The World’s Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!

Government Regulation: A good thing, or a bad thing?

This comment thread originated in Secular Sexuality in reference to legalized prostitution, but it has changed into a discussion about government regulation. For that reason, I don’t think it needs to stay in the sexuality group. If you are interested in commenting, then please visit Secular Sexuality and read the original comments.

Below is my response to the last comment posted by AN member "Habman". His words are italicized. BTW, he is against gov regulation, and I am for it.

@ Habman:

Yesterday you said: Regulation is what lead to the Wall Street melt down as people believed that someone else was looking out for their best interests.

So, if people believed that someone else was looking out for them, but they were not really looking out for them, then regulation was not really taking place, right? So how can it be the fault of regulation?

So then what is regulation? If 1000's of pages of law is not then is 2000, 5000, 10000, 100000? So what would you say is "real regulation"?

Regulation isn’t just about rules, or the number of pages in a legal document, it is about common sense oversight that protects people, institutions, and our shared resources.

And insiders will always be making the decisions. Is the Obama administration consulting you regarding what the new regulations for the banking industry should be? No they are being written by industry insiders who have bought and paid for them and the regulations will in the end benefit them and they companies.

Okay, I know I brought up industry insiders, but it is not necessarily a bad thing for them to be involved in regulation policy, as they are the ones with the know how about how an industry or sector works. You certainly don’t want biologists making economic policy. So the problem is not necessarily with insiders or those related to the field. The problem is when these insiders misuse the trust or power given to them in order to benefit a few corporations at the expense of the people.

Please name one thing that government does well. If they can't correctly regulate the banking industry after 200 years then how in the heck can they run the economy? And no the government is not an alien force it is much more insidious. It provides us with the appearance of freedom, but is actually the tool which the powerful and connected use to gain advantage over the unwashed masses, namely us.

They can’t correctly regulate the banking industry because of corruption and loopholes in existing so-called regulation. IMO, most regulation is only masquerading as regulation. One paragraph prohibits something, and the next provides a loophole to get around it. Lobbyists, corporations, and politicians see to that. It is a way of cheating the system, but that is a problem of ethics, and not one of regulation. Also, no, our freedom is not absolute, such as freedom of speech or gun rights, but I believe things like banking and credit industries that have too much power and influence are a bigger threat to freedom than government agencies. And yes, you are right, most laws and policies are, in one form or another, a “tool which the powerful and connected use to gain advantage over the unwashed masses, namely us.”

It is exactly the same thing just a different form. If you believe that the government has the right to regulate any non-violent activity you have given them power to regulate all non-violent activities and they will grab that power like a 4 year old grabs a lollipop.

The gov currently has the power to regulate non-violent activity, and yet we don’t live in a police state, as you are kind of suggesting. I don’t have to “show my papers” everywhere I go, and stuff like that.

All government is force plan and simple. Government is the measured application of violence again anything they deem unlawful.

Governments are a force, but not necessarily always bad. I hope you don’t think the US gov is as “forceful” as the Iranian gov. I’m not suggesting we’re always right, of course; that we don’t have many problems. Also, I am glad that some things are deemed unlawful, and that the government has the power of “measured application of violence again[st]” it—things like rape and murder.

I totally agree that they do, and that is why I oppose government in all its forms.
Your life is the basis of all your property and as such, it is you that should decide how it is used. Period. If you want to ingest a drug for what ever purpose, have at it. As long as you do not intrude on me or my property, you have that un-alienable right. Marriage is another example of usurpation by government.

I do not oppose gov in all forms, as you do. I think that is too extreme of an opinion. I agree, it is up to me to decide how my life is used, not the government’s; same for abortion rights, IMO. And yes, there are many ways in which the gov is too meddlesome. However, that sometimes comes about because of really bad behavior on the part of the citizens, like people dumping trash on the side of the streets. If people disposed of their trash properly, we wouldn’t need laws to regulate and punish behavior, and TX wouldn’t spend something like 11 million per annum to clean up our highways.

Marriage was historically a function of the church with no state involvement. Slowly the government transformed it from a religious rite to a state license.

