Legitamate Market Force?

[Domino]

Business, corporations in particular, always have the option to lose a tainted name and take another, and continue business as usual. If we had no government regulation or punishment, that's all any company would ever do.

[MplsBison]

Quote by: lsbskins1 we have known for YEARS that lead paint is dangerous, especsially to young children.

Then make a law that says it's illegal to sell toys with lead paint on them.



If any companies dare to test the law, they will be stuck with the hand of law, swiftly and justly.



Government "regulation" just wastes money and adds cost to honest businesses.




Lawsuits are the true regulation.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: MplsBison Then make a law that says it's illegal to sell toys with lead paint on them. If any companies dare to test the law, they will be stuck with the hand of law, swiftly and justly. Government "regulation" just wastes money and adds cost to honest businesses. Lawsuits are the true regulation.

But that is government regulation, laws that limit the conduct of a business! So, you are for government regulation and you didn't even know it. The EPA enforces laws that tell businesses what limits exist on their practices, the FAA, all those evil "regulatory agencies" are just enforcing law. Do you think they just pull regulations out of their butts? That is government regulation. Glad you are with me.

[MplsBison]

Laws are not regulation.


Laws just provide a basis for a lawsuit, nothing more.




Regulation is paying government workers to go into factories and inspect/test things.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: MplsBison Laws are not regulation. Laws just provide a basis for a lawsuit, nothing more. Regulation is paying government workers to go into factories and inspect/test things.

And if you pass a law that says hamburger must be free of ecoli, how do you enforce that law if nobody tests the meat? If you say "no lead paint in toys", must you, again, wait for the deaths to have reason to test? Regulation and law enforcement are one and the same. Welcome to my team. Law = regulation because you have to test to enforce, law with no enforcement is no law, it is a set of rules on paper everyone ignores. There is also the distinction between Criminal and Civil law, which you seem to be missing. Law is not just about monetary punishment. It is about setting criminal penalties where they are warrented, like when you willfully endanger the lives of children because lead paint sells for X amount less per gallon and you place profit over life and health. Not just lawsuits, jail time. Inspection is necessary for the law to mean anything. What purpose does the other serve in the long run? Bean-counters come out of the woodwork, calculating the profit per unit sold v. the cost per unit in damages and figure out how to maximize profits while still ignoring public safety. Lawsuit, shmawsuit!

[MplsBison]

Quote by: lsbskins1 law with no enforcement is no law

Just because a law is on the books does not mean it must automatically be enforced at all times.


More importantly, just because a law can't be enforced all the times does not mean it should not be on the books!




As I said, the main purpose of laws is to provide a basis for lawsuits.



Lawsuits, above all, are how justice is applied to the unjust situations of our existance.

The courtroom is where the real damage is done.

it is a set of rules on paper everyone ignores.

If they choose to ignore it, they will get the shirt taken right off their backs in the courtroom.

It is about setting criminal penalties where they are warrented, like when you willfully endanger the lives of children because lead paint sells for X amount less per gallon and you place profit over life and health.

Absolutely!

That's why we have both criminal and civil lawsuits.


Laws provide a basis for both.

Inspection is necessary for the law to mean anything.

False.



No matter how much money you dump into inspections, you can never catch everyone all the time.

History has proven this time and time again.

And it will always be so.

[lsbskins1]

Please provide some sort of evidence that unenforced laws are more effective than enforced laws. What you are saying is absurd on it's face, as near as I can tell. The idea that the point of inspections is moot if they do not catch everyone, every time just makes no sense. All the statistics I have seen show that certainty of punishment (likelihood you will be caught) is much more important in prevention than severity of punishment (the price you pay if you get caught). Inspections would increase the likelihood of punishment and therefore be much more detrimental to occurrence than the simple existence of a law would ever be. I do not understand the logic behind the thinking of your perspective.

[MplsBison]

Quote by: lsbskins1 All the statistics I have seen show that certainty of punishment (likelihood you will be caught) is much more important in prevention than severity of punishment (the price you pay if you get caught).

If a company makes a product that will hurt people they will end up in court.



If there is a law that says what they did was illegal, the court will order them to pay a judgement.




Can't make it much clearer than that.

[lsbskins1]

I could say "Winning has nothing to do with Championships" and it would make as much sense as saying "Inspections have nothing to do with certainty of punishment." Do not simply repeat the assertion. Support it in some way. Show me how more dirty restaurants are closed down when there are no health inspectors. Provide some statistic that shows that water is less contaminated in areas that do not test the water. Support an assertion that is so blatantly counter intuitive, please.

[MplsBison]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Show me how more dirty restaurants are closed down when there are no health inspectors.

I don't advocate closing restaurants down because they fail some arbitrary criteria via corrupt human inspectors.



