Topic: Maximum role of Government? - page 3. (Read 28705 times)
None of the above.
Instead, public control of public services through a mixture of localised government owned democracies and privately owned cooperatives.
There seems to be a reality distortion field on both sides of the field here. People hardly get stuck in bad positions everybody is proposing. Life isn't this rough guys.
Okay. I'll follow this line of reasoning just for kicks and giggles. Let's say that no one individual owns the road exclusively. So what? That means now everyone shares a partial ownership in the road, or "easement". Again, so what? That would basically mean the road is part-owned by everyone, right? I'm not sure what portion or in what way each individual would make his "rightful claim" but then it would just be a matter of sorting things out I would think. If you can't sort it out, it would basically fall into the category of homesteadable unclaimed land. There isn't an owner, so why not you, or me, or that "other" guy over there, who might want to make a business out of toll road fees. No one should complain that the road was "staked and claimed". You didn't step up and make a claim to it, so why not the guy who's interested in doing something with it? Or in other words, no one owns it and we just use it as we deem fit until things change. Notwithstanding, this temporary state of "unownership" could not demand forceful intervention for maintenance purposes (or any other similar coercive purpose). That would imply a condition of ownership. You either own it and defend it against trespass, or it remains commonly utilized by all -no more owned than the stars in the sky could be appropriated.
Obviously, no one has a specific right to travel on another man's property without permission. This would be trespass. He may attempt to travel on un-homesteaded land, but that would be the only right he would have, and even then, it would only be temporary until someone wanted to own it. Then he couldn't arbitrarily traverse it, because he didn't acquire it first, and make it exclusive to himself or his assigns. Let's not get caught up in all of the vague verbiage (government, state, "unorganized public"). This merely clouds the issue. And here's why.
If the "unorganized public" wants to fix/improve/reroute the road they apparently jointly own, then they, and only they could expend their effort, money, assets, resources and other what-have-you to improve this "easement" of their own free will. They could not of a natural right, force, expropriate, tax, extort, coerce (I think you get my drift here) from others to achieve this end. If others travel on your road, then they must get permission to use it. If you improve the road, but still not claim it as your own, you shouldn't be upset if others travel on it. You improved it out of the charity of your heart I guess.
Is this a little more clear? We don't need lawyers and legislators making definitions as to what a "highway" or "road" or "easement" is, but we should merely examine who is the rightful owner of such things. I'm trying to keep things simple here. John Locke said, the appearance of property has the distinction of labor mixed with something in Nature. It had to appear to be changed from its natural state when man intervened. If that's the case, I want to see who owns the deed or title, and if there is none, I'll take it.
Last but not least, if the government doesn't own it, then why are they forcing me to pay for its construction, maintenance and improvement?
-DiamondPlus
Obviously, no one has a specific right to travel on another man's property without permission. This would be trespass. He may attempt to travel on un-homesteaded land, but that would be the only right he would have, and even then, it would only be temporary until someone wanted to own it. Then he couldn't arbitrarily traverse it, because he didn't acquire it first, and make it exclusive to himself or his assigns. Let's not get caught up in all of the vague verbiage (government, state, "unorganized public"). This merely clouds the issue. And here's why.
If the "unorganized public" wants to fix/improve/reroute the road they apparently jointly own, then they, and only they could expend their effort, money, assets, resources and other what-have-you to improve this "easement" of their own free will. They could not of a natural right, force, expropriate, tax, extort, coerce (I think you get my drift here) from others to achieve this end. If others travel on your road, then they must get permission to use it. If you improve the road, but still not claim it as your own, you shouldn't be upset if others travel on it. You improved it out of the charity of your heart I guess.
Is this a little more clear? We don't need lawyers and legislators making definitions as to what a "highway" or "road" or "easement" is, but we should merely examine who is the rightful owner of such things. I'm trying to keep things simple here. John Locke said, the appearance of property has the distinction of labor mixed with something in Nature. It had to appear to be changed from its natural state when man intervened. If that's the case, I want to see who owns the deed or title, and if there is none, I'll take it.