Thank goodness for that, or else the church would control it still, and divorce and interracial marriage would be “illegal”.

As it currently stands industry can dump toxins poisoning and killing people downstream and as long as they stay under the government regulatory maximums those injured are powerless to do anything about it. They cannot sue for damages because the industry was "operating within the allowable limits". And if the government fines them for dumping the injured parties again get nothing it is the government that benefits.

This is so very true. I agree with you completely. But the fault here is regulation that is too soft, with too many loopholes, that does not punish corporations for hurting citizens, or hold them accountable. Can you honestly suggest that LESS REGULATION would be better, because then the corporations will simply do the right thing out of the goodness of their hearts?

Another perfect example. Exactly how does any regulation in the books protect you when you get your taxes done? What actually protects you is the accountant wanting to stay in business. Government regulations in no way insure that the accountant is competent, intelligent or honest. What they actually do is drive up the cost of having your taxes done but limiting the number of accountants available.

It protects me by giving me some assurance that these people are adhering to some standard of training, are proving themselves (through cont. ed testing) competent and able to do their job, that they understand IRS rules, and that they didn’t get their degree from the Copa Cabana School of Accounting. It also gives me a way to seek recourse if they fail to do their job, and to hopefully hold them accountable (that is if lobbyists haven’t weaseled in too many loopholes and corporate protectionism clauses).

Predatory businesses don’t care about doing the right thing. They care about exploiting people, so while an honest person may not need regulation, the crook is certainly not going to protect me just because he wants to stay in business.

Just as medical schools where implemented by doctors to limit the number of doctors practicing by limiting the number that are allowed to graduate.

That is the craziest thing I’ve ever heard. Medical schools were implemented to teach people how to become doctors. It is a pretty hard degree to get, I believe. Certainly harder than the one I got.

Again another example that proves my point. Doctors mistakes kill more people each year that guns, cars, planes and drowning. But we don't see a movement to ban doctors and what where does regulation protect the patient from bad doctors?

Doctor’s don’t kill people. Disease kills people. Doctor’s make mistakes because medicine is not an exact science, diseases mutate or are incurable, and sometimes patients don’t do what they are told or follow RX instructions, etc. No doctor is perfect, they are human, but I can forgive a competent MD who makes a human mistake before I can forgive an incompetent MD who doesn’t give a shit.

In fact every instance you've brought up is handled just fine under civil or criminal law.

Civil and criminal law is a form of regulation and a form of government exerting control over the unwashed masses. I thought you were against all forms of gov, so how can you use that statement? You said: I oppose government in all its forms…

Punished for overly selfish or anti-social ways? Was anyone punished in the banking collapse? How about AIG?

No they were not. They got away with it, and it was wrong. And I’m angry over it. But that didn’t happen because of regulation; that happened because of cronyism, corrupt or weak politicians, and the influence of money in Washington.

No! In both cases in fact some of them received huge freaking bonuses paid for with the fruits of my and your labors in the form of tax dollars for doing so!! This is the product of government regulation.

First sentence is true. Second is not.

But an investment broker with 30 minutes and a pencil figured it out and contacted the SEC, explained the fraud and what did they do about it? They ignored it! Why because Bernie was connected, hell he ran the NYSE. Just proves my point once again.

True, but that does not prove that regulation is wrong. It proves that corruption and a lack of ethics exists where it should not. Not that regulation is inherently a bad idea.

Fraud is already as illegal as it can be, so why in the world would we need another level of laws to protect against it? Regulations of any industry are put in place to allow cover for certain companies at the expense of others.

This is also true, but again, this is not true oversight and regulation. This is corporate welfare masquerading as regulation. It’s just a lie.

Take the NAFTA "free trade" agreement, 12,000 pages of regulation to define "free trade". I can define it in one paragraph, but want it actually did was protect certain companies from having to trade freely in an open and fair marketplace.

Don’t know much about NAFTA, but I tend to think you are right. It also gave us an unfair advantage over the little guy in 3rd world markets because we subsized (corporate welfare) many US businesses, like agribusiness, and they can’t compete with that.

