Some regulations scenarios

[eugenekop]

I'd like to hear your opinion about some things. Please read the scenarios below and answer the following questions for each scenario:

A. Should the court find the business guilty?
B. Should the government regulate the behavior of the business in order to clarify what is expected from the business?

1. A costumer wants to end the contract with a cellular company but the cellular company keeps him waiting for a few weeks each time giving excuses, offering additional deals, and doing everything possible not to end the service.

2. A customer pays a construction company to build a house. A month later the roof topples but doesn't hurt anyone.

3. A customer in a restaurant gets a food poisoning.

[fisharmor]

Aw, what the hell, I'll play again.

Get a post-it note, write the following on it, and put it on your monitor, and read it before you post this stuff again.

1) Fraud is already a crime.
2) Business regulations do not enforce fraud laws.
3) Business regulations prevent new businesses from entering the market.
4) Since regulated businesses do not compete, they do not improve.
5) Therefore, business regulations only serve to harm consumers.

Examples 2 and 3 are matters of fraud and should be treated as such.
Example 1 is an example of contract enforcement. Contracts ought to be enforced regardless of whether one is running a business.

[eugenekop]

In the case of roof toppling, is that really something that should be specified in the contract? I think that's a natural expectation that the roof will not come crashing down. But what if it was after a year or after 10 years? How can the construction company know what is expected from them? Shouldn't it be regulated?

In case of food poisoning. What if the restaurant had horrible sanitary conditions? Shouldn't they be punished? On the other hand it is unfair to punish a restaurant for food poisoning if they did keep sanitary conditions. But how can the restaurant know which sanitary conditions are enough in order not to be liable for food poisoning. Shouldn't it be regulated?

About the cellular company giving you a hard time when you want to quit. How much would be considered a "hard time"? If you had to wait two weeks until they got back to you, would that be considered illegal behavior? What is the exact number? Isn't it unfair not to tell the companies what is the number of days in which they have to get back to the customer if he wanted to be cut off from the service? After all the cellular company has the right to know whether it will be liable in court or not beforehand.

[Acala]

In the case of roof toppling, is that really something that should be specified in the contract? I think that's a natural expectation that the roof will not come crashing down. But what if it was after a year or after 10 years? How can the construction company know what is expected from them? Shouldn't it be regulated?.

Yes, because only the government knows how to build a roof. After all, government INVENTED roofs. Before government regulation, humans basically lived out in the open in the rain or were killed by collapsing roofs. So the professional roof builders must look to government to know how to buuild a roof. Because people are stupid and incompetent and the government, which is composed of a higher form of life that is all-knowing, altruisitic and super-competent, must step in and take the stupid, childlike people under its protective wing.



In case of food poisoning. What if the restaurant had horrible sanitary conditions? Shouldn't they be punished? On the other hand it is unfair to punish a restaurant for food poisoning if they did keep sanitary conditions. But how can the restaurant know which sanitary conditions are enough in order not to be liable for food poisoning. Shouldn't it be regulated?.

Yes, because only the government can know what is proper sanitation. It was government that discovered the germ theory of disease and invented sanitation. Before government regulation people were pretty much sick all the time from food poisoning because until government showed them how, people didn't know how to make food. Mostly they ate bark and insects and shit, until government took them by the hand and showed them how to use fire and make food.


About the cellular company giving you a hard time when you want to quit. How much would be considered a "hard time"? If you had to wait two weeks until they got back to you, would that be considered illegal behavior? What is the exact number? Isn't it unfair not to tell the companies what is the number of days in which they have to get back to the customer if he wanted to be cut off from the service? After all the cellular company has the right to know whether it will be liable in court or not beforehand.

Yes, because government should establish parameters for ALL human activities, no matter how seemingly trivial. Otherwise, people would have to figure things out for themselves, read contracts, shop around for services, and deal directly with evil companies that are composed of demons that will eat our babies if not restrained by the intervention of government.

Civilization can only survive if government maps out each step of every transaction and enforces compliance at gun point. It is the only way because we are a defective species that cannot take care of ourselves without a loving, omniscient master controlling our every move.

Basically we are retarded children and government is our kindly parent and we should do what we are told.

Does that answer your question?

[eugenekop]

Does that answer your question?

No, that was just a rant.


The problem as I see it that implied contracts, or in other words expectations, are indeed different in every community. For example an Israeli Arab will not necessarily expect that a roof will not collapse after one month, but a Jew living in northern Tel-Aviv definitely would. But is it fair for the business in each community to have no reference, no guidelines as to what is expected in that community and what can easily turn into a conviction in court? That's where I think local and even federal regulations might be warranted.