Last but not least, if the government doesn't own it, then why are they forcing me to pay for its construction, maintenance and improvement?
-DiamondPlus
Why do regulations tend to go so far beyond what is really necessary, and how do we mitigate that? I'm not sure what country you live in, but here in the US the culture of work place safety is ridiculous. It creates horrible inefficiencies and attitudes of snitching. Do I really need a safety harness and rope if I'm on a ladder farther than six feet off the ground, and does Joe really need to report me to OSHA?
you start with a functional system.
the US culture of an illusion of workplace safety is ridiculous and i agree. too much focus is placed on trivial crap, deflecting attention from actual gaping holes in the regulations e.g. no double belting (having two ropes so one is always attached while you're moving the other one to a new attachment point) requirement at extreme heights such as radio towers or wind turbines.
i'm not sure whether your last sentence is being serious or not, but OSHA regs do not require that. fall protection is not required unless you're above 25 feet.
Fall protection is required if it's above 6 feet. This does not necessarily mean you need a harness to go above six feet, so I was exaggerating a little.
http://www.osha.gov/doc/outreachtraining/htmlfiles/subpartm.html
In practice, it's four feet, because if you are using a ladder over 6 feet tall you are expected to harness, and you're also not permitted to use the top two steps to actually step upon.
Why do regulations tend to go so far beyond what is really necessary, and how do we mitigate that? I'm not sure what country you live in, but here in the US the culture of work place safety is ridiculous. It creates horrible inefficiencies and attitudes of snitching. Do I really need a safety harness and rope if I'm on a ladder farther than six feet off the ground, and does Joe really need to report me to OSHA?
you start with a functional system.
the US culture of an illusion of workplace safety is ridiculous and i agree. too much focus is placed on trivial crap, deflecting attention from actual gaping holes in the regulations e.g. no double belting (having two ropes so one is always attached while you're moving the other one to a new attachment point) requirement at extreme heights such as radio towers or wind turbines.
i'm not sure whether your last sentence is being serious or not, but OSHA regs do not require that. fall protection is not required unless you're above 25 feet.
Fall protection is required if it's above 6 feet. This does not necessarily mean you need a harness to go above six feet, so I was exaggerating a little.
http://www.osha.gov/doc/outreachtraining/htmlfiles/subpartm.html
Why do regulations tend to go so far beyond what is really necessary, and how do we mitigate that? I'm not sure what country you live in, but here in the US the culture of work place safety is ridiculous. It creates horrible inefficiencies and attitudes of snitching. Do I really need a safety harness and rope if I'm on a ladder farther than six feet off the ground, and does Joe really need to report me to OSHA?
you start with a functional system.
the US culture of an illusion of workplace safety is ridiculous and i agree. too much focus is placed on trivial crap, deflecting attention from actual gaping holes in the regulations e.g. no double belting (having two ropes so one is always attached while you're moving the other one to a new attachment point) requirement at extreme heights such as radio towers or wind turbines.
i'm not sure whether your last sentence is being serious or not, but OSHA regs do not require that. fall protection is not required unless you're above 25 feet.
Why do regulations tend to go so far beyond what is really necessary, and how do we mitigate that? I'm not sure what country you live in, but here in the US the culture of work place safety is ridiculous. It creates horrible inefficiencies and attitudes of snitching. Do I really need a safety harness and rope if I'm on a ladder farther than six feet off the ground, and does Joe really need to report me to OSHA?
Not knowing your local laws I really can't say if they're ridiculous or not. I'll just take your word for it. What you should do in that case is to have the regulations rewritten. They're part of the political process so it's not hard, and probably being rewritten every now and then anyway. Lobby for change, position yourself so that you can take part in the rewrite.
I'm also not familiar with OSHA and how that works, but here the employer is responsible for making sure that you follow the regulations, and it's the employer that will be in trouble if you're not doing it. Unless they can prove that they've done everything they can to make your work safe as can be and you choose to ignore the rules.
