law and what are you left with?
Also, without regulations what in gods green earth makes you think that the 'free market' would be compelled to be transparent? it's this kind of blind faith in the market that the GOP loves to promote as though the saints in free market are somehow compelled by a higher calling to protect the public at large, simply not the case and frankly should not be.
the private sector exists at the pleasure of the state. look at a dollar bill, which private corporation is listed? None. Here is the key point, all industry must use an instrument that is OWNED by the people through their GOVERNMENT
still - no sympathy from me, educate yourself BEFORE opening your business.
I think you have accepted a false dilemma, Anonymous. Are there really only two options? -- either to abolish all law or to have onerous, corrupt regulations?
Instead of licensure, what if the legislature just set standards for judging fraud? That way, as long as students are informed that their makeup school is not being taught by licensed cosmetology teachers, they are free to learn there.
That is free, informed exchange. What is so terrible about that? The free market is not anarchy. It is founded upon a system of justice that must define and adjudicate fraud without prohibiting free exchange.
The issue of the dollar bill is tangential, but a monopoly on monetary notes is also unnecessary and harmful.
"I think you have accepted a false dilemma, Anonymous. Are there really only two options? -- either to abolish all law or to have onerous, corrupt regulations?" in that one statement you yourself provide a false dilemma, 'corrupt regulations'? really you must try harder than that.
let's try this in another light, I'll keep the metaphor simple so we don't loose sight of the point. Jim Bob, driving his truck, a 53' tractor trailer, no longer being bound by the corrupt regulation decided that he is able, more so than any other to drive longer than that pesky former federal regulation that stipulated 10 hours of on duty time and not a minute longer. Jim Bob falls asleep, barrels into you and your family and wipes them out. Then because of the regulation that would have otherwise restricted the combining of certain chemicals, a toxic mix of gasses is emitted, killing three families and forcing the evacuation of an entire neighborhood. But wait! You can sue their pants off! Or, those still living can! That is the only remedy provided for in the free market. There are no criminal charges to apply because there is no law that was broken. The civil suit is then entangled in unending appeals. The offending company closes it's doors and because of being incorporated the owners simply open another company under a newly formed corporation, which is why corporations are NOT people, they are corporations.. See, this instance, the free market did nothing to stop this and can do nothing to correct damage that was done. Want a more extreme example of the free market devastating the people of this country at large? Start at Enron and go back, you know what, look forward as well.
My point is simple: These women needed to do their homework FIRST. Their fellow citizens felt that it was good and proper to regulate the sector, their fellow citizens are their neighbors. If you disagree with the regulation work a ballot to repeal it and then guess what, the citizens have a vote, yet again. This is how the country works my friend, not smoke and mirrors, but by people going to the polls and making their voice heard.
As for the dollar bill it is not tangential (good word mate) it is central to the point, we the people own this country it's currency, the laws and indirectly each and every activity that goes on within the contiguous borders.
Educate yourself, knowledge is truly power, once you look closely at the issue at hand the fog clears, the clouds part and you wont feel as terrified of your government as you may have otherwise felt.
I didn't mean that all regulations are necessarily onerous and corrupt (there are so many regulations that I could not possibly know that), instead I meant that your "all or nothing" dilemma included a lot of bad regulations in the "all" part -- regulations which are controlled by corporations in the industry to benefit and protect themselves and stifle competition, which you are defending in this cosmetology case.
Do you really believe that regulations are the result of polling majority support from your fellow citizens/neighbors? When was the last time you voted on regulations?
OR are regulations primarily the work of a tiny minority who already have powerful interests in each industry and who target non-democratic regulatory agencies and politicians instead of you? A more democratic "majority rules" would actually be a step up from where we are now, but even that pales in comparison to individual liberty and liability when it's feasible.
Your driving scenario is entirely different from the cosmetology regulations at hand, but it sounds like we agree that incorporation should not indemnify people who make bad decisions. Their liability would lead to voluntary, innovative prevention.
I'm also sympathetic to the argument that hazardous chemicals and driving puts other people at great risk, and it is therefore reasonable for the State government to mandate insurance which would also lead to prevention. So, the regulations that you describe are likely unnecessary and even ineffective.
"tangential (good word mate)" Thank you for noticing. :) But I still don't see the relation to the dollar bill. Why let the federal reserve inflate your currency and siphon percentages? Do you really have a say in that?