Think of a restaurant opening in some neighborhood. There are many costs that need to be taken into account. How well should the kitchen be cleaned? Should the cooks wear special hats? Under what circumstances the cooks should wash their hands? Each such sanitary decision reduces the probability that the customers will get food poisoning, but each such decision also costs money. A restaurant owner might decide to ignore all sanitary precautions in order to cut prices. That might be a very bad business decision, but people make bad decisions. Such decision will dramatically increase the probability of food poisoning. In poor neighborhoods where the people expect poor sanitary conditions I don't think the restaurant owner should be liable in court for food poisoning. But in a rich neighborhood where no one expects to get a food poisoning from a restaurant, a restaurant with no sanitary conditions is defrauding the customers. But who is to tell what are the conventions in each neighborhood? If the restaurant owner wants to do everything possible in order not to be later convicted in a court, how will he know what to do? Who is better to provide such guidelines than the local legislative authorities?

You might say that private regulating companies would be the best to provide these guidelines and keep the businesses complying, and I agree that they are needed for most regulations. But some things are just common sense. For example it should be common sense for the restaurant to clean its kitchen, especially in a rich neighborhood. Do we really want people to ignore all common sense and require free market regulators in every possible human interaction? On the other hand common sense is not always common, and people should be able to have a reference of what are the common conventions in a particular neighborhood.

[YumYum]

eugene...do you speak Hebrew? Do you speak Yiddish?

[fisharmor]

How can the construction company know what is expected from them? Shouldn't it be regulated?
I've heard sales pitches from more than a couple construction companies.
At no point in their sales pitch do they say "we're aware of what government regulations are, so we know how to build a roof/ put up siding/ wash our hands after we pee".
Their sales pitches always focus on industry certifications, their relationship with the Better Business Bureau, and they usually offer a list of prior customers who agree to have people call them and even inspect the work done - even years after it was done.
In short, the builders know that regulation doesn't help them or the homeowner, and the homeowners know that regulations don't help them or the builder.... you troll.


In case of food poisoning. What if the restaurant had horrible sanitary conditions? Shouldn't they be punished?
There you go - you're not even reading what we write, troll.
Go back to what I told you to write on that post-it note, and review Item #2.

On the other hand it is unfair to punish a restaurant for food poisoning if they did keep sanitary conditions.
Go back and review Item #2 on your post-it note, troll.

But how can the restaurant know which sanitary conditions are enough in order not to be liable for food poisoning. Shouldn't it be regulated?
Go back and review Items #2, #3, and #4 on your post-it note, troll.


About the cellular company giving you a hard time when you want to quit. How much would be considered a "hard time"? If you had to wait two weeks until they got back to you, would that be considered illegal behavior? What is the exact number? Isn't it unfair not to tell the companies what is the number of days in which they have to get back to the customer if he wanted to be cut off from the service? After all the cellular company has the right to know whether it will be liable in court or not beforehand.

What does any of this matter, when you have the upper hand? Record a phone conversation saying you want out, and stop paying them. Problem solved.
I don't know what it's like in your socialist paradise, but over here, even if they sent me to collections, I'd have an array of tools at my disposal to fuck them over, and probably the collections company too.
In short, why does this scenario even matter, troll?


No, that was just a rant.

GrUh. Troll no speak sarkazm.



The problem as I see it that implied contracts, or in other words expectations, are indeed different in every community. For example an Israeli Arab will not necessarily expect that a roof will not collapse after one month, but a Jew living in northern Tel-Aviv definitely would. But is it fair for the business in each community to have no reference, no guidelines as to what is expected in that community and what can easily turn into a conviction in court? That's where I think local and even federal regulations might be warranted.

No, the problem as I see it is twofold:
First, that you're coming off as not only a troll but a fucking racist now, too. All the Arabs I know in the US like roofs just as well as Jews. Though I only know Ashkenazi Jews, so I don't know if they count as liking to pay for roofs that stay up as much as Hebrew Jews in your racist little world.

(Although I may have missed your point initially: perhaps you think an Israeli Arab should just expect his roof to be demolished unexpectedly by a tank at any point as a consequence of living where he does. Is that where you were going? If so, it doesn't necessarily make you racist, just a gigantic dick.)

Second, there's the problem that you're claiming that anyone would contract to build a roof without the contract specifying in writing how to resolve defects in workmanship. We don't leave something like THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT OF DOING THE WORK in the realm of implied contracts. We Americans like having THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT OF DOING THE WORK written down - in fact, anyone doing business of any type in this country generally knows that implied contracts involving more than $500 aren't even enforceable.


