Regulations protect us from unsafe products, dangerous workplaces, harmful foods, unsafe drugs, fraud, monopolization, unfair labor practices, and environmental hazards.
When Trump (and Musk) equate regulations with waste or inefficiency, what they’re really saying is that big corporations ought to be able to wreak as much harm on the public as they want, if doing so enlarges their profits.
https://heathercoxrichardson.substack.com/p/september-11-2024
Of course we need some regulations. You're an idiot if you can't see that a for profit corporations fiduciary responsibility is to it's stakeholders. So that means (just for ex) and a railroad company could do the math and say it's cheaper to have a train crash and kill a bunch of people, and pay lawsuits later, rather than have preventative maintenance in place which short term would increase costs, thus lowering profit margins. They justify things like this and factor risk involved because welll it might not crash.
My grandfather used to deliver asphalt and had to fight to get brakes on his truck. It was too expensive apparently and they didn't care if he crashed and killed someone. He has to fear losing his job if he refuses to drive due to something as important as brakes and tires. The reason the union was needed and regulations need to happen.
Big corporations are not all bad but they aren't all great and don't all care about protecting it's workers or innocent bystanders.
By the logic of no regulations maybe we need no laws and let anyone do whatever they want even if it's just kill someone for no reason.
That's why I used the railroad example.
Yes that's true due but I really meant I used rail example because regulation could help prevent situations like that. Regardless, corporations don't care. Profit over people. Hence why the NRA doesn't care if people die as long as the solution is to buy more guns.
It's not impossible it's just about corporate greed. They don't mind gambling people's lives and half of Americans seem to think that it's ok not to have govt regulated safety protocols because that would be too big of government
Trump revoked 200+ rules environmental protections, including mandatory automatic brakes on all trains on Feb. 3rd 2018 which would go into effect on January 1st 2021.
Definitely better than regulations.
Opinion
8Opinion
Because while some regulation is absolutely needed, the near punitive regulations that make it so it takes years to install solar panels in California because of regulations… They need to go! Also the permanent state bureaucracy is using regulation inappropriately, like it's a law! The ATF is notorious for this. They'll pass it regulation, give you six months to comply, and after that if you're not in compliance, you're a felon and subject to 20 years in prison! Regulations cannot result someone losing their fundamental right of liberty. If the end result is prison, then it's a law, and executive branch ENFORCES laws, it does not make laws! Therefore they don't have the power to make punitive regulations. So any regulation created by the bureaucracy (not the legislature) that results in jail time for violating the regulation, is unconstitutionally creating law! How is California protecting citizens, including the homeless by making 27 different regulatory agencies sign off on a FREE toilet in San Francisco? How is California protecting the environment through environmental regulation by making it so even after you bought and paid for solar panels, it cost thousands and thousands of dollars in regulatory fees, and takes 3 to 5 years… Or even MORE, just to get the regulatory approval to get them installed because the homeowner has to get approval from 20 different regulatory agencies? How is that protecting anyone?
Regulations have the force of law because they're how agencies enforce the law.
"Like laws, regulations are codified and published so that parties are on notice regarding what is and isn't legal. And regulations often have the same force as laws, since, without them, regulatory agencies wouldn't be able to enforce laws."
www.findlaw.com/.../
I can't seem to find anything about 27 agencies to sign off on a toilet, or 20 for solar, just a lot about how California gets a large proportion of its electricity from home solar installations.
1 of 4
(As I don’t live in California, and I only now how Bill Maher stated that almost 20 agencies had to sign off on solar panels on a new shed in his back yard (where he now films “Club Random”.
So, Per Chat GPT:
The number of agencies involved in approving the installation of solar panels for a new shed build in California depends on several factors, including the location of the property, the size of the solar system, and local regulations. Typically, the following agencies may need to approve the installation:
1. (1) Local Building Department: The primary agency responsible for issuing building permits and ensuring the installation complies with (2) local safety, (3) building, and (4) zoning codes. This department will check structural integrity, (5) electrical safety, and other requirements.
2. Utility Company: If the solar system is connected to the electrical grid, the (6) utility company must approve the system for interconnection. They ensure the solar installation meets their standards for net metering or power buy-back programs. Which mist then be approved by the (7) city building inspector.