A relative (US Citizen) told me that laws in the US are historical and not logical. Once you start to look at laws from a historical point of view, they start to make some sort of sense, but from a logical point of view many are downright dumb.
I'm saying that a company isn't allowed to take risks for you. Foreseeable risks should be mitigated by the company.
When those risks have been mitigated but risk still remains, as it always does, the company sets a salary that they believe will attract workers. People then use their personal liberty to choose if that reward is enough for them to take the job with the risk that follows.
When those risks have been mitigated but risk still remains, as it always does, the company sets a salary that they believe will attract workers. People then use their personal liberty to choose if that reward is enough for them to take the job with the risk that follows.
Not once did you mention the word 'regulation', as indeed, it's not needed. By George, I think he's got it.
I have nothing against market solution to problems, but believing it's the one and all solution to all problems is naive to the point of stupidity.
Why do regulations tend to go so far beyond what is really necessary, and how do we mitigate that? I'm not sure what country you live in, but here in the US the culture of work place safety is ridiculous. It creates horrible inefficiencies and attitudes of snitching. Do I really need a safety harness and rope if I'm on a ladder farther than six feet off the ground, and does Joe really need to report me to OSHA?
I'm saying that a company isn't allowed to take risks for you. Foreseeable risks should be mitigated by the company.
When those risks have been mitigated but risk still remains, as it always does, the company sets a salary that they believe will attract workers. People then use their personal liberty to choose if that reward is enough for them to take the job with the risk that follows.
When those risks have been mitigated but risk still remains, as it always does, the company sets a salary that they believe will attract workers. People then use their personal liberty to choose if that reward is enough for them to take the job with the risk that follows.
Not once did you mention the word 'regulation', as indeed, it's not needed. By George, I think he's got it.
I have nothing against market solution to problems, but believing it's the one and all solution to all problems is naive to the point of stupidity.
I'm saying that a company isn't allowed to take risks for you. Foreseeable risks should be mitigated by the company.
When those risks have been mitigated but risk still remains, as it always does, the company sets a salary that they believe will attract workers. People then use their personal liberty to choose if that reward is enough for them to take the job with the risk that follows.
When those risks have been mitigated but risk still remains, as it always does, the company sets a salary that they believe will attract workers. People then use their personal liberty to choose if that reward is enough for them to take the job with the risk that follows.
Not once did you mention the word 'regulation', as indeed, it's not needed. By George, I think he's got it.
Two questions: 1) What do you do? 2) How can I do it too?
So what you are saying is that the government gets to decide what "unnecessary" risks are, regardless of what people are or are not willing to do themselves? Why? What I want to know is why government gets to trump people's personal liberty.
Find something you're good at and then find someone wiling to pay you to do it. Preferably good money.
I'm saying that a company isn't allowed to take risks for you. Foreseeable risks should be mitigated by the company.
When those risks have been mitigated but risk still remains, as it always does, the company sets a salary that they believe will attract workers. People then use their personal liberty to choose if that reward is enough for them to take the job with the risk that follows.
You seem to take the position that 'safety' in the workplace is an absolute. That either a job is safe or it's not. It doesn't work that way, and I'm sure that you wouldn't consider my job safe. So whether or not a particular occupation is a 'safe working condition' or not isn't something that the government decides, the workers do. It's still that way, no matter what the government agents will tell you. If the job is too hazardous for the professionals to do it, the company is either going to offer enough of a risk premium to overcome the fear factor or take steps to make it safe enough that the professionals are willing to do the work. The government regs on the matter still come later. Do you know what the most dangerous, and highest paying skilled labor job in America is? A high tension lineman. These guys are paid on the order of $70+ per hour to be dropped by a cable from a helicopter onto a high tension power line, in order to inspect and repair it, while the power is still on. They earn every penny, but can't get life insurance. They aren't just near the power lines, they are actually sitting on them. The voltage of a high tension transmission line is usually 14,400 volts or higher.
$70/hour isn't very much is it? It's less than 15 minutes of my time. And I have a very safe job compared to that. The drive to the airport or the flight would be the most dangerous part of any work week. Or perhaps coffee poisoning.