I advocate that if a restaurant patron becomes ill because of food eaten there, they should get to sue the crap out of that restaurant.

[Domino]

The problem I see with that is that just compensation for the harm done is often not nearly sufficient to serve as an effective deterrent.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: MplsBison I don't advocate closing restaurants down because they fail some arbitrary criteria via corrupt human inspectors. I advocate that if a restaurant patron becomes ill because of food eaten there, they should get to sue the crap out of that restaurant.

Then you advocate for a system that ensures plenty of sick patrons and lots of business owners who will place profit over health. You advocate for a system where the public will continue to be harmed at a rate that is both stupid and completely unnecessary. Good system.

You have also still not answered the core question. Why is this economically more productive?

[JaneDoe321]

Holy crap, the idea of using the American court system to protect the public from the greed of Corporate America scares the living daylights out of me. That system is bloated beyond belief now and open to insane travesties of justice. Not to mention you'd have to find "expert witnesses" for all 6 gazillion *new* lawsuits, which would result in essentially the same thing as oversight agencies, but with more injuries/fatalities/illness while people waited their turn for a slot on the docket.

*shiver*

Perhaps if you were creating a system from *scratch* that concept would have a chance but as it stands? Ye gads.

[MplsBison]

Quote by: lsbskins1 Then you advocate for a system that ensures plenty of sick patrons and lots of business owners who will place profit over health.

I advocate a system where any restaurant stupid enough to keep a dirty kitchen deserves to be sued into closing down.

Why is this economically more productive?

When did I say it was?


Increased economic productivity does not justify government regulation.

[MplsBison]

Quote by: JaneDoe321 Holy crap, the idea of using the American court system to protect the public from the greed of Corporate America scares the living daylights out of me. That system is bloated beyond belief now and open to insane travesties of justice. Not to mention you'd have to find "expert witnesses" for all 6 gazillion *new* lawsuits, which would result in essentially the same thing as oversight agencies, but with more injuries/fatalities/illness while people waited their turn for a slot on the docket.

Expand the system to handle the increased load.

[grandpa]

Quote by: MplsBison Expand the system to handle the increased load.

Why would a bigger, more powerful system be more accountable?
Currently, the system is expanding, as it must in order to partition itself off from the people.

Grandpa h.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: MplsBison I advocate a system where any restaurant stupid enough to keep a dirty kitchen deserves to be sued into closing down. When did I say it was? Increased economic productivity does not justify government regulation.

If what you advocated made that happen, we might have a reasonable discussion. But putting laws with no enforcement behind them "on the books" serves only one purpose. It makes it appear someone is attempting to solve the problem while they are in practice and fact, doing nothing to solve the problem. It costs nothing (no inspectors to pay, etc) allows law makers to attend glitzy signing ceremonies and proclaim their dedication for PR purposes and leaves citizens just as vulnerable to the whims of those who care only about personal profit.

The thrust of the OP was that lazie-faire Capitolits always claim that regulation hampers economic productivity because it "interfers with the free market" and my point was that a "free market" was meant to respond to pressure from customers, and since citizens are the customers, why should citizens not be able to pressure the market though a free, democratic government with the regulation they deem necessary? I do not want you to justfy my point (that regulation in a free system is nothing more than natural market control and an essential piece of a free market's natural balance) but rather, if you are going to take a position counter to mine, explain why my position is faulty. You have not done that. You have said it is faulty, but not provided any reason behind that assumption. You just say "Regulation is bad." Why? What benefit do you gain from hampering the will of the consumers of the market by removing the most efficient means at their disposal to ensure that their desires are brought to bear on the market?

[MplsBison]

Quote by: lsbskins1 If what you advocated made that happen, we might have a reasonable discussion. But putting laws with no enforcement behind them "on the books" serves only one purpose. It makes it appear someone is attempting to solve the problem while they are in practice and fact, doing nothing to solve the problem. It costs nothing (no inspectors to pay, etc) allows law makers to attend glitzy signing ceremonies and proclaim their dedication for PR purposes and leaves citizens just as vulnerable to the whims of those who care only about personal profit.

It gives citizens the tool they need to protect themselves: a legal basis for a winning lawsuit.

why should citizens not be able to pressure the market though a free, democratic government with the regulation they deem necessary?

As soon as the market is regulated, it's by definition not a free market.


If the goal is to have a free market you therefore can't use regulation.

[Domino]

In a free market, consumers are free to organize into a cooperative unit, boycotting businesses into submission. A company's consumer base can regulate it all they want.

So, why not have all the consumers organize into a regulative body? Oh wait, they have... it's called government.

[MplsBison]

Quote by: Domino So, why not have all the consumers organize into a regulative body? Oh wait, they have... it's called government.

The difference being that those who voluntarily join the body voluntarily pay dues where a government takes dues from everyone, regardless if they want to join or not.