3. (8) Environmental Agencies: Depending on the project’s scale and location, (9) some environmental review might be required, especially if the installation affects protected land or wildlife.
4. Homeowners’ Association (Not including that): If the property is part of an HOA, their approval might also be necessary. California’s Solar Rights Act limits HOAs from denying installations, but they may impose reasonable restrictions on aesthetics.
In some regions, additional (10) local and (11) regional planning authorities may be involved, especially if there are specific environmental or aesthetic concerns.
Sorry, I only came up with ELEVEN regulatory agencies, that need to approve solar panels on a new shed in one’s back yard in California. My bad.
2 of 4
As for the toilet, they needed City, county, and state approval in all aspects, which tripled the all of regulatory agencies involved. They needed Environmental impact studies by all three, the ground water had to be monitored before the toilet went in for two years, and then a ground water monitoring station needed to be installed. They needed building permits, electrical permits, plumbing permits, they needed to have the toilet paper dispenser certified (because it's San Francisco, so of course they did) to make sure that the new toilet did not waste too much paper. They needed a separate agency to certify that it would be safe in an earthquake They also needed a local community agency to sign off on it, after making sure that the toilet would not be discriminatory in anyway and would not make homeless people in the area feel worse about themselves if they had to relieve themselves somewhere else… Again, of course they did, it's San Francisco! If you have not read the hundreds of pages of regulatory BS they had to go through to give the city a free self cleaning toilet, Then it at LEAST worth reading the summary!
As for regulatory agencies not creating law. your own source stated "regulations OFTEN have the same force as laws” Yes, but only IF the legislature has specifically outlined the EXACT violation, and the EXACT punishment for violating the EXACT regulation. You ARE aware of the separation of powers act right? And the we have three co-equal branches of government, The Legislative which MAKES law, The Executive which ENFORCES law, and the Judicial branch which interprets the law. ALL federal regulatory agencies are part of the executive branch of government, and are therefore constitutionally prohibited from making law! Which is why the above statement you seemed to think was a win, stated OFTEN have the force of law, but not always. Because while regulators may impose penalties like fines, w/o congress changing the law, if a NEW regulation criminalizes once legal behavior, and is punishable by imprisonment, or even just designation as a felon (which deprives one of their civil liberties), then THAT must be approved by congress first. A great example is when Trump made the ATF ban “bump-stocks”, which included prison for a felony if convicted after the 6 month “grace period”. That was overturned by the supreme court, because it created new law when non-existed prior. If the ATF would have banned bump Stocks and said if you're caught with one you get a $250 fine… That would've been perfectly fine! THAT would be a regulatory fine, which would be perfectly constitutional. but instead, the ATF said they had the power to change the national firearms act of 1938, which is an act of Congress, therefore it's law, and only Congress can change that law or add to that law! And the Supreme Court had to give the ATF a little spanking for overstepping their bounds as an executive branch regulatory agency. by the way, the ATF also been "pistol braces" which were designed to allow disabled veterans to shoot competitively.
4 of 4
The ATF also made that punishable by years in prison and a felony conviction. that case is currently working its way through the courts, but it will absolutely be overturned by the Supreme Court for the exact same reason as the bump stock ban, regulatory agencies may not make law! And any force of law that their regulations have must be voted on, and passed by Congress. Otherwise the supreme court, or a lower court will toss it out as an unconstitutional violation of the separation of powers clause in the constitution!
@goaded Obviously ELEVEN regulatory agencies needing to all do their own inspections, and paperwork, and (don't forget about charging their fees), and taking over three years to approve hooking up the solar panels to the shed in Bill Maher’s back yard is PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE! I regret even questioning the wisdom of needing to wait OVER three years to use your own shed’s solar power! I feel so stupid! by the way, Here in Florida, when MY parents got a “shed” (it’s a man cave for my dad and his buddies). They bought the 10’ x 20’ shed, it was installed a week later. When they installed the solar panels a week after that, they bought them, and the work crew was out, installed them, hooked all the electrical equipment, and the inspector signed off on it, and ALL that took two days! NOT “Over three years”. There is such a thing as OVER regulation!