Two questions: 1) What do you do? 2) How can I do it too?
No, I don't have that black and white view of the world. That viewpoint belongs to someone else. What I'm saying is that I do agree with you that a cost/benefit analysis is done and what the government has done is to say that certain things aren't allowed to be part of that calculation. Yes, certain jobs are dangerous, yes companies will have to compensate people for high risk jobs, but they also can't take unnecessary risks with their employees life and health.
So what you are saying is that the government gets to decide what "unnecessary" risks are, regardless of what people are or are not willing to do themselves? Why? What I want to know is why government gets to trump people's personal liberty.
You seem to take the position that 'safety' in the workplace is an absolute. That either a job is safe or it's not. It doesn't work that way, and I'm sure that you wouldn't consider my job safe. So whether or not a particular occupation is a 'safe working condition' or not isn't something that the government decides, the workers do. It's still that way, no matter what the government agents will tell you. If the job is too hazardous for the professionals to do it, the company is either going to offer enough of a risk premium to overcome the fear factor or take steps to make it safe enough that the professionals are willing to do the work. The government regs on the matter still come later. Do you know what the most dangerous, and highest paying skilled labor job in America is? A high tension lineman. These guys are paid on the order of $70+ per hour to be dropped by a cable from a helicopter onto a high tension power line, in order to inspect and repair it, while the power is still on. They earn every penny, but can't get life insurance. They aren't just near the power lines, they are actually sitting on them. The voltage of a high tension transmission line is usually 14,400 volts or higher.
No, I don't have that black and white view of the world. That viewpoint belongs to someone else. What I'm saying is that I do agree with you that a cost/benefit analysis is done and what the government has done is to say that certain things aren't allowed to be part of that calculation. Yes, certain jobs are dangerous, yes companies will have to compensate people for high risk jobs, but they also can't take unnecessary risks with their employees life and health.
$70/hour isn't very much is it? It's less than 15 minutes of my time. And I have a very safe job compared to that. The drive to the airport or the flight would be the most dangerous part of any work week. Or perhaps coffee poisoning.
$70 per hour for job that doesn't require a degree or a willingness to charge a machine gun nest is pretty good. I'd be willing to bet you are a lawyer.
You seem to take the position that 'safety' in the workplace is an absolute. That either a job is safe or it's not. It doesn't work that way, and I'm sure that you wouldn't consider my job safe. So whether or not a particular occupation is a 'safe working condition' or not isn't something that the government decides, the workers do. It's still that way, no matter what the government agents will tell you. If the job is too hazardous for the professionals to do it, the company is either going to offer enough of a risk premium to overcome the fear factor or take steps to make it safe enough that the professionals are willing to do the work. The government regs on the matter still come later. Do you know what the most dangerous, and highest paying skilled labor job in America is? A high tension lineman. These guys are paid on the order of $70+ per hour to be dropped by a cable from a helicopter onto a high tension power line, in order to inspect and repair it, while the power is still on.
or they rely on a buyers market in employment (more workers than jobs) and take advantage of desperation on the part of workers and/or disymmetry of information.
They try. That doesn't mean that they succeed.
Quote
Also, $70/hr? a well certified welder (not even considering hazardous conditions welding) can make $100+/hr.
I can make $100 an hour also. Doesn't mean that happens often. That $70 per hour quote is base wages. Also, I personally know quite a few certified welders, most of whom make between $18 and $25 around here, base wages. $100 per hour to weld is great work, if you can find it.
You seem to take the position that 'safety' in the workplace is an absolute. That either a job is safe or it's not. It doesn't work that way, and I'm sure that you wouldn't consider my job safe. So whether or not a particular occupation is a 'safe working condition' or not isn't something that the government decides, the workers do. It's still that way, no matter what the government agents will tell you. If the job is too hazardous for the professionals to do it, the company is either going to offer enough of a risk premium to overcome the fear factor or take steps to make it safe enough that the professionals are willing to do the work. The government regs on the matter still come later. Do you know what the most dangerous, and highest paying skilled labor job in America is? A high tension lineman. These guys are paid on the order of $70+ per hour to be dropped by a cable from a helicopter onto a high tension power line, in order to inspect and repair it, while the power is still on.
or they rely on a buyers market in employment (more workers than jobs) and take advantage of desperation on the part of workers and/or disymmetry of information.
