Left In Lowell

Right. Let’s Forget Regulation.

21 Responses to “Right. Let’s Forget Regulation.”

1. waittilnextyr Says:
   October 31st, 2007 at 4:17 pm

   The US importers must be held responsible. And the politicians that sign “free” trade agreements are equally culpable. Sue the importers, and subject the politicians to waterboarding (that’s acceptable, isn’t it?).

2. Shawn Says:
   October 31st, 2007 at 5:40 pm

   Maybe the democrats can have an “investigation”

3. Josh Says:
   October 31st, 2007 at 9:19 pm

   Newsflash: We already have an (over)abundance of regulation!

   Obviously, its not working, but your solution seems to be add more of something that is not working.

   The better solution is to have consumers sue any manufacturer who produces hazardous products. It actually compensates victims and sends the signal to other manufacturers that they will lose lots of money if they do the same thing. (And don’t tell me that such a solution is reactive because obviously the regulation that might follow this incident is not proactive either)

4. Mr. Lynne Says:
   October 31st, 2007 at 10:00 pm

   Right…. underfunding and corrupting the mission of regulatory agencies by have wolves appointed to run them couldn’t possibly have anything to do with it now could it.

5. tim Says:
   October 31st, 2007 at 11:30 pm

   Josh, at best, your solution would leave lots of people rich and brain damaged, or rich and dead. Nice. But it also doesn’t take into account that lots of people can’t afford to sue, or at least afford the dream-team lawyers that large companies can afford. Furthermore, it is not always easy (or affordable) to determine where the toxins are coming from.

   Regulation plus enforcement is what is needed. and yes, suing the pants off any company that manages to get around that. But why would you want to wait until people are sick?

   The dangers of lead were known as far back as 1900 or so, but the lead industry fought hard and launched many campaigns arguing that lead paint was perfectly safe. They even made false claims about removing it from interior paints. So I’m not convinced that if one company is sued, another company is going to get the message. They might just try harder to cover their tracks.

6. Muronao Says:
   November 1st, 2007 at 3:38 am

   Yeah, and it’s not like Republicans are obsessed with “tort reform,” otherwise known as giving corporate campaign donors free reign to kill and maim to their hearts’ content by restricting victims’ ability to sue and collect damages, either.

7. joe Says:
   November 1st, 2007 at 9:21 am

   We “have an (over)abundance of regulation” the way FEMA had an overabundance of emergency services in Louisiana.

   Doesn’t do a whole lotta good if it’s in the hands of cronies and ideological fanatics more interested in proving a point than doing their job or helping people. This administration is trying to enforce the consumer safety regulations the way O.J. Simpson tried to put on those gloves.

   When people who spend their adult lives declaring that it’s not important for the government to do a good job take over the government, guess what? The government doesn’t do its job well.

8. waittilnextyr Says:
   November 1st, 2007 at 11:10 am

   Some lawsuits work:
   “BALTIMORE (Nov. 1) -Members of a fundamentalist Kansas church ordered to pay nearly $11 million in damages to a grieving father smiled as they walked out of the courtroom, vowing that the verdict would not deter them from protesting at military funerals.”

9. joe Says:
   November 1st, 2007 at 12:27 pm

   The Westboro Baptist Church protests are a scam. Those people make a living by inciting people to assault them, then filing civil suits over the assault.

   Darn right they’re going to keep protesting - otherwise, how will they pay the settlement?

10. joe Says:
    November 1st, 2007 at 12:48 pm

    I remember when those nutcases came to Massachusetts last year.

    First they went to Lexington to hold their freak show, and the people of Lexington turned out to counterprotest. With a great deal of quiet dignity, they formed a rank and quietly turned their backs on Phelps and his crew. I think that speaks volumes about the character of people in Lexington.

    Then they came to Lowell. That day, the Lowell Police Department separated the freakshow from the counterprotesters with a rank of policeman, a high chain link fence, and then another rank of policemen. Which was probably a good idea. I think that speaks volumes about the character of people in Lowell.

    For my part, I’ll take Lowell. But God Bless, Lexington.

11. Josh Says:
    November 1st, 2007 at 6:04 pm

    Right… because bad products never make it pass government regulators when we have a Democratic president… get real!

12. Mr. Lynne Says:
    November 1st, 2007 at 7:32 pm

    Indeed. Why make any effort to look after safety before people get hurt when we can always do it after.