I find it amazing that only when it comes to government are people willing to throw more and more money into a organization that fails time and again.

Would you take your car back into a repair shop that when returned to pick it up after an oil change found that the wheels were missing and then told you that if you just paid them more to begin with it would have never happened? I bet not, so why do you buy into the idea that if we just give them more they will be less corrupt?

So what you are suggesting is that our government run by US citizens is highly flawed and corrupt, but private corporations, run by US citizens, and allowed to do business without regulation would do a better job? That they would not be flawed and corrupt, but would do the right thing, act with honesty, fairness, and integrity out of the goodness of their heart? And that regulation is just holding them back from being the decent, fair-minded citizens they long to be? To me, it sounds like that that is what you are suggesting. The same people that run corporations are often the same ppl in gov, but at least in government people have some sway over who gets elected, who can run for an office, and stuff like that. People have none of that control over corporations.

I’m not saying our gov is perfect, but I still think real, enforceable, honest regulation is better than false regulation or no regulation at all.

So just extend this to the sex trade and you will have just one more mess. The reason that they keep the sex trade illegal is it produces millions in fines and fees that feed the government system with it's prisons, police, judicial and legal systems.

Perhaps so, just as they keep cigarettes legal. It may cause health problems, but it sure does bring in a lot of income in the form of tax dollars -- tax dollars you can count on, cuz it is kind of like, IDK, addictive.

Government creates imagined boogie men to justify its existence, and it is time we see through it.

True, just like republicans do with homosexuals. We're the boogie man whose gonna destroy all those decent, faithful, happy heterosexual marriages. But corporations do this same thing through marketing and consumer pressures, but that is another discussion.

Tags: Washington, congress, corporate welfare, free market, justice, oversight, politics, regulation, rule of law

0 members like this

▶ Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dallas the Phallus on July 3, 2009 at 11:30am

We already have laws that determine that don't we? If a company sells a substandard product or misrepresents a product they are guilty of fraud. Right?

Yes, correct. That is called REGULATION.

Currently they can pollute your property to their hearts content as long as it is within the "allowable" limits, can't they? And what happens if they exceed the allowable limits and are fined for it? The government gets the fine, not the damaged party.

Do you think that is a good system?

No I do not. But that is the fault of POOR REGULATION and unethical behavior.

So authoritarian government is better then authoritarian religion? What if the authoritarian religion promoted human rights for all races, creeds, colors and sexual orientations? Would government still be better?

Absolute, invasive, and extreme authoritarianism is not good at all. But some authority is good. The police have the authority to get a warrant, break down a front door, and arrest a person guilty of a crime. They do not have the authority to enter your home without just cause. There is a balance there between punishing the guilty and protecting the private citizen. Maybe not perfect, but better than Communist Russia and the KGB. Plus, a gov can be a democracy where people have a voice, but no religion, EVER, has had any democratic leanings. They are all authoritarian by nature, so it is not a completely apropos analogy. And no religion has ever "promoted human rights for all races, creeds, colors and sexual orientations." On the contrary, it is typically quite the opposite, with an US against THEM mentality. So while there are times when the gov can act like a religion in certain ways, it is not usually the case that a religion acts like a (democratic) government. An authoritarian one, perhaps, but not a democratic one.

...but democracy also is also not founded in reality...

So how does anarchism work if it is not based on democracy of it's particpants? Isn't it anti-authoritarian? If so, doesn't that imply a preference for democracy?

...there is a huge superstition that it can cure all socitail ill, which it never has nor ever will...

I don't think it would cure ALL societal ill, and I'm not sure anyone does. But I sure prefer it to communism, nationalism, authoritarianism, or a theocracy.

See democracy is nothing more than mob rule. Majority against the minority.

So what is a more equitable alternative? Especially in light of the fact that less than half of Americans vote regularly?

...but we have let government ignore the limited imposed on it, and run wild.

I agree to an extent, especially when government takes too many rights away from people or gets too involved in certain things. But should a government show restraint when protecting the innocent from injustice? I mean, it is one thing to criminalize private sexual activity (wrong), but it is something altogether different to force corporations to NOT dump toxic waste in a river which ends up killing people (right). Why shouldn't a government be heavy-handed in the latter example?