Also, $70/hr? a well certified welder (not even considering hazardous conditions welding) can make $100+/hr.
You seem to take the position that 'safety' in the workplace is an absolute. That either a job is safe or it's not. It doesn't work that way, and I'm sure that you wouldn't consider my job safe. So whether or not a particular occupation is a 'safe working condition' or not isn't something that the government decides, the workers do. It's still that way, no matter what the government agents will tell you. If the job is too hazardous for the professionals to do it, the company is either going to offer enough of a risk premium to overcome the fear factor or take steps to make it safe enough that the professionals are willing to do the work. The government regs on the matter still come later. Do you know what the most dangerous, and highest paying skilled labor job in America is? A high tension lineman. These guys are paid on the order of $70+ per hour to be dropped by a cable from a helicopter onto a high tension power line, in order to inspect and repair it, while the power is still on. They earn every penny, but can't get life insurance. They aren't just near the power lines, they are actually sitting on them. The voltage of a high tension transmission line is usually 14,400 volts or higher.
No, I don't have that black and white view of the world. That viewpoint belongs to someone else. What I'm saying is that I do agree with you that a cost/benefit analysis is done and what the government has done is to say that certain things aren't allowed to be part of that calculation. Yes, certain jobs are dangerous, yes companies will have to compensate people for high risk jobs, but they also can't take unnecessary risks with their employees life and health.
$70/hour isn't very much is it? It's less than 15 minutes of my time. And I have a very safe job compared to that. The drive to the airport or the flight would be the most dangerous part of any work week. Or perhaps coffee poisoning.
Fail. Employee safety and general conditions were 'fixed' long before regulation, mostly by the collective will of unions prior to the second world war. The regulations came later, and at first simply enshrined the negotiated working condition rules into law; but then became perverted later.
Care to try again, or perhaps attempt to defend this point of view?
Care to try again, or perhaps attempt to defend this point of view?
Really? All employees had safe working conditions before regulation? Or just the ones with a strong bargaining position?
The government saw something good and extended that to everyone. No, the market didn't "fix" employee safety. It granted the benefit of a safe working environment to a few people, the government "fixed" the rest.
You seem to take the position that 'safety' in the workplace is an absolute. That either a job is safe or it's not. It doesn't work that way, and I'm sure that you wouldn't consider my job safe. So whether or not a particular occupation is a 'safe working condition' or not isn't something that the government decides, the workers do. It's still that way, no matter what the government agents will tell you. If the job is too hazardous for the professionals to do it, the company is either going to offer enough of a risk premium to overcome the fear factor or take steps to make it safe enough that the professionals are willing to do the work. The government regs on the matter still come later. Do you know what the most dangerous, and highest paying skilled labor job in America is? A high tension lineman. These guys are paid on the order of $70+ per hour to be dropped by a cable from a helicopter onto a high tension power line, in order to inspect and repair it, while the power is still on. They earn every penny, but can't get life insurance. They aren't just near the power lines, they are actually sitting on them. The voltage of a high tension transmission line is usually 14,400 volts or higher.
They are the ones with those wire cage suits, right? They have to slowly equalize their electric potential to match the transmission line before they can get on it. Crazy stuff.
They often wear faraday suits, but yes, they have to mount the wires from a helicopter because it can be equalized without harm. A crane cannot.
Right. Helicopters are a floating ground, so no path for the current to go through.
Fail. Employee safety and general conditions were 'fixed' long before regulation, mostly by the collective will of unions prior to the second world war. The regulations came later, and at first simply enshrined the negotiated working condition rules into law; but then became perverted later.
Care to try again, or perhaps attempt to defend this point of view?
Care to try again, or perhaps attempt to defend this point of view?
