Yes, FishStix,, overregulation would be like this, but fortunately we have APPROPRAITE regulation which prevents industries from “You-know-whatting” in the woods, the rivers, the air, the fields, the oceans…
A bear’s “you know what” is part of the natural cycle, returning nutrients to the soil. Plastics, industrial chemicals, concrete, landfills, carbon monoxide…not so much.
No, I do not. But what would YOU consider “appropriate” regulation?
We have government regulations in areas like industrial waste, banking, securities, food and drug safety, transportation safety, insurance, construction, advertising, YOU NAME IT, because the Private Sector has been shown to be incapable of policing their own abuses.
Again, what level of regulation WOULD you consider appropropriate? How many barrels of toxic waste SHOULD industries be ALLOWED to dump outside the city limits? How much fecal matter is it OK to have in the peanut butter? Are 50% interest rates on loans OK with you? Why SHOULD realtors be required to tell homebuyers that their new home was built on a chemical dump? Why SHOULD insurance companies be obliged to make payments to policy holders? Why should restaurants have to pass health inspections? Why should there be safety standards for electrical work, or building materials? Caveat emptor, right?
Well fritz, if it were simply left at the level you’ve listed above it’d be fine, but is it really the government’s job to tell people not to stick their hands or feet under the deck of a power mower while the blade is spinning? Or to require EVERY mower sold to have such warnings as well as a kill switch to protect the terminally stupid? Is it the government’s job to require companies to put warning labels on coffee cups telling ignorant people that coffee is hot? Or to ban texting while driving because idiots aren’t capable of concentrating on the important thing at hand which is controlling their vehicles? The cartoon makes the very valid point that regulation in many cases HAS gone overboard, and concentrates more on protecting the ignorant from themselves instead of promoting common sense and ecologically sound actions.
The old phrase “Nothing can be made foolproof because fools are so ingenious” applies.
The over-specific warnings are there to PROTECT businesses from costly lawsuits. You’re in California, so we’re both talking about Prop 65, right? A manufacturer knows that he’s using a carcinogenic substance such as PVC, but it’s nonetheless essential to the manufacture of the product. By putting the Prop 65 warning on it, people who DO buy the product are informed of the risk. Artificial-fiber carpets CAN give off chemical fumes, and not only might those fumes be carcinogenic to anyone, some people might be ESPECIALLY at risk, and they have a right to know which products contain them. If there’s a warning label, the manufacturer has exercised proper caution, and liability is reduced.
Yes, some warnings like “Do not lick chainsaw while engine is engaged” seem redundant, but other things, like the fact that McDonald’s coffee was served at literally SCALDING heat, get lost in the general grumblings about overregulation. McDonald’s didn’t simply add warnings after that infamous judgment, they lowered the serving temperature of their coffee, and they were wise to do so. This is the sort of thing that you don’t see as a problem until the problem occurs, but once it does it changes the way things are done.
People’s defaults, which are not stricly related to intelligence, are along the lines of “If something were dangerous, they’d tell us”, so they assume that anything WITHOUT a warning is safe. But that’s not the case. If your chocolates are garnished with lark’s vomit, it’s not sufficient to merely list lark’s vomit in small print right after monosodium glutemate, but you need a big red banner saying “Warning! Contains Lark’s Vomit!”
You don’t have to go very far back to find that, in the pre-warning label, pre-Truth in Labeling days, manufacturers were dosing their products with pretty awful stuff. Business regulations, like labor laws, were introduced for REASONS, and if they went away it’s easy to imagine that the abuses of the past would come back again pretty quickly.
As far as texting while driving goes, or pretty much ANY auto safety law, you’re forgetting that unsafe drivers are not only dangers to themselves, they take out other people with them. There it differs from seat-belt laws, or motorcycle helmet laws, which don’t directly reduce accidents but reduce fatalities in those who wear them.
Auto safety laws tend to be common sense items. If common sense must be legislated, why not make the penalties unbearably high so as to truly discourage the behavior? The truth of the matter is that most of these laws simply wind up being money makers for the jurisdictions involved, and do little to stop inattentive drivers from being inattentive in any other manner they choose. I don’t dispute the need for laws in many cases, but again, I believe the point made in the cartoon is valid.
Edcole1961 almost 15 years ago
It’s those “Charmin” bears that started all the trouble.
Superfrog almost 15 years ago
Unbearable.
Ray_C almost 15 years ago
Well, at least the Pope is still Catholic.
robynbart almost 15 years ago
Isn’t there a “DO” missing in the caption?
Charles Brobst Premium Member almost 15 years ago
When there were still woods for the bear to go you-know-what in!
And the pope is spider-pope now, Ray C.
fritzoid Premium Member almost 15 years ago
Yes, FishStix,, overregulation would be like this, but fortunately we have APPROPRAITE regulation which prevents industries from “You-know-whatting” in the woods, the rivers, the air, the fields, the oceans…
A bear’s “you know what” is part of the natural cycle, returning nutrients to the soil. Plastics, industrial chemicals, concrete, landfills, carbon monoxide…not so much.
bald almost 15 years ago
by having the bear clean up after himself all those yuppified city slickers won’t have to step in it all the time in their $200 doc martens
Ushindi almost 15 years ago
The Forestry people ought to at least supply them with those famous Ronco Super-Duper Pooper Scoopers…
fritzoid Premium Member almost 15 years ago
No, I do not. But what would YOU consider “appropriate” regulation?
We have government regulations in areas like industrial waste, banking, securities, food and drug safety, transportation safety, insurance, construction, advertising, YOU NAME IT, because the Private Sector has been shown to be incapable of policing their own abuses.
fritzoid Premium Member almost 15 years ago
Again, what level of regulation WOULD you consider appropropriate? How many barrels of toxic waste SHOULD industries be ALLOWED to dump outside the city limits? How much fecal matter is it OK to have in the peanut butter? Are 50% interest rates on loans OK with you? Why SHOULD realtors be required to tell homebuyers that their new home was built on a chemical dump? Why SHOULD insurance companies be obliged to make payments to policy holders? Why should restaurants have to pass health inspections? Why should there be safety standards for electrical work, or building materials? Caveat emptor, right?
MisngNOLA almost 15 years ago
Well fritz, if it were simply left at the level you’ve listed above it’d be fine, but is it really the government’s job to tell people not to stick their hands or feet under the deck of a power mower while the blade is spinning? Or to require EVERY mower sold to have such warnings as well as a kill switch to protect the terminally stupid? Is it the government’s job to require companies to put warning labels on coffee cups telling ignorant people that coffee is hot? Or to ban texting while driving because idiots aren’t capable of concentrating on the important thing at hand which is controlling their vehicles? The cartoon makes the very valid point that regulation in many cases HAS gone overboard, and concentrates more on protecting the ignorant from themselves instead of promoting common sense and ecologically sound actions.
fritzoid Premium Member over 14 years ago
The old phrase “Nothing can be made foolproof because fools are so ingenious” applies.
The over-specific warnings are there to PROTECT businesses from costly lawsuits. You’re in California, so we’re both talking about Prop 65, right? A manufacturer knows that he’s using a carcinogenic substance such as PVC, but it’s nonetheless essential to the manufacture of the product. By putting the Prop 65 warning on it, people who DO buy the product are informed of the risk. Artificial-fiber carpets CAN give off chemical fumes, and not only might those fumes be carcinogenic to anyone, some people might be ESPECIALLY at risk, and they have a right to know which products contain them. If there’s a warning label, the manufacturer has exercised proper caution, and liability is reduced.
Yes, some warnings like “Do not lick chainsaw while engine is engaged” seem redundant, but other things, like the fact that McDonald’s coffee was served at literally SCALDING heat, get lost in the general grumblings about overregulation. McDonald’s didn’t simply add warnings after that infamous judgment, they lowered the serving temperature of their coffee, and they were wise to do so. This is the sort of thing that you don’t see as a problem until the problem occurs, but once it does it changes the way things are done.
People’s defaults, which are not stricly related to intelligence, are along the lines of “If something were dangerous, they’d tell us”, so they assume that anything WITHOUT a warning is safe. But that’s not the case. If your chocolates are garnished with lark’s vomit, it’s not sufficient to merely list lark’s vomit in small print right after monosodium glutemate, but you need a big red banner saying “Warning! Contains Lark’s Vomit!”
You don’t have to go very far back to find that, in the pre-warning label, pre-Truth in Labeling days, manufacturers were dosing their products with pretty awful stuff. Business regulations, like labor laws, were introduced for REASONS, and if they went away it’s easy to imagine that the abuses of the past would come back again pretty quickly.
As far as texting while driving goes, or pretty much ANY auto safety law, you’re forgetting that unsafe drivers are not only dangers to themselves, they take out other people with them. There it differs from seat-belt laws, or motorcycle helmet laws, which don’t directly reduce accidents but reduce fatalities in those who wear them.
MisngNOLA over 14 years ago
Auto safety laws tend to be common sense items. If common sense must be legislated, why not make the penalties unbearably high so as to truly discourage the behavior? The truth of the matter is that most of these laws simply wind up being money makers for the jurisdictions involved, and do little to stop inattentive drivers from being inattentive in any other manner they choose. I don’t dispute the need for laws in many cases, but again, I believe the point made in the cartoon is valid.