If democracy is the be all and end all then in your particular situation when there are many more heteros voters then gay voters on an issue when you lose you should support the will of the majority then. Right?

No! Tyranny by democracy is still tyranny! Democracy is a PROCESS, not a PRODUCT. It is a MEANS, not an END. If we all voted to enslave black Americans again it would still be wrong. Just like REGULATION that was inherently unfair, biased, and corrupt would still be WRONG.

"Sorry but we voted and you lost, so deal" would become the tag line for the outcome.

I've heard that from conservatives regarding Prop 8 in California. "Sorry. You loose. The majority has spoken."

Democracy is nothing more then two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner.

So what is anarchy?

To achieve true equality requires that people respect the life and property each other, and understand that each individual has the right to decide how it is used and disposed of without interference from any other person, group or government. This applies even if you do not agree with them as long as they are not directly harming you or your property.

I kind of agree with this, though I don't think TRUE equality will ever be reached. But I do think it is an ideal worth fighting for. However, as an example, I don't think true financial equality is attainable. Societies function through stratification. There has to be someone to take out the trash. An important function in our society, even though those people are probably considered to be on the lower rungs. Do you know what I mean by this example? Someone has to engineer the streets, someone must finance them, someone else uses them, someone else polices them, someone else repairs them, someone else cleans them. A stratified society.

As long as you do not intrude on the rights of another then do as you please.

Okay fine, but what do you do when someone fails to adhere to this good advice? What do you do with the evil corporate scoundrel? Without some kind of regulation you can't punish them.

zoning laws...

But don't zoning laws make sense? Don't they say you can't build a kindercare center next to a six lane highway, or put a bridge over someone's house, or sell porn next to a school, or put in a city dump in someone's neighborhood, etc? Isn't that kind of regulation a good thing?

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Little Name Atheist on July 3, 2009 at 9:35am

Habman wrote: And no, true anarchists are not those black clothed riot bunnies you see on the news throwing bottle through the windows at the nearest bank or Starbucks. Those for the most part a socialists/communists who think they are anarchists.

Nah, they're just assholes.

An ex-friend who claims to have been an anarchist all his life (sprang from the womb an anarchist, evidently) told me about throwing a brick through a window at a Starbucks in Seattle during the G8 protests. This was supposed to engender some sort of awe and/or respect leading to me giving him a piece of ass. I just gave him a piece of my mind instead.

I'm no fan of corporate sprawl, but terrifying or possibly endangering low-wage workers and bystanders doesn't strike me as any sort of blow against the empire, just the acts of self-styled "revolutionary" spoiled brats.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Habman on July 6, 2009 at 7:25am

Agreed.

The definition of Anarchy is "without rulers", not "we want to be the rulers"

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by mthoreau on July 2, 2009 at 3:52pm

Habman, I agree with you that State coercion is used to line the pockets of our economic aristocracy, however I do not view Anarchy as a viable alternative. You seem to have a great deal of faith in the ability of courts to resolve disputes between different parties, how will these courts be any less susceptible to corruption than the government is? Even if the most just outcome is somehow achieved, who will be the ones to coerce the offending party into paying damages? I would love to live in a world were Anarchy is possible, unfortunately that world is not Earth.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by mthoreau on July 3, 2009 at 2:47pm

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Little Name Atheist on July 6, 2009 at 9:50am

This made me laugh out loud.

▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gerald Christian on July 10, 2009 at 9:20pm

the reason the market crashed was because of deregulation in the stock market. It eventually got to where gambling on the Stock Market was legal (the Government made this illegal after '29), and people where betting on the housing market to Drop and when i finally dipped everyone that was betting it wouldn't, had to sell their stocks to pay their debt. Thus putting us where we are today.

this is why we cannot have a free market.
A free market would be like a roller Coaster, at one point you're as high as the sky, the next you're underground.
A regulated market WILL also have the effects of Recession, and economic "Booms" but the "ride" will be a lot smoother. Not as many ups and downs. Less "Booms" but also less Recessions.