I think you are vastly overestimating your influence over your government and the need for centralized control.
oy vey .. have a good day, your reply was a shot across left field and a bit hard to follow, seems to be contradictory.. you have a Utopian view of the world that is no more rooted in reality than that of those on the conserv. right. keep believing the prophets of industry and their lines of argument, the koch brothers are quite happy their propaganda has influenced your thinking, thank mark levin and americans for prosperity for that, they want you to feel disfranchised and keep all the power and control to themselves.. I however will continue to influence my government (because I can) by voting for those that are forcing regulations on those industries that need. again, this is done by voting (because I can) for those people who will support my view in local, state and federal government. WE LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY and frankly it is saddening to see your perspective that in someway we don't, i want to believe that you truly don't believe what you are saying. if you do however, it's sad, truly sad take another course in civics this winter or spring to refresh your understanding of your role in this please.
ok, wrote this in the early morning so for all you professional english majors sorry, 0.o
What part of what I wrote seems contradictory or utopian? If you'd focus on something specific, I'd be happy to explain. And if I'm wrong, I want to learn. But rather than engaging my statements, you have attributed them to others who I don't really know and who are irrelevant to my argument, and you've belittled my understanding of civics.
I think it is great to vote. We do live in a representative democracy, but that doesn't mean that your fellow citizens and neighbors had a say on particular regulations, because they never voted on it.
The truth is that you have far more control over choosing what to buy than over the creation of regulations, which is a major reason why the free market is better than government mandates.
Yes its true that many regulations can impair the function of a business. Many laws are on the books that stifle the creation of many businesses.
ReplyDeletebetter do your homework BEFORE you open you business... sorry but these women get no sympathy from me, ignorance to the code is not an excuse or reason to be exempt. remember that the govt is not some amalgamation of other-world creatures that we would not or could not understand. if these women disagree with the code then petition to have it amended and vote for the lady/gentlemen that would abolish it. when/if something negative happens as a result of the code being abolished don't complain that there is no regulation, can't have your cake and eat it to
ReplyDeleteWell, they get sympathy from me. The regulations they must comply with amount to extortion because many of those rules do not even rationally apply to their circumstances. Even when the regulations do apply, they are rigid and compliance is prohibitively expensive. Such well-intentioned rules are better enforced through the free market, transparency, and lawsuits assessing actual damage. As Milton Friedman would say, we have to look at the net effects of our laws and not merely their intent.
DeleteAnon, the process you describe for changing the regulations is likewise prohibitively expensive, breeding accumulation, complexity, and corruption. We all break the law regularly because it is so complex, giving power to the whims of law enforcement and arbitrary enemies.
"Such well-intentioned rules are better enforced through the free market, transparency, and lawsuits assessing actual damage" the rules are in place to prevent the lawsuit from happening in the first place. Abolish all law and what are you left with?
DeleteAlso, without regulations what in gods green earth makes you think that the 'free market' would be compelled to be transparent? it's this kind of blind faith in the market that the GOP loves to promote as though the saints in free market are somehow compelled by a higher calling to protect the public at large, simply not the case and frankly should not be.
the private sector exists at the pleasure of the state. look at a dollar bill, which private corporation is listed? None. Here is the key point, all industry must use an instrument that is OWNED by the people through their GOVERNMENT
still - no sympathy from me, educate yourself BEFORE opening your business.
I think you have accepted a false dilemma, Anonymous. Are there really only two options? -- either to abolish all law or to have onerous, corrupt regulations?
DeleteInstead of licensure, what if the legislature just set standards for judging fraud? That way, as long as students are informed that their makeup school is not being taught by licensed cosmetology teachers, they are free to learn there.
That is free, informed exchange. What is so terrible about that? The free market is not anarchy. It is founded upon a system of justice that must define and adjudicate fraud without prohibiting free exchange.
The issue of the dollar bill is tangential, but a monopoly on monetary notes is also unnecessary and harmful.
"I think you have accepted a false dilemma, Anonymous. Are there really only two options? -- either to abolish all law or to have onerous, corrupt regulations?" in that one statement you yourself provide a false dilemma, 'corrupt regulations'? really you must try harder than that.
