America - The Official Thread

[Tornado]

Leftist want people to shield themselves from opposing views. I think everyone should expose themselves to all views and decide for themselves.

Whatever you say Mr. "Trump can't be corrupt because he's too smart."

 

[Groundfish]

he works construction, OSHA is more or less a joke.

Thank you for bringing up OSHA. It’s a perfect example to use to illustrate why the Libertarian position is untenable.
OSHA was formed in 1970 BECAUSE OF PUBLIC OUTCRY about unsafe working conditions accidents diseases such as mesothelioma from workers handling asbestos without proper personal protective equipment etc etc. Let’s look at some of the objectives Congress used to form OSHA in response to the collective will of the people. Here are some examples...

Prior to government oversight people were dying and being maimed on the job at such a rate that there was sufficient collective outcry and the public demanded regulations and enforcement as shown above which are straight off the OSHA site.
So examples of just a very few things OSHA set standards on:
1. scaffold construction. Scaffold collapse by cheap hurried construction has led to many deaths
2. Excavation shoring requirements cave ins have killed many workers
3. Confined space entry procedural standards-workers entering vessels like where there’s limited ingress egress potential for low oxygen
4. work at heights requirements (safety harnesses to prevent falls and ladder and manlift safety standards)
5. Chemical handling transport labeling along with hazardous gas etc for obvious reasons
I could go on and on but I digress.
Let’s look at Richard the libertarian to be our hypothetical. This is in response to the above comment as well re rights. To a libertarian, I have a right not to have my house burned down by Richard.
But it happened. Joey claims my option is to sue Richard to get money through a court system of some sort.
Let’s say I do so let’s say I do everything according to libertarian principles.
Of course those ASSUMES I have money to pay to take him to court, if I don’t I get nothing.
Let’s say I win, but Richard has no money, again I get nothing.
My house was burned down I guess too bad I should have known somehow not to buy it in the first place...Richard is free to go on and do this as many times as he likes. I do not believe this is right.
No rational person could.

Re mistakes. Mistakes are another PERFECT EXAMPLE. People make mistakes all the time in ways that trample on others rights!
This is WHY we have licensing regulation and accreditation of educational institutions etc! The very thing you wish to eliminate (Licensing refs OSHA etc etc etc) was put into place because of the problems caused by not having it in the first place. (What libertarians desire)
Re the contract but this is where my spin on it as narcissistic comes into play.
That ONLY works in a theoretical model if you, as a citizen have ALL the knowledge of ALL the aspects of ALL situations and write bulletproof contracts that maintain everyone’s rights.
The problem with this is you don’t know everything. It’s highly likely the reason you are hiring a professional service in the first place is that you lack the necessary skills knowledge ability tools etc to do it yourself!
You can’t assume yourself as omniscient then base an ideology on that. It’s irrational.
The fact is that we as individuals live in a society and Earth in which our actions affect everything around us.
In a libertarian unregulated world what’s to stop me from buying a forest, cutting it down getting rich off the lumber sales, then strip mining the land selling the minerals precious metals etc even though my processes leak toxic waste into the land.
A libertarian might argue that’s not in your self interest to do so, because of I dunno your children not being able to build on the toxic waste dump I created if I am Richard.
What if Richard doesn’t care!
Richard got rich made the money has no kids and by the time there’s truly bad environmental impacts he’s dead.
It’s his free choice.
Further let’s say Richards company wants to hire workers, there’s no minimum wage. Salary would be negotiable under libertarianism. What negotiating leverage does the worker have if they have nothing? No education etc?
Richard will pay them enough to eat and get to work and that’s it. Since he’s unregulated he’s free to exploit the workers to the maximum extent for his own profit, because he doesn’t care about anything but himself and making money.
That brings us back to OSHA yes fines are the means used to punish companies who violate standards.
No, @joeyd you cannot just say say nuh uh again.
OSHA would never have been formed if not for problems caused by not having it.
We have to accept the collective aspect of our existence as a society.
Legalizing dangerous drugs is yet another issue. It’s in humane to allow as shown in Seattle where that’s what local govt did.

Search Seattle is dying

 

[Danoff]

Of course those ASSUMES I have money to pay to take him to court, if I don’t I get nothing.
Let’s say I win, but Richard has no money, again I get nothing.

Couple of points here. One... no it doesn't, because pro-bono, loser pays, class action, etc. etc. Two... Richard can't keep doing what he's doing if he loses.

OSHA would never have been formed if not for problems caused by not having it.

And OSHA fixed those problems? Not really. And OSHA was the only possible response to those problems? Not really. And OSHA was the best response to those problems? Not really.