I only count two basic agencies: Local Building dept. and Environmental agencies. (OK, the latter may be more than one, but that will only be if you're at the edge of a park or on a lake or something like that.) Counting each thing the consider is not the same, they're just items on a check list.
The utility company is nothing to do with the government, and neither, as you noted, is the homeowner's association.
These Californians say "On average, solar installations can take anywhere from 10 days to 2 months, mostly depending on the local and state laws, as well as other regulations that need to be followed."
trueskyenergy.com/bill-mahers-trouble-with-solar/
Regulations that don't match the law can and are challenged in court. The ones that do have the force of law. It's not that complicated.
You are forgetting that the “Local building office" has tens of departments who often all need to sigh off on anything in a mega-regulatory state like California. Also in California, you frequently have to duplicate everything with city,. county and state. They are also the only state that requires state and local environmental regulators oversee businesses and new construction projects! Look if you think that over regulation and over taxation is a good thing, then bless your heart! But there is a reason that so many people, and more importantly so many businesses, are leaving California and New York, and moving to Nevada, Texas, Tennessee, and Florida. Lower taxes (or NO tax in Florida), and a massive reduction in the regulatory state! I often use GPT to get an idea of where to start researching a question, but I’ve NEVER quoted it! In answering this question I’ve quoted it twice! But this is GPT’s answer to "Which state has the highest amount of state, county, and local regulations”:
The state with the highest amount of state, county, and local regulations is generally considered to be California. It has a complex regulatory environment that spans areas such as environmental protection, business operations, housing, and labor laws. Key reasons for California’s regulatory burden include:
1. Environmental Regulations: California leads the nation in stringent environmental policies, particularly regarding emissions, land use, and renewable energy. The state’s California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) imposes detailed environmental review processes for both public and private projects, leading to significant regulatory oversight at the state, county, and local levels.
2. Labor Laws: California has some of the most comprehensive labor regulations, including rules on wages, benefits, worker protections, and compliance standards. California Labor Code and wage laws are stricter than federal guidelines, affecting many industries.
3. Housing and Zoning: Local regulations on zoning and housing development are also exceptionally stringent, making it difficult for developers to build new homes. This, combined with state-level regulations like rent control, creates a highly regulated housing market.
4. Business Permitting: California’s business regulations also extend to licensing, operational permits, and taxation, with many overlapping state and local requirements that can vary significantly between counties and municipalities.
These factors contribute to California being the state with the most extensive regulatory framework at multiple levels
Laws should be made to protect people from each other but not from themselves.
Regulating Sin Taxes on tobacco and alcohol are often betrayed as helping people to make healthier choices but often you will hear Authorities talking about lost revenue due to black markets even though they help someone to feed their own children and manage their addiction.
Big businesses need to be regulated though, They aren't interested in People safety, well being or the environment in general only in tactics to fleece people and get away with it. Build products to fail in order to keep you buying new ones is just one good reason to regulate them.
I think I agree with your first sentence, and totally with the last paragraph. In a country with universal health care it's hurting other people if people take up resources because of their misuse of products that make them ill. (Unless smoking or drinking kills them quicker, I suppose.)
Having everything unregulated would be the worst thing imaginable.
Tecnicly they are not regulations but legal requirements as they don't exist to make anything regular in abolishing barriers but to do the opposite in creating them.
What the federal goverment calls "water quality regulations" are not under the constitution, but if they were they would be legal requirements of water quality.
In the Federal Constitution you can make weak case the feds only have such power in regard to the water flowing from one state to anther. With no power on the water in between.
Meaning A state can put whatever it wants into the water as long as it cleans it up before it leaves the state.
@goaded if you want to be literal and historical, the power to "regulate" is the power to "make regular" trade between the states.
This is specifically to address the fact that at the time States Like New York erected trade barrios by establishing monopoly to control river trade on major water ways disadvantaging other states that needed to use them for their own trade.
A modern example is where the States of Oregon and Washington are making environmental laws designed to block the transportation of oil, which effectively inhibit Idaho's equal and fair access to the pacific oil market.
