No King, No Queen, No Lords, No Ladies

stupidlaws
Musings on regulation, opportunity costs, and thinking for yourself.

Try it.

It’s habit-forming.

How many regulations can you violate in the next 24 hours?

I double-dog dare ya.

27 responses to “No King, No Queen, No Lords, No Ladies

  1. Larry Elliott

    I spent over 30 years working for a government regulatory agency, and think I did some good, BUT…. A whole lot of regulations were silly, stupid, asinine, and pointless. Some regulation of things like drugs for instance is needed or we end up with babies with no or deformed arms/legs whatever. OTOH, if someone wants to take Dr Whizbang’s Sure Fire Cure All, that only takes their money and otherwise does them no harm who cares. After it fails to cure anyone the shyster is out on the streets.

    Aside from silly regulations by ATF the firearms industry is unregulated. Guns are proof tested by their makers, or not, and if one blows up someone gets sued. The gun or ammunition’s maker, whichever is at fault either goes under or if they’re sufficiently large/wealthy dig themselves out of the hole they’re in and continues on, more carefully.

    It should work for nearly everything as Ms Hoyt points out.

    • Some regulation of things like drugs for instance is needed or we end up with babies with no or deformed arms/legs whatever.
      =================

      Hey Larry, my brothers oldest son was born with just 3 fingers on his left hand, do you think his wife took some unlicensed drugs?

      • Remember Thalidomide?

        Happens to actually work very well on multiple myeloma, insomnia and also morning sickness. One teensy side effect though. The populace of the U.S. got lucky and had a woman in the FDA who had numerous questions. It was never approved for use here. I think I’m one of the lucky ones myself since I was sired within that timeframe and my mother told me graphic tales of her morning sickness while carrying me to term.

        The women in the U.S. who had babies with deformities had acquired the drug on overseas trips or from friends who had brought it over while visiting.

        Can’t tell whether your query to Larry is ‘sarc on’ or not so this reply is as straight up, no chaser as I can put it..

        • So what your saying is that the government regulation did not prevent people from actually getting the medication and taking it. That the resulting birth defects were not then enough of a “regulation” to keep people from continuing to aquire the drug even though the government had prohibited it?
          Yes in an unregulated society there will be the risk of a product failing and people being killed or maimed.
          Thats called life and it sucks but no amount of “regulation” will prevent it. What will help prevent it is the litigation that follows such failures and the liability for those failures. If the level of liability is significant to warrant criminal actions then no amount of corporate protection should stand in the way. Thats not the same as “regulation” thats punishment for behavior already in play. If you produce a product that kills people then you will be liable for that. If it was an honest mistake and no shortcuts or cover ups were involved then you pay monitary damage. If you cut corners and hide information then you go to jail.
          I have often thought about this in libertarian terms of how to acheive a measure of consumer protection with out government hand holding. My thoughts always turn to “Consumer Reports” magazine. These guys do so much testing and rating of commercial products that you really should check it out before any significant purchase. I figure that if the government were not in the business of regulating that someone would institute a Consumer Reports for all level of products.

  2. I ignore (“violate”) some pretty serious ones on a daily basis.

    The exact number is impossible to know exactly… there are just so many deserving of scorn. Criminals and the decent folks have exchanged places in the New Reality.

  3. “Malum prohibitum” is rarely if ever a good thing. Besides, how does this not already fail under littering laws to use “silly string” in a public place.

  4. Signs like the one in the photograph just beg to be altered or defaced. Keep in mind that most of the sheeple are totally clueless because they are content to be led around by their nanny-state handlers. These handlers are at all levels of government, from the local school boards and municipalities to the WH.
    Things will not change until the economic shoe really starts to pinch. Mr Bracken elaborated on that in the radio interview posted here a few days ago. Let’s hope the crash comes soon. Maybe some of these clueless idiots will wake up.

  5. Silliness, meant to rape your ass pocket and if you don’t have enough coin, guess what? Free room and board paid for by yourself if you ever get out and all your fellow herd members.

    But what if you get ass raped and face raped while in the shitcan, then what? Can you sue the raper(s) or your incarcerators? Don’t be silly, and no you are not suddenly gay, unless you want to be, not that there’s anything wrong with that.

    BTW, why is it that some people able to tell other people that they can’t own their own stuff? Where did this whole idea come from? Can I require that the person that created the sign not be allowed to create any more signs and to remove all signs he has already created?

  6. From that article:

    “….do you favor selling tainted meat/fish/cat hair cookies?”
    ======================

    I’ve had multiple licenses for 30 years and know hundreds of people with licenses, you may know some too, they’re kinda popular these days. Soon you’ll need a license to prepare food for your own family in your own home.

    Guess what?
    Licensure does not insure competency.
    Nope, never has, never will.
    But doesn’t it create a path for justice if you are violated?
    You already have that path.
    Think, please.