ReplyDeletelet's try this in another light, I'll keep the metaphor simple so we don't loose sight of the point. Jim Bob, driving his truck, a 53' tractor trailer, no longer being bound by the corrupt regulation decided that he is able, more so than any other to drive longer than that pesky former federal regulation that stipulated 10 hours of on duty time and not a minute longer. Jim Bob falls asleep, barrels into you and your family and wipes them out. Then because of the regulation that would have otherwise restricted the combining of certain chemicals, a toxic mix of gasses is emitted, killing three families and forcing the evacuation of an entire neighborhood. But wait! You can sue their pants off! Or, those still living can! That is the only remedy provided for in the free market. There are no criminal charges to apply because there is no law that was broken. The civil suit is then entangled in unending appeals. The offending company closes it's doors and because of being incorporated the owners simply open another company under a newly formed corporation, which is why corporations are NOT people, they are corporations.. See, this instance, the free market did nothing to stop this and can do nothing to correct damage that was done. Want a more extreme example of the free market devastating the people of this country at large? Start at Enron and go back, you know what, look forward as well.
My point is simple: These women needed to do their homework FIRST. Their fellow citizens felt that it was good and proper to regulate the sector, their fellow citizens are their neighbors. If you disagree with the regulation work a ballot to repeal it and then guess what, the citizens have a vote, yet again. This is how the country works my friend, not smoke and mirrors, but by people going to the polls and making their voice heard.
As for the dollar bill it is not tangential (good word mate) it is central to the point, we the people own this country it's currency, the laws and indirectly each and every activity that goes on within the contiguous borders.
Educate yourself, knowledge is truly power, once you look closely at the issue at hand the fog clears, the clouds part and you wont feel as terrified of your government as you may have otherwise felt.
I didn't mean that all regulations are necessarily onerous and corrupt (there are so many regulations that I could not possibly know that), instead I meant that your "all or nothing" dilemma included a lot of bad regulations in the "all" part -- regulations which are controlled by corporations in the industry to benefit and protect themselves and stifle competition, which you are defending in this cosmetology case.
DeleteDo you really believe that regulations are the result of polling majority support from your fellow citizens/neighbors? When was the last time you voted on regulations?
OR are regulations primarily the work of a tiny minority who already have powerful interests in each industry and who target non-democratic regulatory agencies and politicians instead of you? A more democratic "majority rules" would actually be a step up from where we are now, but even that pales in comparison to individual liberty and liability when it's feasible.
Your driving scenario is entirely different from the cosmetology regulations at hand, but it sounds like we agree that incorporation should not indemnify people who make bad decisions. Their liability would lead to voluntary, innovative prevention.
I'm also sympathetic to the argument that hazardous chemicals and driving puts other people at great risk, and it is therefore reasonable for the State government to mandate insurance which would also lead to prevention. So, the regulations that you describe are likely unnecessary and even ineffective.
"tangential (good word mate)" Thank you for noticing. :) But I still don't see the relation to the dollar bill. Why let the federal reserve inflate your currency and siphon percentages? Do you really have a say in that?
I think you are vastly overestimating your influence over your government and the need for centralized control.
oy vey .. have a good day, your reply was a shot across left field and a bit hard to follow, seems to be contradictory.. you have a Utopian view of the world that is no more rooted in reality than that of those on the conserv. right. keep believing the prophets of industry and their lines of argument, the koch brothers are quite happy their propaganda has influenced your thinking, thank mark levin and americans for prosperity for that, they want you to feel disfranchised and keep all the power and control to themselves.. I however will continue to influence my government (because I can) by voting for those that are forcing regulations on those industries that need. again, this is done by voting (because I can) for those people who will support my view in local, state and federal government. WE LIVE IN A DEMOCRACY and frankly it is saddening to see your perspective that in someway we don't, i want to believe that you truly don't believe what you are saying. if you do however, it's sad, truly sad take another course in civics this winter or spring to refresh your understanding of your role in this please.
Deleteok, wrote this in the early morning so for all you professional english majors sorry, 0.o
What part of what I wrote seems contradictory or utopian? If you'd focus on something specific, I'd be happy to explain. And if I'm wrong, I want to learn. But rather than engaging my statements, you have attributed them to others who I don't really know and who are irrelevant to my argument, and you've belittled my understanding of civics.
DeleteI think it is great to vote. We do live in a representative democracy, but that doesn't mean that your fellow citizens and neighbors had a say on particular regulations, because they never voted on it.
The truth is that you have far more control over choosing what to buy than over the creation of regulations, which is a major reason why the free market is better than government mandates.