The federal goverment was given power to make trade regular by abolishing theses unfair barriers.
m we can call it whatever we want...
money will, still... going to speak louder
you mean... only for the last 300 years or so? lol
exactly... if people have to be convinced to vote, it's already a losing battle
if the - I did not vote - option was considered a president... it would have won every past election in the modern times... lol
None of the above! Ah, Goldie. Single transferable vote and no primaries (but with reasonable barriers to getting on the ballot for president) would solve a lot of problems. The president is supposed to represent every American; the Senate can keep them in line, giving enough power to small states.
could, would, should... none of those are above money
and that's rather unfortunate
OF COURSE THEY think corporations should be able to wreak havoc on typical Americans with impunity. They're FREAKIN' REPIGLIKSCAM !!!
Regulations do protect us - intentionally or not.
Like obamacare if you break shit down for dumb people... we agree safety is an issue.
GUN SAFETY not GUN REGS
I agree with you
How wonderfully Orwellian of you.
No, I've seen enough of this speech consisting in defacing Orwell and re-tooling it for whatever agenda, dear juxtapose. Orwell is using an anti totalitarian and leftist standpoint, so cut the bullshit I say lol
@Maybe_Maybe_not oh fuck off with that nonsense. Goaded is redressing a word to mean the opposite of what it really is. Some regulations are essential but a lot of them are unnecessary and excessive government control over the population is a great evil. Government should be as minimal as possible.. MORE government control is BAD.
The Nightwatchman state proposed by John Locke is infinitely superior to bureaucratic nightmares that are overburdened by Orwellian regulations.
The Democrats are authoritarian leftists, they are not a Force for good whatsoever and Orwell would be appalled by them.
I understand your anarcho-right standpoint, I'm pretty much using it but the left version, I'm from a place where gov is actually doing things of public importance since decades. You're from a place teaching you that gov is something to fear, since centuries. I get it. But know this, your perspective depends a lot on where you live. It is not yours, it is the one being instilled into you by your environment.
Additionally, I insist, you have no reasons to use Orwell for your own views when Orwell is a freaking socialist lol, this trap you're laying is not going to work that easily. Think again.
@Maybe_Maybe_not Orwell could be a damn Christian for all I care but I will still invoke his teachings to show for example that Yahweh is in Orwellian tyrant who gaslights people literally to hell.
Look at countries where government takes a firm control and you will see they are shit. The government is not your friend, they spy on you and they will even experiment on you and nobody will be there to help you. They will torture you, take everything from you. They are a necessary evil and should be treated as such because anarchy would be worse.
And your government is not nice. They ban paternity tests for "public order." A nanny state is a nightmare, you do not want the government to be your daddy.
Well, on the ideological point, there's no need for me to argue, I trust social market, you trust free market. It's just incompatible and I can't work with that. I was mainly interfering against Orwell hijacking
Well, I "trust", to an extent, since I trust anarchism more, but then the practicality of anarchism is not yet ready to be applied, meanwhile, I'll go for the socialist stuff
@Maybe_Maybe_not socialism doesn't work. How can you be okay with your government telling you what to do with your life as if they are your master? I am not okay with that at all and I want government to be as minimal as absolutely possible while still maintaining order.
And as for Orwell, my Christian example I put out takes care of that matter.
LMAO "Obscenity laws not related to protecting children in public schools from porn or other such things. Those are meant for Orwellian control and social engineering. It is not meant to protect anybody."
OK, so it should be perfectly fine to provide children with pornography "or other such things" outside school or in private schools? What are the US obscentity laws? What do they stop you from seeing? How about child pornography? That's to protect the abused children.
What are those "other such things" that you're talking about, and why do I think you want to be the one to decide what they are? Stopping children reading the truth about slavery, LGBTQ people, or civil rights is truly Orwellian, trying to make them unpeople. That's what you want, though, isn't it?
"Also regulations on guns are meant to slowly disarm the population and leave them helpless towards the government. Venezuela and Australia specifically suffered greatly after being disarmed."
No, they're not, and my Australian cousins have never mentioned suffering at the hands of the government any more than anywhere else. The people of a country, are never "helpless towards the government", for a good enough cause there are millions of them who will turn out and there's nothing a government can do about it. What the gun owners want is to be the ones in charge, even if they're in the minority. That's how you get Gilead.
Venesuela is meant to be so safe Trump wants to hold meetings there rather than New York.
1. Children cannot consent so that would be a pedophile charge. You will do not have freedom to harm other people and exposing children to pornography is inherently harmful.