You might say that private regulating companies would be the best to provide these guidelines and keep the businesses complying, and I agree that they are needed for most regulations. But some things are just common sense. For example it should be common sense for the restaurant to clean its kitchen, especially in a rich neighborhood. Do we really want people to ignore all common sense and require free market regulators in every possible human interaction? On the other hand common sense is not always common, and people should be able to have a reference of what are the common conventions in a particular neighborhood.

Ok, for the love of all that's good and holy, engage your frontal lobe for a second here, troll.
You said that Acala was ranting - but he only satirized the exact same idea you wrote here.

[Acala]

I've heard sales pitches from more than a couple construction companies.
At no point in their sales pitch do they say "we're aware of what government regulations are, so we know how to build a roof/ put up siding/ wash our hands after we pee".
Their sales pitches always focus on industry certifications, their relationship with the Better Business Bureau, and they usually offer a list of prior customers who agree to have people call them and even inspect the work done - even years after it was done.
In short, the builders know that regulation doesn't help them or the homeowner, and the homeowners know that regulations don't help them or the builder.... you troll.


There you go - you're not even reading what we write, troll.
Go back to what I told you to write on that post-it note, and review Item #2.

Go back and review Item #2 on your post-it note, troll.

Go back and review Items #2, #3, and #4 on your post-it note, troll.



What does any of this matter, when you have the upper hand? Record a phone conversation saying you want out, and stop paying them. Problem solved.
I don't know what it's like in your socialist paradise, but over here, even if they sent me to collections, I'd have an array of tools at my disposal to fuck them over, and probably the collections company too.
In short, why does this scenario even matter, troll?



GrUh. Troll no speak sarkazm.




No, the problem as I see it is twofold:
First, that you're coming off as not only a troll but a fucking racist now, too. All the Arabs I know in the US like roofs just as well as Jews. Though I only know Ashkenazi Jews, so I don't know if they count as liking to pay for roofs that stay up as much as Hebrew Jews in your racist little world.

(Although I may have missed your point initially: perhaps you think an Israeli Arab should just expect his roof to be demolished unexpectedly by a tank at any point as a consequence of living where he does. Is that where you were going? If so, it doesn't necessarily make you racist, just a gigantic dick.)

Second, there's the problem that you're claiming that anyone would contract to build a roof without the contract specifying in writing how to resolve defects in workmanship. We don't leave something like THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT OF DOING THE WORK in the realm of implied contracts. We Americans like having THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT OF DOING THE WORK written down - in fact, anyone doing business of any type in this country generally knows that implied contracts involving more than $500 aren't even enforceable.



Ok, for the love of all that's good and holy, engage your frontal lobe for a second here, troll.
You said that Acala was ranting - but he only satirized the exact same idea you wrote here.

Ahahahaha! Nice post. I especially liked the part about the Arab roofs being blown off by tanks.

[Danke]

I've heard sales pitches from more than a couple construction companies.
At no point in their sales pitch do they say "we're aware of what government regulations are, so we know how to build a roof/ put up siding/ wash our hands after we pee".
Their sales pitches always focus on industry certifications, their relationship with the Better Business Bureau, and they usually offer a list of prior customers who agree to have people call them and even inspect the work done - even years after it was done.
In short, the builders know that regulation doesn't help them or the homeowner, and the homeowners know that regulations don't help them or the builder.... you troll.


There you go - you're not even reading what we write, troll.
Go back to what I told you to write on that post-it note, and review Item #2.

Go back and review Item #2 on your post-it note, troll.

Go back and review Items #2, #3, and #4 on your post-it note, troll.



What does any of this matter, when you have the upper hand? Record a phone conversation saying you want out, and stop paying them. Problem solved.
I don't know what it's like in your socialist paradise, but over here, even if they sent me to collections, I'd have an array of tools at my disposal to fuck them over, and probably the collections company too.
In short, why does this scenario even matter, troll?



GrUh. Troll no speak sarkazm.




No, the problem as I see it is twofold:
First, that you're coming off as not only a troll but a fucking racist now, too. All the Arabs I know in the US like roofs just as well as Jews. Though I only know Ashkenazi Jews, so I don't know if they count as liking to pay for roofs that stay up as much as Hebrew Jews in your racist little world.

(Although I may have missed your point initially: perhaps you think an Israeli Arab should just expect his roof to be demolished unexpectedly by a tank at any point as a consequence of living where he does. Is that where you were going? If so, it doesn't necessarily make you racist, just a gigantic dick.)

