You understand that regulatory compliance carries a cost, right? That even if a company is already producing a safe product, a new regulation may carry a compliance cost that is too much to take on?
Yes, the companies incur a higher overhead for their extra precautions in testing and safety. This is a much lower cost than the negative externalities that arise from lack of regulation.
I refer you to the Simpsons video below. This is terrible logic.
How is the company producing safe food if they don't test it or use safety precautions? Even without regulations, I don't see how the food is safe without those. Pre-1906 producers just repeatedly misinformed their customers while using unsafe business practices to cut costs. Not all of them did this, but enough of them that it became a huge issue.
Well, that's your call, then. Vicious and shortsighted as it is.
We've seem to have done well since 1906. If it's really such a horrible piece of legislation, surely we would've been worse off post-1906 instead of better off?
More faulty logic. The argument for the Patriot Act was to combat terrorism, but was really just to give the government more police power. By your logic, since we've seen fewer terrorist attacks on American soil, "history clearly proves" the power argument wrong.
You're not beating my 'faulty logic' with an unrelated analogy. You and I both know that "stopping terrorism" is an abstract non-position and there's no way to actively enforce such a doctrine, and The Patriot Act did nothing but increase government surveillance of innocent citizens. However, food regulation sets out to test food for bacteria, and that's exactly what it did. There's no way to abstract that.
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 19/7/11 22:16 (UTC)Yes, the companies incur a higher overhead for their extra precautions in testing and safety. This is a much lower cost than the negative externalities that arise from lack of regulation.
I refer you to the Simpsons video below. This is terrible logic.
How is the company producing safe food if they don't test it or use safety precautions? Even without regulations, I don't see how the food is safe without those. Pre-1906 producers just repeatedly misinformed their customers while using unsafe business practices to cut costs. Not all of them did this, but enough of them that it became a huge issue.
Well, that's your call, then. Vicious and shortsighted as it is.
We've seem to have done well since 1906. If it's really such a horrible piece of legislation, surely we would've been worse off post-1906 instead of better off?
More faulty logic. The argument for the Patriot Act was to combat terrorism, but was really just to give the government more police power. By your logic, since we've seen fewer terrorist attacks on American soil, "history clearly proves" the power argument wrong.
You're not beating my 'faulty logic' with an unrelated analogy. You and I both know that "stopping terrorism" is an abstract non-position and there's no way to actively enforce such a doctrine, and The Patriot Act did nothing but increase government surveillance of innocent citizens. However, food regulation sets out to test food for bacteria, and that's exactly what it did. There's no way to abstract that.