Without Regulations, We Would Be Like China

1. 0

   Sooner28posted 11 years ago

   http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/22/world … r&_r=0
   
   This is why liberals are in favor of environmental protections.  It's vastly important to understand that claims about environmental protection are based on keeping all of us healthy  They are not about controlling the behavior of others in order to increase state power, but instead ensuring the air we breathe and the water we drink is safe.  Let China be a cautionary tale for the Tea Party.

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Sounds exactly like our infighting here. Only bigger and worse.
      China doesn't do anything in moderation, does it?
      

      replyreport
      1. 0

         Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

         Apparently not!

         replyreport
      2. 61

         tirelesstravelerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         I really wish this were true.

         replyreport
   2. 72

      CreatePerfectionposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      It is so true.  I have come to believe that the U.S. elects the stupidest people on the planet to lead us.  These people are called the Tea Party.

      replyreport
2. 61

   tirelesstravelerposted 11 years ago

   My friend, as I take deep breaths in and out, I am wondering what you know about Chinese culture that would lead you to his conclusion.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      There's no statement about Chinese culture.  The claim is our companies would be just as immoral as Chinese companies if we didn't have regulations to keep them in check.
      
      In other words, our big companies are no better than those in China wreaking havoc on their environment.

      replyreport
3. 61

   tirelesstravelerposted 11 years ago

   You say culture has nothing to do with the environment and I disagree. The American people, in whom I have a great deal of faith don't like to be able to see the air they breath.  The Chinese do what the government tells them to do. Americans in until recently haven't been so willing.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      I think if the Chinese had a less oppressive government, they would also like to see the air they breathe (by the way, I am stealing that line ).
      
      Without government intervening with welfare for the needy, regulations for the air, and minimum wage and working hours, companies would treat us very poorly, and our environment would be in shambles. 
      
      Your claim, the way I understand it, is the people would not put up with such a situation, and would protest if the government were not effective in curbing this type of abuse.  I don't have that sort of faith.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         tirelesstravelerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         LOL I think I stole it from somewhere myself.
         Have you ever thought that the minimum wage is just the starting place? When I started working the minimum wage was the entry level wage, nobody expected to keep making minimum wage for more than a few months.  Every time the minimum wage is raised you extend the time a person can expect to stay making the minimum.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

            If business were more like a video game, where we all go home happy and it isn't needed just to survive, I wouldn't be as upset about the minimum wage.

            replyreport
4. 0

   JaxsonRaineposted 11 years ago

   Is anybody on this forum against all regulation?

   replyreport
   1. 78

      Mighty Momposted 11 years agoin reply to this

      Sure.
      Make every industry too big to fail.
      Why not?

      replyreport
5. 61

   tirelesstravelerposted 11 years ago

   Evolution would certainly take over if there were no regulations.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      Sooner28posted 11 years agoin reply to this

      That's what Herbert Spencer argued.  Darwin did not say evolution was an efficient process or one that should be copied.  He simply described nature, but Spencer morphed the idea.
      
      He tried to apply the idea of evolution as a moral imperative, and he is actually the one who coined the term "survival of the fittest."  He thought laissez-fair economics would ensure the weakest died, and whoever survived was strong and would therefore move the human race forward.  http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 … elves.html

      replyreport
      1. 61

         tirelesstravelerposted 11 years agoin reply to this

         You are good.  He never anticipated that the most creative would be the one to survive.

         replyreport