Second, there's the problem that you're claiming that anyone would contract to build a roof without the contract specifying in writing how to resolve defects in workmanship. We don't leave something like THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT OF DOING THE WORK in the realm of implied contracts. We Americans like having THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT OF DOING THE WORK written down - in fact, anyone doing business of any type in this country generally knows that implied contracts involving more than $500 aren't even enforceable.



Ok, for the love of all that's good and holy, engage your frontal lobe for a second here, troll.
You said that Acala was ranting - but he only satirized the exact same idea you wrote here.

Duuuuuuuuude! +rep

[Elwar]

I'd like to hear your opinion about some things. Please read the scenarios below and answer the following questions for each scenario:

A. Should the court find the business guilty?
B. Should the government regulate the behavior of the business in order to clarify what is expected from the business?

1. A costumer wants to end the contract with a cellular company but the cellular company keeps him waiting for a few weeks each time giving excuses, offering additional deals, and doing everything possible not to end the service.

2. A customer pays a construction company to build a house. A month later the roof topples but doesn't hurt anyone.

3. A customer in a restaurant gets a food poisoning.

Eugene...who owns your body? You or the government?

[Acala]

A note to our viewers at home: Eugene is a police-state socialist troll who claims to be a libertarian because he apparently thinks that by disguising himself he can more effectively undermine the freedom movement through clever questioning. Like a trojan horse troll. But he isn't nearly as clever as he thinks he is and his police state socialist defense is weak sauce.

So, on to the specifics.

The underlying assumption for Eugene's regulatory state is that people are too stupid and incompetent or greedy and corrupt to manage their own affairs so they need government to step in. Even assuming that people are stupid, incompetent, greedy, and corrupt, the fallacy arises from the fact that the government that is supposed to supervise the people is composed of exactly the same flawed people. Government is not some magical entity and it isn't composed of some superior class of people. If the people are stupid, incompetent, greedy, and corrupt, then so is government because it is composed of the same people. The only difference is that the stupid, incompetent, greedy, and corrupt people that make up the government are given authority to use violence to make other people obey them. So the whole concept of government regulation is fundamentally flawed.

But even if it were implemented by perfectly competent, intelligent, altruisitc, and honest people, government regulation would still be a disaster. Let's postulate that the government promulgates specifications for roofing constrution. By mandating minimum roofing requirements, the regulations have also, in effect, mandated a minimum price. If you can't afford a good roof, you are out of luck because buying a bargain roof is illegal. So what you get is no roof at all. Only an ivory tower idiot thinks no roof is better than a crummy roof.

Furthermore, government regulations freeze technological advancement. If you want to market a new, more efficient, more effective, safer roof, you can't because it doesn't comply with the regulations. So everyone must simply continue to build roofs the way they have always been built. Government regulation kills innovation.

Additionally, government regulations favor established businesses by ceating entrance barriers to competition, resulting in higher prices and worse service. Government regulations also favor large businesses because they can afford lobbyists to help craft the regulations while small business cannot. Government regulation is largely responsible for the proliferation of the megacorporation and the demise of the small :collins:business.

Other than that, it's a GREAT idea.

[Elwar]

How many forums do you troll on?

http://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=49&p=13605027
https://mises.org/Community/forums/t/22232.aspx
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?276066-Some-regulations-scenarios

[Kludge]

But what if the person who owns the technology will patent all the ideas and use it to build factories that will sell products only to other countries. Do you think that's okay? The citizens of the country will lose great safe products and will gain nothing from the technology.

[Icymudpuppy]

But what if the person who owns the technology will patent all the ideas and use it to build factories that will sell products only to other countries. Do you think that's okay? The citizens of the country will lose great safe products and will gain nothing from the technology.

Patents are a creation of government. Once you produce a prototype and sell it, that good can be copied by anyone smart enough to reverse engineer it.

[Kludge]

Patents are a creation of government. Once you produce a prototype and sell it, that good can be copied by anyone smart enough to reverse engineer it.

Do you think tech. businesses are viable in New York City? How can you even organize so many people? Also, currently the government regulates Internet Service Provision, but how can you assure that the ISP company which in most cases is a monopoly will keep the prices down?

[Icymudpuppy]

Do you think tech. businesses are viable in New York City? How can you even organize so many people? Also, currently the government regulates Internet Service Provision, but how can you assure that the ISP company which in most cases is a monopoly will keep the prices down?

They wouldn't have monopolies if government didn't restrict the bandwidth to favored providers.

[Acala]

I believe Kludge is revisiting silliness from past Eugene threads in which Eugene presents various scenarios whereby human life as we know it would not be possible without the iron fist of government making sure we don't go astray.