 

[huskeR32]

screenshots of ridiculously large text, for some reason

This would be much more readable if you had simply copy/pasted whatever text you wanted to share.

 

[Joey D]

Prior to government oversight people were dying and being maimed on the job at such a rate that there was sufficient collective outcry and the public demanded regulations and enforcement as shown above which are straight off the OSHA site.
So examples of just a very few things OSHA set standards on:
1. scaffold construction. Scaffold collapse by cheap hurried construction has led to many deaths
2. Excavation shoring requirements cave ins have killed many workers
3. Confined space entry procedural standards-workers entering vessels like where there’s limited ingress egress potential for low oxygen
4. work at heights requirements (safety harnesses to prevent falls and ladder and manlift safety standards)
5. Chemical handling transport labeling along with hazardous gas etc for obvious reasons
I could go on and on but I digress.

All of these things still happen and still injure or kill many workers.

Let’s look at Richard the libertarian to be our hypothetical. This is in response to the above comment as well re rights. To a libertarian, I have a right not to have my house burned down by Richard.
But it happened. Joey claims my option is to sue Richard to get money through a court system of some sort.
Let’s say I do so let’s say I do everything according to libertarian principles.
Of course those ASSUMES I have money to pay to take him to court, if I don’t I get nothing.
Let’s say I win, but Richard has no money, again I get nothing.
My house was burned down I guess too bad I should have known somehow not to buy it in the first place...Richard is free to go on and do this as many times as he likes. I do not believe this is right.
No rational person could.

Richard has something. He has assets, he has stored wealth, and presumably, he has insurance. Also, presuming he still works, his wages, tax return, and any sort of income will be garnished.

Also, unless it's proven arson, burning down someone's house isn't criminal, it's civil. Unless that person actively goes up and lights a fire, it's going to be either accidental or negligence. Neither of those things is arson so it's not like Richard would get arrested unless there's evidence to suggest it was arson. If it was arson, that's already a criminal offense. You might be able to prove criminal negligence, but that would be hard. If someone dies in the fire, then that's manslaughter, which is already a criminal offense.

Re mistakes. Mistakes are another PERFECT EXAMPLE. People make mistakes all the time in ways that trample on others rights!
This is WHY we have licensing regulation and accreditation of educational institutions etc! The very thing you wish to eliminate (Licensing refs OSHA etc etc etc) was put into place because of the problems caused by not having it in the first place. (What libertarians desire)

I don't wish to eliminate educational institutions, nor do most libertarians for that matter.

I'm not sure how licensing prevents mistakes either. Licensed people make mistakes all the time and simply having that piece of paper doesn't mean they're somehow going to be perfect. What helps prevent mistakes is people taking the personal responsibility to learn, train, and practice what they're doing. Employers should, and many times do, require this of employees. Nurses at where I work need to have so many training hours per year to keep their job. It's not a requirement of their license but rather a requirement by the employers to make sure there's continuing education.

That ONLY works in a theoretical model if you, as a citizen have ALL the knowledge of ALL the aspects of ALL situations and write bulletproof contracts that maintain everyone’s rights.
The problem with this is you don’t know everything. It’s highly likely the reason you are hiring a professional service in the first place is that you lack the necessary skills knowledge ability tools etc to do it yourself!
You can’t assume yourself as omniscient then base an ideology on that. It’s irrational.

I'm not sure what this has to do with checking whether or not the person you are hiring knows what they are doing or not. If I hire an electrician, I'm going to make sure they are insured, been in business long enough to know they're trustworthy and verify they're actually who they say they are. I've never hired anyone for something around the house that didn't present some sort of qualifications when asked. I have to imagine it's a fairly common thing if they're able to produce it on the spot.

In a libertarian unregulated world what’s to stop me from buying a forest, cutting it down getting rich off the lumber sales, then strip mining the land selling the minerals precious metals etc even though my processes leak toxic waste into the land.
A libertarian might argue that’s not in your self interest to do so, because of I dunno your children not being able to build on the toxic waste dump I created if I am Richard.
What if Richard doesn’t care!
Richard got rich made the money has no kids and by the time there’s truly bad environmental impacts he’s dead.
It’s his free choice.
Further let’s say Richards company wants to hire workers, there’s no minimum wage. Salary would be negotiable under libertarianism. What negotiating leverage does the worker have if they have nothing? No education etc?
Richard will pay them enough to eat and get to work and that’s it. Since he’s unregulated he’s free to exploit the workers to the maximum extent for his own profit, because he doesn’t care about anything but himself and making money.