2. Since when have I ever been against teaching about gay people, slavery and civil rights? I was in my civil rights club in school and I am bisexual. I am also against the Confederacy and think they were idiots for supporting slavery. You don't know me and it really shows. Stop trying to act like you know me.
3. 
Anybody okay with that is a grade a scum fuck. That's what happens when you give away your firearms.
4. What the fuck are you talking about?
OK, so I don't know you, other than I know you will ignore direct questions when it suits you.
What are those "other such things" that you're talking about, and why do I think you want to be the one to decide what they are?
Is a cartoon of a naked mouse pornographic and "inherently harmful"? That's the excuse used for getting Maus banned. How about a description of two boys kissing? How about a graphic description of a rape?
General follow-up question on the original subject: Do you think Musk and Trump are thinking about getting rid of these sorts of regulations, or the ones that cost large organisations money while making people genuinely, physically safer?
"Is a cartoon of a naked mouse pornographic and "inherently harmful"? That's the excuse used for getting Maus banned. How about a description of two boys kissing? How about a graphic description of a rape?"
Yes, any nudity or sexuality whatsoever outside of health class or some kind of biology class is completely inappropriate. Small exceptions can be made for history, such as telling kids that women were raped during slavery and during the Holocaust, that kind of thing.
"General follow-up question on the original subject: Do you think Musk and Trump are thinking about getting rid of these sorts of regulations, or the ones that cost large organisations money while making people genuinely, physically safer?"
You would have to ask them. I think they are getting rid of cumbersome regulations that infringe on freedoms for little to no benefit in good faith.
France? No wonder I couldn't tell what you were on about.
"any nudity or sexuality whatsoever outside of health class or some kind of biology class is completely inappropriate."
You know I'm not talking about required texts, right? Just books in the school library.
Even "nudity" of a cartoon mouse? So, the bible's out. At least one Asterix book. Spiderman. James Bond. Probably most young adult books. Shakespeare. The Outlander series. A hell of a lot of literature, in fact. We can keep The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. Game of Thrones is waaay out!
None of that should be in a school library. Because you say so. Even if other people disagree.
"I think they [Trump and Musk] are getting rid of cumbersome regulations that infringe on freedoms for little to no benefit in good faith."
Then you're a gullible fool who can't learn from experience. Was the Obama era regulation about electronic brakes on freight trains a "cumbersome regulations that infringe[d] on freedoms for little to no benefit"? The one Trump cancelled.
Who's freedoms, by the way?
OK, so you're in favour of taking the bible out of school libraries.
"I know you will ignore direct questions when it suits you." Remember?
Whose freedoms are impinged by requiring effective brakes (technology that has been available for a century, by the way) on US freight trains?
"The electro-pneumatic brake system on British mainline railway trains was introduced in 1950 and remains the primary braking system for multiple units in service today, although London Transport underground trains had been fitted with EP brakes since the 1920s" en.wikipedia.org/.../Electro-pneumatic_brake_system_on_British_railway_trains
Yes, the Bible is a book of nonsense and has material that is not suitable for children. I am more than happy to get that the fuck out of schools. You do realize as a bisexual person, that book is directly telling those kids to kill me.. right?
I don't know what you're talking about. I'm not going to answer every single little thing on every reply.
You should ask Trump that. He would know more of the technical details.
LMAO at "You should ask Trump that. He would know more of the technical details."
No, it's you saying that regulations "infringe on freedoms for little to no benefit". How about that one? Essentially the regulation is "implement this century-old safety technolology because it will save lives". Whose freedoms are infringed? The public's, or the multi-billion corporation?
No, it's you saying that regulations "infringe on freedoms for little to no benefit". How about that one? Essentially the regulation is "implement this century-old safety technolology because it will save lives". Whose freedoms are infringed? The public's, or the multi-billion corporation?
OK, then tell me the "more behind this". The technology has been used in the UK since the 1920's. 100 years of American railroads have decided against it (even though, I'm sure, it's cheaper to integrate when you build new rolling stock). Railroads kill people. Whose freedoms are infringed? The public's, or the multi-billion corporation?
lol, no.
You can also add your opinion below!
Holidays 
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
Most Helpful Opinions