13. Josh Says:
    November 1st, 2007 at 7:52 pm

    Mr. Lynne, the problem is that government regulation is not proactive as this case demonstrates.

    Tort law has the same deterrent effect as regulation, but it does not arbitarily restrict people’s decisions and does not increase costs for business (and thus consumers) in general.

    Besides, even without either, the market has a mechanism to deter and punish businesses that harm their customers. Businesses can only make a profit by giving people what they want.

14. Mr. Lynne Says:
    November 1st, 2007 at 8:17 pm

    You are painting ‘regulation’ with an awfully broad bush. Is it your intent to remove all product safety regulation in favor of after the fact tort reparation? Are there stupid regulations?… probably. Should they be fixed or removed?… sure. But to suggest that after-the-fact tort reparations (note also that cronyist government also seeks to limit tort liability) for everything, including safety, is to give up mitigating risk in any way as a society.

    If it can make cost/benefit sense in the private sector to mitigate risk, why doesn’t it make sense for the government to take steps to mitigate our collective risk for our benefit? You, as a private citizen, take pro-active measures in the market. You can decide to buy this car instead of that. Reasons can be multiple. What’s wrong with deciding that there are some reasons to exclude some product characteristics (lethality for instance) on principal for anyone? What’s wrong with the collective ‘us’ deciding that there are minimum standards beyond which it would be unacceptable for any citizens to subject to?

15. tim Says:
    November 1st, 2007 at 10:40 pm

    Arbitrarily restrict? Arbitrarily? What decision is being restricted here? The one to put a toxic chemical into your child’s mouth??

    What the hell? And I mean that as a serious question. See that search bar, over there? The one with the G next to it? I’m sure you can find plenty of examples of companies making a profit while harming their customers, or other citizens. Cigarettes. Tanneries. Paint companies, the ones that put lead in their products - like we’re currently talking about.

    Plenty of examples of companies continuing to put out harmful products long after it was well known to them and others. Companies that put out deceiving information so people will continue to buy their product. Companies that continued making a profit while harming their customers.

    And please with the market forces - it’s not that simple and everyone here knows it.

16. joe Says:
    November 2nd, 2007 at 9:07 am

    If little Billy hadn’t suffered brain damage, I’m sure he’d be happy to know that the company that manfactured the toys went out of business eight years later.

    Been there. Done that. Decided we didn’t want rats ground up in our sausage.

17. Lynne Says:
    November 2nd, 2007 at 2:20 pm

    joe: two points for the muckraking reference.

18. Muronao Says:
    November 3rd, 2007 at 3:35 am

    “Arbitrarily restrict? Arbitrarily? What decision is being restricted here? The one to put a toxic chemical into your child’s mouth??”

    All across America, people are fuming that the Nanny State is depriving them of the ability to inadvertently poison their kids AND waste all their money on dangerous and useless products. We chafe under this restriction of our freedom. Don’t act like this is only a concern at the High School Freshmen Howard Roarke Wannabees Club with absolutely no application in the real world, you elitist.

    And I’m still pissed at those muckrakers, if it weren’t for them I could have afforded to live in the city for the two weeks before I died of cholera.

19. Lynne Says:
    November 3rd, 2007 at 11:59 am

    Muronao, have you ever applied to write for the Daily Show? LOL. I think you’d do really well there! You have a refined sense of irony and sarcasm.

20. Josh Says:
    November 3rd, 2007 at 8:27 pm

    Yes, because when the legislature enacts thousands upon thousands of page of new regulaions each year, all they say is “don’t hurt other people”

    Once again, get real and take a look at the legislation that actually gets passed. It simply burdens us all a little bit more without actually doing anything.

21. Jason Says:
    November 3rd, 2007 at 11:51 pm

    Cholera, ahh the good old days.

    Me I try to expose my kid to all the germs and toxins I can, Trying to build up a good tolerance and all. We’re currently seeking suggestions on methods to have them evolve their own gills in case global warming is worse than we think.

    FYI, if the writers guild strikes, the Daily Show may be in desperate need shortly.

    And man what I wouldn’t give for a crack at the Westboro Baptist nutbags. Completely not worth it in real life, but fun to think about the possibilities. Got to hand it to them they, push buttons better than Carl Rove ever did.

Leave a Reply