    Licensure insures one thing, that the state will get its cut of the action and the prices for the licensed products will reflect that. Thus, you pay MORE for stuff from licensed businesses.

    I no longer pay for licenses as a matter of philosophical policy but I continue to sell my products and services however now I can discount my stuff a little because I have cut out the middle man.

    Be careful, snitches are everywhere.
    The only cure for a snitch is immolation – gas and moth ball crystals.
    Stand way back…….

    • Mutant Swarm

      “Licensure insures one thing, that the state will get its cut of the action and the prices for the licensed products will reflect that. Thus, you pay MORE for stuff from licensed businesses.”

      “License” is the new word for “tax,” isn’t it?

      • License has always been a word for tax. The Stamps regulated by the Stamp Act of 1765 were no different in that they made the documents legal if taxed but illegal if not taxed, right down to playing cards and pamphlets. Ditto the NFA tax stamps. And the fees for notaries public, I guess.

        And the law here in Texas which requires people doing work on other people’s computers to be licensed private investigators. Why geeks need to be licensed that way just to clean viruses off Uncle Bob’s porn-o-matic is beyond me

  7. alan w. mullenax

    Ha! Me? Violate regulations?

    Yes.

    On a regular and consistent basis.

  8. I can’t believe this discussion is even taking place, here or there. Do I have this straight…everyone’s talking about whether it’s sensible or not to force people to do something a particular way?

    That’s remarkable to me. What sort of creatures are we talking about?

  9. “And really, what prevents her from moving to Somalia?”

    Why don’t you take that infantile shit to some kindergarten class or something? Y’know, move yourself up one step at a time.

    And really, what prevents you from moving to China?

    “There’s no question that the government bureaucracy has metastasized beyond belief and well past the point of malignancy.”

    Uh huh. So why do you spend so many thousands of words trying to persuade everyone that it hasn’t?

    I mean, could you offer at least non-contradiction OR brevity?

  10. >>> But the reality is that to have Switzerland, you have to start with a nation of hard-working Swiss. (Hint: We don’t even have a nation of hard-working Americans.)

    And your plan to overcome that problem is…what, exactly?

    >>> She writes from the opposite ridge of unearned moral superiority from liberal reporters who throw stones at the very military that guarantees their protection and provides the safety bubble to write their corrosive nonsense.

    Oh, is that what poppies and oil do, guarantee our protection? I think you’re confusing the motivation of the grunts with the actuality of the matter. I’m sure it’s news to most here that their protection is guaranteed in the first place. I can hear the sighs of relief.

    >>> That’s the level of social mechanicry that knows the car isn’t working right because it doesn’t go. But ripping everything off except engine and a chassis doesn’t make what remains a Ferrari just because you want one.

    Maybe we’re just looking for a car, not what your wild imagination says that we’re looking for. In any event, I can’t think of anything sillier than saying that the car that doesn’t go, goes.

    >>> The problem is solutions that want to get rid of everything are usually long on throwing everything out, and rather sparse on appreciation for where the dirty bathwater ends and where the baby begins.

    That’s nice. What’s the problem with solutions that only want to get rid of the idiocy? I understand you’ll be lonely, but is that really our problem?

    >>> And the people that rant the loudest at getting tickets and bitching about government spending are usually the first in line at the counter to bitch about “those other people” drag-racing through their neighborhood, and agitating the most to get stoplights installed on all the corners on their own kids’ way to school.

    Not everyone’s a hypocrite. Gee, let’s try to figure out why you suppose everyone (else) is. Can you spell p-r-o-j-e-c-t-i-o-n?

    >>> Beware of people advertising to perform surgery with chainsaws because they once saw a diagram of anatomy. And at the least, ask them to demonstrate the procedure on themselves before signing up.

    Beware of writers who ONLY write in analogies and NEVER address the actual issues head on. There’s a reason for everything.

  11. I seldom see such a list of insupportable assertions and pronouncements from authority… except when Aesop comments.

    Ringing indictments, lofty vocabulary, clever metaphors, and caustic wit are terrible things to waste.

    Specious reasoning from dyspeptic perceptions and scornful arrogance towards all and sundry, not so much.

    • Really, it’s remarkable…approaching record-setting territory, and that’s sayin’ something. We’ve got a lung cancer that “has metastasized beyond belief and well past the point of malignancy,” and this doctor’s advice is to double up on the smoking. Philosophical Obamacare.

      • “Still no actual counterarguments on the topic, mind you, just pure contrariness.”

        Damn, that’s something. I’ve been doing this a long time and I can’t say you set the endpoint for idiocy, but you very well might for hypocrisy.

      • “Still no actual counterarguments on the topic, mind you, just pure contrariness.”

        Pot. Kettle. Black. Out of your own mouth, projectile proof positive.

        “Congrats, Jim. Now you and oughtsix have a lovefest going.”