You know all of this happens now right? The government even allows it to happen. Trump made it so companies could come into Utah's public lands and mine it, which will leak toxic elements into the soil, affecting groundwater, plants, animals, and the ecosystem as a whole. We even have the largest strip mine in the world here in Salt Lake and it's pretty much has destroyed everything around it since Rio Tinto dug out an entire mountain. Guess what? They continue to get tax breaks, ignore regulations, and just go on about their business.

As for what negotiating leverage employees have? Well for one the industry as a whole. If you don't pay reasonable wages you're not going to get quality employees. I've left two jobs because they wouldn't pay me enough money for what I was doing. Even if you go all the way down the ladder to something like a fast-food job, you're going to get what you pay for. The McDonald's that pays employees $7.50 an hour isn't going to get the same calibre of employee as the Burger King that pays employees $10 across the street. Furthermore, offering higher wages means you'll have a larger pool of candidates to select from.

Still, with all the regulations in place today, pretty much every company takes advantage of its employees. Even people in high salaried jobs get this in terms of time theft, where they routinely get 50-60 hours of work while only paying for 40 hours. I'm not sure how regulations will stop that.

No, @joeyd you cannot just say say nuh uh again.

I didn't, in fact, I wrote a huge post in response and never once typed "nuh-uh". I responded to your examples with how I see it working in a libertarian system. You might not agree with it, but it's pretty unreasonable to say that I've been just plugging my ear and going la la la.

Legalizing dangerous drugs is yet another issue. It’s in humane to allow as shown in Seattle where that’s what local govt did.

It's also inhumane to throw someone in jail for 20 years because they had an ounce of weed on them, basically ruining their life.

On another note, are you going to let me know what to read regarding Kant or explain to me how his line of thinking isn't libertarian?

 

[Groundfish]

All of these things still happen and still injure or kill many workers

Accidents happen, but the AMOUNT IS FAR LOWER THAN BEFORE.
Trying to argue that since some accidents occur if there IS some regulation that regulation should be eliminated is irrational.
Whether you realize it or not you advocate MORE ACCIDENTS. MORE DEATH AND MORE DISMEMBERMENT.
That also guarantees no concern for a safe work environmentt

Richard has something. He has assets, he has stored wealth, and presumably, he has insurance. Also, presuming he still works, his wages, tax return, and any sort of income will be garnished

Key word-PRESUMABLY.
If he doesn’t then what?
What if Richard doesn’t care about others?
That’s his free choice to just destroy homes.
How could wage garnishment do anything meaningful with regards to a home or many homes? In effect it’s nothing.

, I'm going to make sure they are insured, been in business long enough to know they're trustworthy and verify they're actually who they say they are

Again this is why accreditation etc is in place. So that whenever you hire meets agreed upon STANDARDS of work partially to protect the common good from Richard.

You know all of this happens now right? The government even allows it to happen

Certainly. Corrupt people and entities exist.
The SYSTEM ITSELF THO is the best ever created. I agree there’s many problems with corruption and worse CORPORATE level. This is another reason REGULATION of business is necessary.
Left unchecked, corporations act in their own interests over all else-ECONOMIC interest.
Politically the system in the USA is great, the corruption within it doesn’t make the system itself flawed.
I already wrote what to study of Kant. Did you miss it? Categorical Imperative.
It’s pretty much opposite to what I would call the narcissistim of the Libertarian.

 

[Dotini]

I already wrote what to study of Kant. Did you miss it? Categorical Imperative.
It’s pretty much opposite to what I would call the narcissistim of the Libertarian.

On a list of 100 favorite topics to GTP forum members, philosophy ranks about 212th. So "good luck with that."

Kant’s Moral Philosophy
First published Mon Feb 23, 2004; substantive revision Thu Jul 7, 2016
Immanuel Kant (1724–1804) argued that the supreme principle of morality is a standard of rationality that he dubbed the “Categorical Imperative” (CI). Kant characterized the CI as an objective, rationally necessary and unconditional principle that we must always follow despite any natural desires or inclinations we may have to the contrary. All specific moral requirements, according to Kant, are justified by this principle, which means that all immoral actions are irrational because they violate the CI. Other philosophers, such as Hobbes, Locke and Aquinas, had also argued that moral requirements are based on standards of rationality. However, these standards were either instrumental principles of rationality for satisfying one’s desires, as in Hobbes, or external rational principles that are discoverable by reason, as in Locke and Aquinas. Kant agreed with many of his predecessors that an analysis of practical reason reveals the requirement that rational agents must conform to instrumental principles. Yet he also argued that conformity to the CI (a non-instrumental principle), and hence to moral requirements themselves, can nevertheless be shown to be essential to rational agency. This argument was based on his striking doctrine that a rational will must be regarded as autonomous, or free, in the sense of being the author of the law that binds it. The fundamental principle of morality — the CI — is none other than the law of an autonomous will. Thus, at the heart of Kant’s moral philosophy is a conception of reason whose reach in practical affairs goes well beyond that of a Humean ‘slave’ to the passions. Moreover, it is the presence of this self-governing reason in each person that Kant thought offered decisive grounds for viewing each as possessed of equal worth and deserving of equal respect.

