|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Aug 17, 2017 8:28:06 GMT -6
So you acknowledge that you never actually answered the question? |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 17, 2017 10:59:27 GMT -6
So you acknowledge that you never actually answered the question? Oh no, just that everything written is an excellent answer. I appreciated your retweeting it. |
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Aug 17, 2017 11:38:04 GMT -6
So you acknowledge that you never actually answered the question? Oh no, just that everything written is an excellent answer. I appreciated your retweeting it. So you refuse to clarify? |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 17, 2017 12:56:05 GMT -6
I'll be happy to clarify. Where there is more need to do so. Seems clear enough to me that businesses ought to be subject to reasonable regulation. And quite fair that if there is a reasonable expectation that a business is open to the general public that regulation can go to discrimination in withholding service.
Religious freedom is a competing interest which I recognize, but I am not buying that businesses ordinarily have religion or that employees of a business have unrestricted freedom to assert that their business activity is religious practice and claim it is free from reasonable regulation.
|
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Aug 17, 2017 13:06:24 GMT -6
I'll be happy to clarify. Where there is more need to do so. Seems clear enough to me that businesses ought to be subject to reasonable regulation. And quite fair that if there is a reasonable expectation that a business is open to the general public that regulation can go to discrimination in withholding service. Religious freedom is a competing interest which I recognize, but I am not buying that businesses ordinarily have religion or that employees of a business have unrestricted freedom to assert that their business activity is religious practice and claim it is free from reasonable regulation. Can think of anything that ought not be subject to "reasonable regulation"? |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 17, 2017 15:03:59 GMT -6
When cost of regulation exceeds benefits to society, generally regulation is unreasonable. Since much regulation does little good, and much of the regulation we have is costly it is often unreasonable to regulate at all, or very much.
It's of course not you are I who decides ultimately.
To the extent our activity is generally subject to law, where our actions can be challenged under general principles of common law, or under the criminal law that applies, or under law established through due process of court or legislature or Constitution, there is perhaps always some potential aspect of "regulation."
So far you don't seem to recognize ANY case where regulation is reasonable, and seem awfully puzzled, not able to tell when somebody is in business or not, or open to the public or not or to recognize ANY duty to others, so isn't the ball in your court, so to speak, to offer up what you mean?
|
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Aug 17, 2017 15:54:32 GMT -6
When cost of regulation exceeds benefits to society, generally regulation is unreasonable. Since much regulation does little good, and much of the regulation we have is costly it is often unreasonable to regulate at all, or very much. It's of course not you are I who decides ultimately. To the extent our activity is generally subject to law, where our actions can be challenged under general principles of common law, or under the criminal law that applies, or under law established through due process of court or legislature or Constitution, there is perhaps always some potential aspect of "regulation." So far you don't seem to recognize ANY case where regulation is reasonable, and seem awfully puzzled, not able to tell when somebody is in business or not, or open to the public or not or to recognize ANY duty to others, so isn't the ball in your court, so to speak, to offer up what you mean? So can think of anything that ought not be subject to "reasonable regulation"? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2017 7:15:11 GMT -6
"When cost of regulation exceeds benefits to society, generally regulation is unreasonable"
Wow, it seems to me in this case "benefit to society" is a bit hard to tack down.
|
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 18, 2017 7:22:33 GMT -6
"When cost of regulation exceeds benefits to society, generally regulation is unreasonable" Wow, it seems to me in this case "benefit to society" is a bit hard to tack down. How true. So are costs to society since both have to be compared to a hypothetical absence of alternative organization or control of society. Rarely do we start at a state of complete absence of law or other private controls. |
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Aug 18, 2017 8:59:57 GMT -6
"When cost of regulation exceeds benefits to society, generally regulation is unreasonable" Wow, it seems to me in this case "benefit to society" is a bit hard to tack down. How true. So are costs to society since both have to be compared to a hypothetical absence of alternative organization or control of society. Rarely do we start at a state of complete absence of law or other private controls. So can think of anything that ought not be subject to "reasonable regulation"? |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 18, 2017 9:26:46 GMT -6
Let's turn that around.
Can you think of anything that ought not be subject to reasonable regulation?
How would you in general recognize and define those cases?
|
|
|
|
Post by JacksonStreetElite on Aug 18, 2017 9:29:56 GMT -6
Let's turn that around. Can you think of anything that ought not be subject to reasonable regulation? How would you in general recognize and define those cases? It's your paradigm, you tell me. Can you think of anything that ought not be subject to reasonable regulation? |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 18, 2017 14:53:37 GMT -6
reasonable regulation is hopefully everyone's paradigm. I take it you favor unreasonable regulation or no regulation.
Both are silly positions in the real world, although we'd all agree we have a lot of unreasonable regulation, I would think. Surprised you adopt that paradigm?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 18, 2017 15:15:07 GMT -6
reasonable regulation is hopefully everyone's paradigm. I take it you favor unreasonable regulation or no regulation. Both are silly positions in the real world, although we'd all agree we have a lot of unreasonable regulation, I would think. Surprised you adopt that paradigm? The problem is "reasonable" is not only based on ever changing opinion but moves with political whims on a daily basis. For example it is entirely "reasonable" to ban the trans-gendered from military service, however that doesn't mean the rule won't be overturned in a shallow effort to score political points and create another wedge issue. That is my difficulty with these "hero posing" feel good pieces of legislation. |
|
|
|
Post by 00hmh on Aug 18, 2017 19:21:57 GMT -6
I agree completely. That can happen.
But most legal norms are quite stable and come out of and enforce very well established societal norms that are accepted and tested over time and are not whimsical or capricious.
Consider common law which is the basis of our system, which is modified by statutes some of which are far less lasting principles, and regulatory laws which by nature MUST change such as FDA rules, or intellectual property law generally both of which have to recognize new technology.
The overall resulting process is generally quite good, but surely has flaws. Having no way to change rules as norms change and evolve would be a worse problem, creating rigid rules that no longer fit the needs of society. The due process protection and systematic review procedure in courts to protect fundamental rights make serious errors ones that can be reversed and corrected.
But no question there are some legal restrictions that are in fact as you say purely short term politics. Having NO laws or regulations because we fear making mistakes is not recognizing the needs that would be left unmet.
|
|