        You should be as fortunate but, with your natural animosity toward… everyone, I don’t think you’ll ever get lucky.

        “But hey, isn’t that collectivism rearing it’s ugly head?”

        No. It’s called “agreement.” You should try it sometime. And, by the way, that is possibly The. Lamest. Attempted. Barb. with which you have ever flailed and failed.

        All in the first paragraph. That and the rest of this petty tantrum simply make our case for us v. your bilious narcissism.

        • “So since no government isn’t an option and never has been, and too much government is what we have and despise, the only solution in reality would be an argument for SOME…”

          Well Hallelujah and Praise the Lord…you finally said SOMETHING!

          Here’s what you said, in a single word, “Compromise.” Yeah, the mantra of our time. “There are no blacks and whites; everything is gray.”

          Compromise—the leading philosophy from the Parties, the goons and ALL the intellectuals. Compromise. Compromise. It’s always reasonable, right?

          Here, genius; riddle me this. If good compromises with evil, which gains and which loses? That should take you exactly four words to answer: “____________ gains; _____________ loses.” Go for it.

          • That was nice; I was expecting something about drinking water or eating food. So now please do explain…if I haven’t interfered with someone else, where is the good in someone else interfering with me?

            It would be nice if you would answer the question directly, rather than through some 1000 year old fable.

          • Jim,

            “Here, genius; riddle me this. If good compromises with evil, which gains and which loses? That should take you exactly four words to answer: “____________ gains; _____________ loses.” Go for it.”

            One of the most concise, therefore brilliant (and hilarious!) vivesections I’ve ever had the pleasure to witness!!!!!!

            Aesop, please, by all means, do drop by to reaffirm your status as the most pompous ass hereabouts with yet another stupendous example of obfuscation camouflaged in pseudo intellectual, er, for brevity’s sake,
            bullshit.

  12. As much as I hate government, there remains a need for some small amount of government. Otherwise, what stops another Love Canal pollution? Who cleans up after a Love Canal or a huge oil spill? How do you go about dealing with imports that are poisonous, like lead in children’s candy from China? Are you going to sue them? Good luck.

    Certainly there are far too many regulations, some simply obscene, like the Lacey Act. But total anarchy will never respond to mere market forces, nor will it protect us from the aggression of other countries. That is why Switzerland has armed forces. They just don’t send them overseas to destabilize foreign governments they don’t like.

    • “Otherwise, what stops another Love Canal pollution?”

      ‘Scuse me, Reg, but what stopped the first one?

  13. Otherwise, what stops another Love Canal pollution?

    The victims shooting the polluting company’s executives and board of directors for their criminal aggression. Your scenario is “no government”, which means that no third parties are going to interfere in the dispute between the poisoners and their victims.

    To date the “no government” idea is fiction, because most people want to vote for a living. But I have hope the libertarians can improve their methods of self-defense enough to hold off 90% of the population.

    The existence of “government” is claimed to be justified by the 0.000001% of it that is self-defense. Instead of saying “government”, I think it’s more clear to talk about “self-defense”, “looting and mooching”, “state religion”, and “monopoly” all separately, and say I only want the first.

    ‘foreign aggression’

    In a legal environment where anyone can have any weapons they can buy or make? The US Navy recently did a simulated wargame of a US carrier group vs. Iran’s fishing fleet carrying Russian Silkworm missiles. The Navy couldn’t cheat fast enough to win. Any foreign carrier group attacking the US will be sunk, but not until the IMAX cameras are rolling so that movie ticket revenues can offset the cost of the missiles and torpedos.

    Who cleans up after a Love Canal or a huge oil spill?

    Volunteers, same as who places the sandbags before a flood.

    How do you go about dealing with imports that are poisonous, like lead in children’s candy from China?

    Love Canal in a candy wrapper, see above.

  14. Yes, volunteers, same as who preps for and cleans up after all the natural disasters today. Not who gets publicity on local TV, but rather count the actual man-hours spent. It’s concrete, it’s real, it’s measurable, and you can go interview the people who did it at the last tornado touchdown.

    To expand on poisoned food from a vendor beyond recourse, is the importer horrified and tries hard to get the word out about a recall? Or do they not react so much, which makes them guilty of fraud leading to poisoning? Why would anyone buy in the first place from a vendor who appears to have nothing to lose? If you aren’t reasonably convinced by some reputational type data that the goods and services are real, don’t buy them. You will find it too expensive to insure yourself against your own complete carelessness in the marketplace.

    • “If you aren’t reasonably convinced by some reputatonal type data that the goods and services are real, don’t buy them.”

      You’re wasting your breath, because reputation was never available at everyone’s fingertips–for free yet–before the Information Age and the Internet. There, Aesop just proved it can’t happen.

      Aesop, I hope you address my questions at AM’s place. I didn’t post as Anonymous, but too quickly hit “publish” and so it posted anonymously anyway. I’m sure you figured out who was asking.