(12-06-2016 03:07 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 02:56 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  You enjoy being a sheeple and I refuse to be one.

You enjoy being the sheep that thinks it deserves to roam wherever it wants.

I'll be the sheep that enjoys life, within the limited freedom that the pen provides, and thankful for the watchful eye of the shepherd.

Enough said...

(12-06-2016 02:54 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  There you have it. Libertarianism, and it's sub-disciplines like the gold standard, stem from one aspect of human behavior: there are some people who hate control over their lives. Can't stand it. Bristle at its reality.

And then there are the 99.9% rest of us who accept some level of control over our lives, and expect it. There are even some of us who are grateful for it.

Oh. My. Effing. Gosh.

What on earth indoctrination program did you go through?

Did you pass?!? I guess so.

Wow.

(12-06-2016 03:07 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-06-2016 02:56 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote:  You enjoy being a sheeple and I refuse to be one.

You enjoy being the sheep that thinks it deserves to roam wherever it wants.

I'll be the sheep that enjoys life, within the limited freedom that the pen provides, and thankful for the watchful eye of the shepherd.

Til the shepherd puts you down, cause there ARE no more sheep. #vivalasocialism

I get that those who advocate for no control have an absurd fear of having their lives ruined for no reason by those in control.

Doesn't mean I don't think it's silly.

(12-07-2016 11:39 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  I get that those who advocate for no control have an absurd fear of having their lives ruined for no reason by those in control.

Doesn't mean I don't think it's silly.

But you clearly don't get it. No one is advocating for zero control. Even the most staunch Libertarians have no problem with laws. In fact... in many cases they support MORE stringent laws than what we now have in regard to the breaking of the principle of non aggression(theft,fraud,violence and destruction of property). It is when it comes to personal liberty that Libertarians have major problem with government control.

(12-07-2016 11:39 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  I get that those who advocate for no control have an absurd fear of having their lives ruined for no reason by those in control.

Doesn't mean I don't think it's silly.

You'll have to tell us who, exactly, is advocating for no control?

"We advocate for banning all laws, except we would make a law that lets me kill you if you destroy even a blade of my grass. See, we're basically exactly the same as what exists now."

(12-07-2016 12:39 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  "We advocate for banning all laws, except we would make a law that lets me kill you if you destroy even a blade of my grass. See, we're basically exactly the same as what exists now."

And who advocates that? And when and where did he/she say those words?

(12-07-2016 12:39 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  "We advocate for banning all laws, except we would make a law that lets me kill you if you destroy even a blade of my grass. See, we're basically exactly the same as what exists now."

Who said that?

Meh, shades of gray.

Normal conservatives, as it is, already want to reduce regulations too far. And Libertarians are further down that end of the spectrum, so their ideas are even more dangerous.

(12-07-2016 02:11 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Meh, shades of gray.

meaningless deflection..

Quote:Normal conservatives, as it is, already want to reduce regulations too far.

vacuous rhetoric

Quote:And Libertarians are further down that end of the spectrum, so their ideas are even more dangerous.

Dog whistle scare mongering

yup, everything I've come to expect from one of your posts.

*takes a bow*

(12-04-2016 08:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 08:40 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Regulations are protections for the public against the greed of business.

Some are.

Some are making work for bureaucrats.

And some are there purely to hassle people because that's how bureaucrats get their jollies.

We may need more of the first category, but we clearly need fewer--as in none--in the latter two categories.

and some are to keep the newbies from entering a marketplace to compete with the established business in the given marketplace.
Examples:
require expensive cosmetology license to braid hair
special permit for taxis , UBER , LIFT ,etc to pick up riders from some airports.

some alcohol laws are disguised as protecting consumers that are to keep out competitors.

(12-07-2016 07:27 PM)sparkomemphis Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 08:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 08:40 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Regulations are protections for the public against the greed of business.

Some are.
Some are making work for bureaucrats.
And some are there purely to hassle people because that's how bureaucrats get their jollies.
We may need more of the first category, but we clearly need fewer--as in none--in the latter two categories.

and some are to keep the newbies from entering a marketplace to compete with the established business in the given marketplace.
Examples:
require expensive cosmetology license to braid hair
special permit for taxis , UBER , LIFT ,etc to pick up riders from some airports.
some alcohol laws are disguised as protecting consumers that are to keep out competitors.

Absolutely.

(12-07-2016 07:27 PM)sparkomemphis Wrote:  require expensive cosmetology license to braid hair
special permit for taxis , UBER , LIFT ,etc to pick up riders from some airports.
some alcohol laws are disguised as protecting consumers that are to keep out competitors.

These don't prove that the cosmetology, taxi, and alcohol industries should be unregulated.

Sure, fine tuning can be appropriate. And I happen to mostly agree with the second two.

(12-07-2016 10:45 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 07:27 PM)sparkomemphis Wrote:  require expensive cosmetology license to braid hair
special permit for taxis , UBER , LIFT ,etc to pick up riders from some airports.
some alcohol laws are disguised as protecting consumers that are to keep out competitors.

These don't prove that the cosmetology, taxi, and alcohol industries should be unregulated.
Sure, fine tuning can be appropriate. And I happen to mostly agree with the second two.

Nobody said it did prove they should be unregulated. What was said is that existing regulations serve more as barriers to entry than as protection for the public.

(12-04-2016 08:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 08:40 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Regulations are protections for the public against the greed of business.

Some are.

Some are making work for bureaucrats.

And some are there purely to hassle people because that's how bureaucrats get their jollies.

We may need more of the first category, but we clearly need fewer--as in none--in the latter two categories.

Perfect example.

Every one of our personnel at the FD were required to be medically certified at the First Responder level or higher. A significant number were EMT all the way up to Paramedic. Despite every single person holding higher certification and having to undergo continuing education to maintain said certification we were required by federal regulation each year to spend a day getting re-certified in basic first aid and CPR. Since our level of training required that we use CPR for the Professional Rescuer the time was wasted learning basic CPR because we couldn't use it, and the skills learned in Basic First Aid were already covered in our higher level recerts.

Every one of our personnel was required to be certified at the Hazmat Operations level so that they could fill support roles on hazmat incidents. Most of our people were certified above that at the Hazmat Technician level with a number of us holding certifications higher than that. Despite the fact that we all held higher certification that again required continuing education education to maintain the certification we had to spend a day each year re-certifying at the Haz Mat Awareness level.

Two days a year that we wasted maintaining skills we already superseded but because of a federal mandate we had to waste time and money keeping up. We had stopped doing the lower level recerts for a few years because we assumed our higher level training recert would meet the requirement but we became aware reading an OSHA investigation report of another department that they had been fined for doing the same thing we were doing so we immediately reinstated the recerts despite the fact that it cost us time and money and took away precious training hours that we could be using on something that was actually beneficial.

(12-07-2016 07:50 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-07-2016 07:27 PM)sparkomemphis Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 08:47 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-04-2016 08:40 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Regulations are protections for the public against the greed of business.

Some are.
Some are making work for bureaucrats.
And some are there purely to hassle people because that's how bureaucrats get their jollies.
We may need more of the first category, but we clearly need fewer--as in none--in the latter two categories.

and some are to keep the newbies from entering a marketplace to compete with the established business in the given marketplace.
Examples:
require expensive cosmetology license to braid hair
special permit for taxis , UBER , LIFT ,etc to pick up riders from some airports.
some alcohol laws are disguised as protecting consumers that are to keep out competitors.

Absolutely.

This is why K street needs destroying.

(12-08-2016 04:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What was said is that existing regulations serve more as barriers to entry than as protection for the public.

One piece of one part of the total regulation structure, could be viewed that way, perhaps.

I doubt anyone is against improving regulations, as appropriate.

(12-08-2016 06:41 AM)Kaplony Wrote:  Every one of our personnel at the FD were required to be medically certified at the First Responder level or higher. A significant number were EMT all the way up to Paramedic. Despite every single person holding higher certification and having to undergo continuing education to maintain said certification we were required by federal regulation each year to spend a day getting re-certified in basic first aid and CPR. Since our level of training required that we use CPR for the Professional Rescuer the time was wasted learning basic CPR because we couldn't use it, and the skills learned in Basic First Aid were already covered in our higher level recerts.

Every one of our personnel was required to be certified at the Hazmat Operations level so that they could fill support roles on hazmat incidents. Most of our people were certified above that at the Hazmat Technician level with a number of us holding certifications higher than that. Despite the fact that we all held higher certification that again required continuing education education to maintain the certification we had to spend a day each year re-certifying at the Haz Mat Awareness level.

Two days a year that we wasted maintaining skills we already superseded but because of a federal mandate we had to waste time and money keeping up. We had stopped doing the lower level recerts for a few years because we assumed our higher level training recert would meet the requirement but we became aware reading an OSHA investigation report of another department that they had been fined for doing the same thing we were doing so we immediately reinstated the recerts despite the fact that it cost us time and money and took away precious training hours that we could be using on something that was actually beneficial.

Another good example showing that thoughtful improvement or fine tuning of the overall regulation structure is a valid proposal, but which does not prove that there should be no regulations at all.

Who, in any position of power, said there should be NO regulation at all?