Kant’s most influential positions in moral philosophy are found in The Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals (hereafter, “Groundwork”) but he developed, enriched, and in some cases modified those views in later works such as The Critique of Practical Reason, The Metaphysics of Morals, Anthropology from a Pragmatic Point of View, Religion within the Boundaries of Mere Reason as well as his essays on history and related topics. Kant’s Lectures on Ethics, which were lecture notes taken by three of his students on the courses he gave in moral philosophy, also include relevant material for understanding his views. We will mainly focus on the foundational doctrines of the Groundwork, even though in recent years some scholars have become dissatisfied with this standard approach to Kant’s views and have turned their attention to the later works. We find the standard approach most illuminating, though we will highlight important positions from the later works where needed.

• 1. Aims and Methods of Moral Philosophy
• 2. Good Will, Moral Worth and Duty
• 3. Duty and Respect for Moral Law

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/

etc, etc, etc.

 

[Joey D]

Accidents happen, but the AMOUNT IS FAR LOWER THAN BEFORE.
Trying to argue that since some accidents occur if there IS some regulation that regulation should be eliminated is irrational.
Whether you realize it or not you advocate MORE ACCIDENTS. MORE DEATH AND MORE DISMEMBERMENT.
That also guarantees no concern for a safe work environmentt

What I'm saying is regulations don't prevent anything. Sure they can exist, but they're not some magical solution that prevents workplace injuries. Some jobs are even inherently dangerous, no amount of OSHA regulation is going to change that.

And no, I don't advocate for more accidents, more deaths, or more dismemberment. I advocate for the government to stay in its own lane. It's not the responsibility of the government to babysit companies, it's the company's responsibility to keep its human resources safe. If they don't, they they are going to get hit with lawsuits and probably end up going out of business, which means the people at top are going to lose a ton of money.

Key word-PRESUMABLY.
If he doesn’t then what?
What if Richard doesn’t care about others?
That’s his free choice to just destroy homes.
How could wage garnishment do anything meaningful with regards to a home or many homes? In effect it’s nothing.

So, and I want to make sure I understand this, Richard has no assets? So he's homeless, with no money what-so-ever, doesn't have a job because he's not getting wages, and probably doesn't pay taxes? Why exactly am I hiring Richard again?

Also, if you own a home you have homeowners insurance. That's going to cover your property and the destruction of it. If you don't have homeowners insurance and something happens to your home, then that's on you.

Again this is why accreditation etc is in place. So that whenever you hire meets agreed upon STANDARDS of work partially to protect the common good from Richard.

Ya accreditation, as in a degree or certificate from an educational body certifying that person has completed the training. A license issued by the state doesn't necessarily rely on the person knowing anything more than what is required to pass a test and pony up some cash.

Certainly. Corrupt people and entities exist.
The SYSTEM ITSELF THO is the best ever created. I agree there’s many problems with corruption and worse CORPORATE level. This is another reason REGULATION of business is necessary.
Left unchecked, corporations act in their own interests over all else-ECONOMIC interest.
Politically the system in the USA is great, the corruption within it doesn’t make the system itself flawed.

I've never said the American economic system is bad, nor have I said the foundation of our government is either.

I already wrote what to study of Kant. Did you miss it? Categorical Imperative.
It’s pretty much opposite to what I would call the narcissistim of the Libertarian.

So Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten then? Basically Christianity is the only reasonable method to develop morals and that there's a right and a wrong and you should do the right thing even if you don't want to? I'm still not seeing what you're trying to prove here. Can you maybe give me a little more to go on? Kant is fairly wordy and the translations aren't great. Also, I don't know German well enough to accurately read 18th century Deutsche.

 

[ryzno]

Why exactly am I hiring Richard again?

To give a guy hard on his feet a chance? I agree with you but sometimes people like me need the person hiring to take a leap of faith.

 

[Joey D]

To give a guy hard on his feet a chance? I agree with you but sometimes people like me need the person hiring to take a leap of faith.

I can accept that, but I don't think I'd take a leap of faith on something like electrical work. There's too much liability at stake if something goes wrong and I'd want them to at least be insured so I'm not on the hook for a huge expense. I would easily take a leap of faith on someone when the project had minimal liability though because people do need a chance. I'm also willing to give someone a try if they come as a recommendation from someone I trust (family or friend).

 

[Groundfish]

What I'm saying is regulations don't prevent anything. Sure they can exist, but they're not some magical solution that prevents workplace injuries. Some jobs are even inherently dangerous, no amount of OSHA regulation is going to change that

Sure it does and yes it has.
The alternative was already tried and that alternative failed.
It led to many innocent workers dying, so forgive me for disagreeing with Richard the Libertarians response to workers rights to a safework environment when he says nuh uh too bad you might die.

Why exactly am I hiring Richard again?

My posts are there for your review if you’ve forgotten them.

A license issued by the state doesn't necessarily rely on the person knowing anything more than what is required to pass a test

Like a drivers license test ? Or passing the bar showing proof of competence?
Yeah those are terrible I certainly want to drive on bridges engineered by unlicensed engineers and built by shoddy inadequate workmanship and standards!
But Richard the libertarian doesn’t care.
Richard will personally inspect it and monitor if he’s safe or not.

. Can you maybe give me a little more to go on

Try Critique of Pure Reason. Get back to me in a few years.
I already mentioned it. My posts are up.

 

[ryzno]

I can accept that, but I don't think I'd take a leap of faith on something like electrical work.

I forgot you were talking about a self employed contractor.
I literally started as a grunt and since moved up. Got a certified for lifts and forklifts. I can install the pieces of equipment and lines for HVAC, I can't actually put it together, charge, or maintain the system. I also can't do gas lines. I can do plumbing. Regardless, whoever I'm there with is usually licensed and double checks my work, if not one of the Forman will.

I'm not gonna be here much longer though. As usual it's not looking good after we finish this contract for more work.

I can't afford to wait for 2 weeks to a month for another contract anymore.

I've got something lined up just waiting on the background check, we've(new bosses) already talked about it... So they know what's coming.

 

[Joey D]

Sure it does and yes it has.
The alternative was already tried and that alternative failed.
It led to many innocent workers dying, so forgive me for disagreeing with Richard the Libertarians response to workers rights to a safework environment when he says nuh uh too bad you might die.

Innocent workers still die and still get injured. Regulations don't prevent that, if they did people wouldn't be dying or getting injured on the job.

My posts are there for your review if you’ve forgotten them.

That doesn't answer the question. Why am I hiring someone with zero qualifications, who presumably doesn't have a house, a car, any form of income, or even pays his taxes. What you're seemingly suggesting is that I stop at the end of the freeway off-ramp and ask the homeless guy to come over and wire my house for me, then be confused when my house burns down and burns my neighbor's house down along with it. I legit can't understand your reasoning here. You've gone and said "well what about" so many times we're now at this hypothetical who has absolutely nothing, yet is still being entrusted to do a job.

Like a drivers license test ? Or passing the bar showing proof of competence?
Yeah those are terrible I certainly want to drive on bridges engineered by unlicensed engineers and built by shoddy inadequate workmanship and standards!
But Richard the libertarian doesn’t care.
Richard will personally inspect it and monitor if he’s safe or not.

Driver license tests are a crock. Anyone can pass those and simply getting the license doesn't mean you're a good driver. You surely must know this right? I mean I assume you drive and nearly everyone on the road has a license, you must see people driving terrible on a daily basis right?

And why would a firm hire an engineer to design a bridge without first checking their qualifications? I don't believe there is a license to be an engineer, at least not in any place I've ever lived. Companies hire people based on their education and resume. No place is going to hire some John Doe off the street to design a bridge, hell they're not even going to hire someone right out of school for that. Lead engineers have typically been doing the job for several years and have a resume to back it up.

Also, you really need to get it out of your head the libertarians don't care. They do, they just see a piece of paper from the government as being meaningless and instead focus on things like a degree from a university, a certificate from some sort of training, or even a valid resume.

Infrastructure fails all the time too, even with someone from a government agency checking it over. The same thing goes for airplanes too, they still crash even though the FAA supposedly inspects them.

Try Critique of Pure Reason. Get back to me in a few years.
I already mentioned it. My posts are up.

I don't believe you've given any statement about Kant regarding what exactly he's on about other than "people shouldn't read Ayn Rand, they should read Kant".

Also, do you maybe want to give a summary of Kritik der reinen Vernunft? Also, which edition, the first or second? Plus reading a 780-page book seems like sort of a bad way to try to prove your point. I haven't told you to go read any book because I wouldn't expect you (or anyone) to do so. That's not a reasonable request.

 

[Tornado]

Like a drivers license test?

If my brother (over 20, living in New York with COVID restrictions in place) wanted to get his licence right now, all he would have to do is complete a five hour correspondence course, pass a written test that's like 15 questions and drive around a city block with an inspector in the car. How much of a difference do you think that piece of plastic they give you in return actually means when it comes to competence operating a motor vehicle?

 

[Groundfish]

Driver license tests are a crock

Why would anyone want a level of assurance of driver competency on PUBLIC roads.
Why is it important to demonstrate via test that one understands basic rules for PUBLIC roads? Like what the signs lights and right of ways are?
Smh

from the government as being meaningless and instead focus on things like a degree from a university

How do you know a University is a good one? Accreditation by govt.
A lot of these things we are discussing now serve the common man, who may not yet have achieved financial wealth yet.

Infrastructure fails all the time too, even with someone from a government agency checking it over

This is the result of Richard the libertarians policy...
Again it’s unacceptable to me to say “infrastructure just fails, there’s nothing that can be done”
“Too bad, it was your choice to build infrastructure”
People like Richard the libertarian take all this infrastructure for granted that was built by govt.
I think it makes it hard for them to see how none of it is possible without a govt/society/collective joining forces for the common good.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...saster-building-collapse-resilience-kathmandu

t. I haven't told you to go read any book because I wouldn't expect you (or anyone) to do so. That's not a reasonable request

Categorical bit I described before is easily a google search. It’s like the ‘Golden Rule’

 

[Joey D]

Why would anyone want a level of assurance of driver competency on PUBLIC roads.
Why is it important to demonstrate via test that one understands basic rules for PUBLIC roads? Like what the signs lights and right of ways are?
Smh

You're really going to tell me having a driver's license makes you an adequate driver to operate a vehicle on the public road? Have you seen how terrible people drive? Conversely, haven't you ever seen actual race car drivers who can pilot a purpose-built race car, around a complex track, at extreme speeds not have a license to drive a regular car on the road? Or even be old enough to get a license to drive a car on the road?

How do you know a University is a good one? Accreditation by govt.
A lot of these things we are discussing now serve the common man, who may not yet have achieved financial wealth yet.

How do I know a university is a good one? Well, most good universities have been around for a long time and have a track record to show that they aren't garbage. Also, most schools make their graduation numbers available along with how many graduates end up with jobs. So presumably you know a university is good because you spend more than 5 minutes researching it. If you just go where ever, you'll end up at the University of Phoenix online getting a degree that doesn't carry a ton of weight.

This is the result of Richard the libertarians policy...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...saster-building-collapse-resilience-kathmandu

So a natural disaster like an earthquake kills people because buildings fall over? Yes, that happens. Earthquakes in America do the same thing.

And since we're just posting things, here's what government inspection agencies prevent:
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-new...hen-two-michigan-dams-collapsed-more-n1230841

Categorical bit I described before is easily a google search. It’s like the ‘Golden Rule’

I get to use this? Ya I get to use this...

 

[Groundfish]

. Why am I hiring someone with zero qualifications, who presumably doesn't have a house, a car, any form of income, or even pays his taxes

At least do me the courtesy of reviewing what I actually posted before launching another barrage of strawman attacks.

You're really going to tell me having a driver's license makes you an adequate driver to operate a vehicle on the public road

It shows a minimum level of competency.
Richards alternative is :::nothing:::BE SMART GOOD LUCK
smh

So a natural disaster like an earthquake kills people because buildings fall over? Yes, that happens. Earthquakes in America do the same thing.

Modern building standards and codes and regulations and certified P.E. are responsible for constructing infrastructure that can withstand natural disaster to a given level.
You know all those things Richard wants removed? Refs certainly etc?
They work. They work for the good of all.

All these exist because the majority of people wanted it because of problems caused by Richard the libertarians nothing alternative.
In other words, it’s already been tried that way -nothing-
That way led to problems so regulations laws licensing were implemented to prevent those things from happening in the future.
There’s no need to throw away progress by deregulating and going anarchical.
Please consider my points and review my posts.
At this point you are rehashing all the points previously made by me, which have no known refutation.
I hope you will consider changing your ideology.
Have a good day.

 

[Famine]

another barrage of strawman attacks

That's not what a strawman is. A strawman is when you pretend something says something else so that you can attack it on the basis of the thing you say it says, when it doesn't say that.

Like attacking "defund the police" because you say it means getting rid of all law enforcement, or attacking a bill that limits sentencing for specific circumstances around otherwise consensual sex with a minor because you say it legalises child sexual abuse. They'd be strawman attacks.

 

[Tornado]

Why would anyone want a level of assurance of driver competency on PUBLIC roads.
Why is it important to demonstrate via test that one understands basic rules for PUBLIC roads? Like what the signs lights and right of ways are?

5 hour correspondence course = "level of assurance of driver competency on PUBLIC roads"
20 question multiple choice test = "understands basic rules for PUBLIC roads"
Driving around a block or two, especially in a rural setting = knowing "what the sign lights and right of ways are"

It shows a minimum level of competency.

No, it absolutely doesn't. The only thing that actually does that is real physical instruction (be it defensive driving or what have you) above and beyond what is required for getting a licence; hence why insurance rates go down if you take those classes.



It's like you deliberately and specifically picked a hill to die on that was in the middle of an airstrike.

 

[Joey D]

At least do me the courtesy of reviewing what I actually posted before launching another barrage of strawman attacks.

I have, yet I still don't understand why I'd hire someone who doesn't have qualifications or assets. It's not a strawman either. You brought up hiring someone without a license, I told you having a license doesn't mean you're capable of doing the job. You then brought up, using the same hypothetical person, asking what happens if they burn down your house, to which I told you to sue them. You then, using the same hypothetical person, say you can't get any monetary compensation if they have no assets.

I'm having a hard time understanding this line of thinking. Basically you're telling me Richard has no license, no training, no assets, no paycheck in which to garnish wages, no insurance for the victim to collect money from, or really anything of value at all so when he burns down my house and my neighbour's house we're both outta luck and Richard goes on to burn more people's homes down.

It shows a minimum level of competency.
Richards alternative is :::nothing:::BE SMART GOOD LUCK
smh

My driving test consisted of driving around the block, backing into a parking space, and parallel parking between some cones. I think took a multiple-choice test with some really low passing score and then got my picture taken. When I moved to Utah, I had to take a written test in order to get my license here. It was open book, 30 questions, and I had to get a 70% on it to pass. Neither of those tests proved I could drive even at a minimum level. All it proves was that I understand where the accelerator and brakes are along with knowing how to move the steering wheel. Sure, I guess that's the minimum level of competency, but it doesn't mean you know how to drive a car.

Modern building standards and codes and regulations and certified P.E. are responsible for constructing infrastructure that can withstand natural disaster to a given level.
You know all those things Richard wants removed? Refs certainly etc?
They work. They work for the good of all.

The dam in Michigan failed because it wasn't properly inspected. The Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy even knew about the dam being unsafe for two years and still gave the company a license to produce hydroelectric power. I had friends and family who lost their homes, their cars, all their belongings because of this.

 

[McLaren]

Conversely, haven't you ever seen actual race car drivers who can pilot a purpose-built race car, around a complex track, at extreme speeds.

I was thinking more along the lines of someone like Maldonado having a FIA Super License, yet still being a meme for crashing.

 

[NotThePrez]

As a more literal, if not slightly off-topic example, Kyle Busch lost his drivers license in 2011 for going 128 MPH in his Lexus LF-A.

 

[Groundfish]

This is interesting, on the dam failure tragedy...Seems the Feds pulled its license in 2018 due to noncompliance with Federal Standards. I dunno what happened there but it IS a fact that 2 years prior the license was pulled. What a tragedy.
https://amp.detroitnews.com/amp/3244236001
If the dam met Federal Standards it wouldn’t have failed, apparently.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

@Groundfish

Do you work in the construction industry in some capacity?

I tend to see regulation as a necessary evil, especially when it comes to thinks like OSHA. I'll argue with @Danoff until the end of time () about the appropriateness of the fire code because buildings would burn down all the time (like they used to) without it.

 

[Northstar]

So examples of just a very few things OSHA set standards on:
3. Confined space entry procedural standards-workers entering vessels like where there’s limited ingress egress potential for low oxygen
4. work at heights requirements (safety harnesses to prevent falls and ladder and manlift safety standards)
5. Chemical handling transport labeling along with hazardous gas etc for obvious reasons

Having a job that deals with every one of those on a daily basis I can easily say most accidents in those areas could be avoided by people taking their wellbeing into their own hands. Ultimately OSHA won't tell you when it's too hot to be in an attic for an extended period of time, make sure your ladder is on solid footing or that you're correctly assembling things and wearing the proper PPE. They certainly do like to wet their beaks off of your suffering though!

because buildings would burn down all the time (like they used to) without it.

Looking at my work schedule, they still very much do. Granted as far as the physical structure goes the damage may be less, but energy codes have kind of made it so even a small fire can require a full-gutting of a house due to smoke and water damage.

 

[Joey D]

This is interesting, on the dam failure tragedy...Seems the Feds pulled its license in 2018 due to noncompliance with Federal Standards. I dunno what happened there but it IS a fact that 2 years prior the license was pulled. What a tragedy.
https://amp.detroitnews.com/amp/3244236001
If the dam met Federal Standards it wouldn’t have failed, apparently.

And, as you can see, none of that prevented the dam from failing. So even with regulations, things are going to happen and despite both the federal and state government saying there was an issue, nothing was done to prevent the engineering failure. Guess it's not the libertarians fault here, mostly because there's exactly one Libertarian politician in Michigan at the state level, Justin Amash, and exactly four at the community level.

 

[Danoff]

I tend to see regulation as a necessary evil, especially when it comes to thinks like OSHA. I'll argue with @Danoff until the end of time () about the appropriateness of the fire code because buildings would burn down all the time (like they used to) without it.

Yea, we can definitely argue about that one.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Having a job that deals with every one of those on a daily basis I can easily say most accidents in those areas could be avoided by people taking their wellbeing into their own hands. Ultimately OSHA won't tell you when it's too hot to be in an attic for an extended period of time, make sure your ladder is on solid footing or that you're correctly assembling things and wearing the proper PPE. They certainly do like to wet their beaks off of your suffering though!



Looking at my work schedule, they still very much do. Granted as far as the physical structure goes the damage may be less, but energy codes have kind of made it so even a small fire can require a full-gutting of a house due to smoke and water damage.

I should clarify that the point of the fire code is not to protect property but to protect humans. Would the free market bolster safe buildings over unsafe buildings? Eventually, probably. But not quickly. And when I see things like the Ghost ship warehouse fire it makes me think that if regulation (& enforcement) is not in place, these kind of tragedies would happen a lot more often - because it's simply easier and cheaper to make unsafe buildings and the frequency of fire events is not often enough (especially now) to cause people to rationally choose to build safely.

 

[Groundfish]

I tend to see regulation as a necessary evil, especially when it comes to thinks like OSHA

Right because it’s a simple fact without it companies exploit the workers unfairly.
They place company profit over worker safety.
Richard the Libertarian thinks every worker is responsible for their own safety, nevermind that they may be unskilled labor to the point they can not even identify hazards until it’s too late.
The fear of monetary penalties etc keeps companies operating at a minimum standard.
No I don’t.

Having a job that deals with every one of those on a daily basis I can easily say most accidents in those areas could be avoided by people taking their wellbeing into their own hands

Each individual person can not be expected to be omniscient, or choose what job they are assigned.
Companies used to tell people all the time to do stupid stuff, finally enough we’re killed that OSHA was formed.
Thank goodness.

And, as you can see, none of that prevented the dam from failing

Nope. The Feds have standards that were unmet, for good reason pulled the license citing a particular issue.
Failure to meet standards happened.
That doesn’t mean Richard should say “SEE? it never works the whole concepts flawed! Nothing is s better alternative than regs eliminate the concept!”
I would argue the concept was not flawed.
Clearly it worked, the Feds revoked the license after a long history of deficient maintenance in 2018.
What we see is a failure of standards being kept leading to s tragedy that was avoidable. Sad.


OSHA:
You know who would be most interested in eliminating OSHA?
People up the chain from the blue collar worker, people who KNOW they will never have to do it. More money in their pocket if they get done fast and under budget.
Richard likes to think that everyone acting in their own self interest unchecked will always lead to a good outcome for all.
That’s laughable.

 

[Northstar]

The fear of monetary penalties etc keeps companies operating at a minimum standard.

Here most companies go far above minimum standard simply because of how scarce labor is in the trades, they can't afford to lose someone due to injury as it's very hard to find a replacement.

Each individual person can not be expected to be omniscient, or choose what job they are assigned.
Companies used to tell people all the time to do stupid stuff, finally enough we’re killed that OSHA was formed.
Thank goodness.

Ultimately you are the only one that knows what you're comfortable doing and how your body reacts to certain circumstances. If your employer is trying to force you into doing something your not comfortable with it's time to find a new employer because no job is worth a hospital visit.

At the end of the day you need to be your own advocate when it comes to your wellbeing, it's nothing to do with regulations.