Really? All employees had safe working conditions before regulation? Or just the ones with a strong bargaining position?
The government saw something good and extended that to everyone. No, the market didn't "fix" employee safety. It granted the benefit of a safe working environment to a few people, the government "fixed" the rest.
You seem to take the position that 'safety' in the workplace is an absolute. That either a job is safe or it's not. It doesn't work that way, and I'm sure that you wouldn't consider my job safe. So whether or not a particular occupation is a 'safe working condition' or not isn't something that the government decides, the workers do. It's still that way, no matter what the government agents will tell you. If the job is too hazardous for the professionals to do it, the company is either going to offer enough of a risk premium to overcome the fear factor or take steps to make it safe enough that the professionals are willing to do the work. The government regs on the matter still come later. Do you know what the most dangerous, and highest paying skilled labor job in America is? A high tension lineman. These guys are paid on the order of $70+ per hour to be dropped by a cable from a helicopter onto a high tension power line, in order to inspect and repair it, while the power is still on. They earn every penny, but can't get life insurance. They aren't just near the power lines, they are actually sitting on them. The voltage of a high tension transmission line is usually 14,400 volts or higher.
They are the ones with those wire cage suits, right? They have to slowly equalize their electric potential to match the transmission line before they can get on it. Crazy stuff.
They often wear faraday suits, but yes, they have to mount the wires from a helicopter because it can be equalized without harm. A crane cannot.
Fail. Employee safety and general conditions were 'fixed' long before regulation, mostly by the collective will of unions prior to the second world war. The regulations came later, and at first simply enshrined the negotiated working condition rules into law; but then became perverted later.
Care to try again, or perhaps attempt to defend this point of view?
Care to try again, or perhaps attempt to defend this point of view?
Really? All employees had safe working conditions before regulation? Or just the ones with a strong bargaining position?
The government saw something good and extended that to everyone. No, the market didn't "fix" employee safety. It granted the benefit of a safe working environment to a few people, the government "fixed" the rest.
You seem to take the position that 'safety' in the workplace is an absolute. That either a job is safe or it's not. It doesn't work that way, and I'm sure that you wouldn't consider my job safe. So whether or not a particular occupation is a 'safe working condition' or not isn't something that the government decides, the workers do. It's still that way, no matter what the government agents will tell you. If the job is too hazardous for the professionals to do it, the company is either going to offer enough of a risk premium to overcome the fear factor or take steps to make it safe enough that the professionals are willing to do the work. The government regs on the matter still come later. Do you know what the most dangerous, and highest paying skilled labor job in America is? A high tension lineman. These guys are paid on the order of $70+ per hour to be dropped by a cable from a helicopter onto a high tension power line, in order to inspect and repair it, while the power is still on. They earn every penny, but can't get life insurance. They aren't just near the power lines, they are actually sitting on them. The voltage of a high tension transmission line is usually 14,400 volts or higher.
They are the ones with those wire cage suits, right? They have to slowly equalize their electric potential to match the transmission line before they can get on it. Crazy stuff.
You seem to take the position that 'safety' in the workplace is an absolute. That either a job is safe or it's not. It doesn't work that way, and I'm sure that you wouldn't consider my job safe. So whether or not a particular occupation is a 'safe working condition' or not isn't something that the government decides, the workers do. It's still that way, no matter what the government agents will tell you. If the job is too hazardous for the professionals to do it, the company is either going to offer enough of a risk premium to overcome the fear factor or take steps to make it safe enough that the professionals are willing to do the work. The government regs on the matter still come later. Do you know what the most dangerous, and highest paying skilled labor job in America is? A high tension lineman. These guys are paid on the order of $70+ per hour to be dropped by a cable from a helicopter onto a high tension power line, in order to inspect and repair it, while the power is still on. They earn every penny, but can't get life insurance. They aren't just near the power lines, they are actually sitting on them. The voltage of a high tension transmission line is usually 14,400 volts or higher.
+1
I saw those guys on Discovery's Most Dangerous Jobs. They deserve every penny and then some.
Jump to: