RE: The government is always trying to close doors
Dear @robertoueti and everyone else reading it :)
I just accidently bumped into your publication. I'm glad I did.
I strongly believe that every aspect of our business and life should be regulated to some certain degree, but all new laws should be well thought through. Unfortunatelly more often than not those who have power to create those regulations do not think about future consequences.
Mentioned example perfectly shows that whoever has been behind those regulations didn't consult it with advisors and didn't think how new laws will affect people and businesses.
rulers want to waste time regulating something that is already being used and works perfectly.
I wouldn't consider it waste of time. I would actually expect more time and effort to be wasted in order to analize possible outcomes of new regulations.
I'm honestly curious what other people would think about this particular topic. I hope you don't mind that I will share this post with few friends.
IMPORTANT: can I ask everyone to avoid going to deeply into "politics" in your comments? :)
Yours
Piotr
No, you cannot ask me to avoid going deeply into politics in my reply. Or, more precisely, you are welcome to ask, but I will not oblige you in this regard :)
Jokes aside, this is an intensely political issue. The whole subject of to what extent government should regulate our lives is inextricably bound up in politics, and individuals will inevitably reply to such questions based upon their political weltanschauung. I am a collectivist, and this colors my reply.
The greatest failures of Socialism have resulted from its historical emphasis on central planning. The greatest successes of Socialism have resulted from its emphasis on central planning. Both of these statements are true. So how then does a modern Socialist respond to questions on the importance of government intrusion into such matters? Fortunately, the dialectic offers some assistance.
The government of France today is headed by an oligarch, a former employee of Rothschild. It is a government which shamelessly favors the rich, at the expense of the workers. Obviously such a government is not to be trusted to regulate commerce, because any legislation introduced by such a government will be slanted to increase and reinforce the inequality of income and wealth distribution.
Therefore, I would absolutely, unequivocally, without hesitation oppose such regulation, not because I think the idea itself is bad, but rather because I am sure it would be badly implemented by such an oligarchical government.
Excellent comment re the above post. I love your succinct analysis of the successes and failures of socialism.
And you make a fine point about regulation imposed by oligarchs. Of course, they will only initiate regulation that benefits them. That's very clear if we look at history, and shockingly clear if we look at the recent history of the past 3-4 decades.
One point about regulation is that it often stands in the way of making money. A clear case in point is Boeing, with its horrible crashing machine, the 737 Max 8. Boeing took an old plane (to save money), then re-outfitted and altered and mutated it at the expense of safety.
Then, Boeing managed to convince the regulators that they (the regulators) were not capable of understanding all the fine technical aspects of its 737 crashing machine, leaving Boeing to regulate itself.
So, Boeing saved lots of money by jerry-rigging its 737. Its stock price did well, and its executives got great big bonuses.
Oh, and ... over 300 people died as a result.
Who cares @majes.tytyty? These general public are dying like ants in umpteen numbers, but still profits do matter to them and this factor outweighs than any other thing for that matter!
But there we have an excellent argument against the regulatory agencies themselves, after all, Boeing was only able to do this, because they managed to buy the fiscals to let them fly with this type of airplane.
In addition, Boeing has lost a lot of money on that, as sales of its planes are falling sharply, and that of its competitors are rising.
Does it not matter to you that people died as a result of Boeing’s egregious corporate malfeasance? Does that not matter, simply because that’s the way the wonderful free market works?
You imply that just because Boeing is now losing money and market share, that everything is working out as it should. Do you think that is sufficient retribution for the unbridled greed – and unregulated greed – of Boeing’s executives? They were concerned only with their profits, and not with the safety of their passengers. 346 people were killed as a clear and direct result of that reprehensible greed. And their families and friends will suffer the pain of loss for months and years. But thank god for the free market!!!
As for the silly claim that regulatory agencies only lead to regulatory capture, and that therefore there’s no reason to establish regulatory agencies, that’s a silly and baseless argument. If the financial regulators had done their jobs, the banksters and mortgage lenders would not have been able to defraud innocent customers or the taxpayers. And if the airline regulators had done their jobs, 346 dead people would still be alive today.
As for the various tired libertarian claims – such as “government is bad,” “taxation is theft,” “free markets are benevolent,” and “corporatocracy is divine” – a clear and nuanced perspective soon shows that those simplistic ideologies are not always true, and often complete hogwash. Moreover, it shows a horrible misreading and misinterpretation of the works of Adam Smith and Ludwig von Mises.
I say the same about many lives that is taken out because of regulations. People who doesn’t work because of these kind of view that we need regulations for everything. Besides, in the case of Boeing they had regulations and the problem occours, meaning that this regulation doesn’t work, the same of other kinds of disasters.
The free market kills less people than the regulations.
And your last paragraph, I am sorry, but doesn’t have any kind of point, only falacy.
Posted using Partiko iOS
You sound very upset @majes.tytyty :/
Love your comment @majes.tytyty!
There is always some wisdom in it.
Sad reality :(
Yours, Piotr
Another brilliant feedback @redpossum
You got my full attention right now haha :)
I agree. And yet we can keep it all at "general" level. Without bringing names of politicians or parties we're refering too. Let's just stay safe.
Thank you for sharing your view on that particular topic with me. Appreciate it a lot.
Yours, Piotr
You gave me an excellent idea of a post on the subject. Mainly speaking in central planning and the fact that you believe in favoring it. Thank you very much. ;)
I am a acnarchocapitalist by the way. Cheers!
Hi @robertoueti and @crypto.piotr
The text of the opening graphic "The government is always trying to close doors"
Tends to sum up my feeling about the topic that is the governments always think that they want to retain control
Thanks for being so responsive @thetimetravelerz
Hope we can skype again one day buddy :)
Cheers,
Piotr
Ya lots to catch up it's been a long time
Posted using Partiko Android
The govts around the world do this without caring the utility , pros and cons of the law.
It seriously makes me think who put this guy incharge ?
that I realize it is people like me who do so by sometimes voting for them or sometimes letting them win by not voting for the right person
People don't vote for people who has a good intentions, they vote for people who have more marketing.
Yes goverments always trying to close doors, because this underlying elite wants it that way...
There are many examples of this, such as the reduction of cash and the banks even want to get rid of all the cash, just an example of many!
greetings,
@sternblitz
Hi @sternblitz
Big thx for sharing your opinion. Appreciate your time :)
Enjoy your sunday,
Cheers,
Piotr
It is impossible to separate political and bureaucratic criteria from regulations.
In my poor judgment, in the administrative dispositions of a public nature, good sense seems to have very little place; that's why we can find the most absurd things.
We should rejoice when there are occasional timely measures
The problem with regulations is that bureaucrats are always thinking about them, never about people.
Exactly dear @robertoueti
Nailed it!!
Hi dear @robertoueti, hi Piotr.
Just when I was about to start writing, I read this:
Now it is difficult.
I think that there is always that caste of public officials who seek the constant evolution of society by regulating and sensitizing the established norms. Thanks to these initiatives we have been able to advance as a community and as a society
In the sixteenth century people threw their waste through the windows of their homes. There was no sanitary control.
We had to go through epidemics, endemics and pests to realize that a simple regulation of the rules or the construction of aqueducts could have saved lives.
With our society more and more evolved, the regulations are increasingly "refined". It is always easier to make a criticism highlighting the negative aspects of a proposal, without making constructive statements.
But what is true is that the pros and cons of any approach that will affect a mass of people must be evaluated. So if there are committed jobs and productive commercial activities, I think that all that approach should be reformulated.
Thanks for your interesting article.
I found your comment ...
With our society more and more evolved, the regulations are increasingly "refined".
... very interesting.
I might rephrase it as follows:
If we want to evolve as a society, our regulations will need to be increasingly "refined".
That will be necessary, but very difficult to do.
To leave it to anarchy and chaos and deregulation to sort out is unwise and immature. It's fine for a teen to espouse such movements, but as one grows and matures, one realizes that a bit of regulation is necessary and beneficial.
The trick is, how to do so when it's so difficult? How to do so when leaders might be corrupted or manipulated?
Perhaps this responsibility is very large and important to be entrusted to people whose lack of human sensitivity prevents them from identifying the true needs of society.
Regulations are always made up of human beings who are the most flawed point in the system, but even that is not the main point, since creating a regulation for something that is already working properly has no benefit.
That's true. Most leaders become leaders not because they're qualified or competent, but simply because they thirst for power. Those are exactly the kind of people that should NOT be leading us.
A good leader is truly hard to find.
But there is no anarchy and chaos in deregulation. Want an example? Markets have no regulations. To open a clothing store does not need regulations. Countries that have less labor regulations are the ones that have more jobs.
Deregulation can easily and quickly lead to anarchy and chaos. Want an example? The Glass-Steagall act was repealed in 1999. Within 10 years, the US banks and the entire US economy were in chaos, and barely survived. The only reason the criminal banksters and corporate fraudsters survived is cuz they ran to the government for a bailout.
Just goes to show, the banksters and corporations are as evil as the government.
And logically the state went there and helped them, again.
If you deregulate a certain industry you do not help if some of your players go bankrupt, you let them go bankrupt.
Besides, the Dodd-Frank act is so much better in comparison of Glass-Steagall act.
https://mises.org/wire/why-not-replace-dodd-frank-glass-steagall
if you analyze the history you will see that all regulations were either made to secure the monopoly or benefit parts of one particular sector over another that there are no lobbies. You commented on the garbage being thrown out the window, but the cities did not have to regulate it, since people started doing it before the regulation. Who did it was the low-income people who had no other way of getting rid of the garbage except in this way.
Regulations coming from the government are totally clueless, since private regulations are much more efficient and less invasive in people's lives.
I totally agree with you.
Rulers don't think much before making a rule. Usually they are in hurry to implement it, rather making it relevant. That's why such rules and regulations only create problem for the common people.
The only thing that they want is to steal the money of the population.
Yes, they have no other agenda.
Hey @crypto.ipotr,
Thanks for passing by. You always is welcome to share all my posts that you want.
About the politics in comments totally agree :)
I think that we need regulations too, but not these one made by politics or by the government. I always prefer the regulations made by private corporations like the ISOs and the polices of uses and services written in all the apps. They are very restricted and at the same time small with everything that we need to use.
Here in Brazil we have a lot of that problems, with bureaucrats trying to passing laws that are insane. But not only here, in other countries too. That is why I always have problems with that kind of discussion, when some politcs (right or left) trying to regulate something that is doing well and everybody likes it.
Dear @robertoueti
Hope you enjoyed received interest and engagement. I've read some quality comments here :)
It was definetly interesting topic, easy to promote :)
Yours
Piotr
I like these controversial topics, it is good to know the opinion of each one.
Although you ask me not to tie the policy in it, I can not stop thinking about it, because it is the politicians themselves who manipulate the system at their whim, at their convenience, for a few years here the laws have stopped working for the benefit of the community, morality, coexistence and good habits, to benefit the most empowered.
We appreciate this most clearly, when a government manipulates its constitution to extend its presidential term, regardless of the immediate and future consequences that this would cause. In Summary: Venezuela, a lived case of manipulation of laws, statutes, and of the same constitution, only for the benefit of its economic power and social control, without caring about the real needs of the people, making them puppets.
Therefore, I consider a waste of time, regulate something that is already being used and works perfectly, only when it is for the benefit and manipulation of an economic or political power and not for the benefit of the people.
Love your comments @equipodelta!
Exactly. The main problem is that the government will always try to talk regular that is best for you, but in the end, he is only thinking in themselves.
govt are always creating laws that do more harm than good. this may be a general statement but holds good in a lot of cases.
It would be better if governmets take the opinion of people before they create a law