Less government regulation in action

Don't let libertarians use this tragedy to score cheap political points for their laissez-faire crusade against government regulation.

In this instance - which we should limit our discussion to - the private sector was given the chance to prove it was capable of conscientiously maintaining safety standards without "burdensome" government oversight.

The slide at a Kansas water park where a boy died Sunday had been inspected and approved two months ago by an insurance company.

The amusement park passed a safety inspection conducted by an insurance company on behalf of the park on June 7, 2016.

The Verrückt water slide was included in the inspection.

CNN received an inspection letter that had been sent to Schlitterbahn General Manager Matt Lawrence. The letter came from certified safety inspector Chet Smith, an employee of H&W Risk Management, a division of Haas & Wilkerson Insurance.

In his letter, Smith wrote that the inspection was for insurance purposes and to ensure the park conformed to Kansas laws.

“The rides listed were found to meet underwriting guidelines for insurability with no disqualifying conditions noted,” the letter said. “Please be advised that this survey reflects the conditions observed or found at the time of the inspection only, and does not certify the safety or integrity of the rides and attractions, physical operations or management practices at any time in the future.”

Some park guests say the slide’s harness wasn’t working properly earlier in the day.

“A lady in front of me said that multiple times she rode the ride today, the Verrückt, and that the front harness did not work any of the times that she rode it,” park guest Jessica Lundquist told KSHB.


http://wtkr.com/2016/08/10/kansas-city-water-park-slide-had-passed-inspection/

I'm sure this "self-regulation" meets the moral standard of libertarians, but it doesn't meet mine.
 
Legionthecat said:
Ford was guilty of that very calculation so they did not have to redesign their rolling bomb.
Libertarians are uncivilized savages in that respect.
Click to expand...

Ford wasn't alone.

GM knowingly sold trucks with deadly defects, as do many automakers and manufacturers of other consumer products to this day.

If governments didn't attempt to impose safety standards, things might be less expensive to make, but I wonder if manufacturers would lower prices to reflect the savings they'd enjoy, or simply keep their profits as high as possible regardless.

Libertarians, conservatives and other advocates of "free markets" are working tirelessly to weaken the protections consumers have already.
 
Legion Grind said:
Don't let libertarians use this tragedy to score cheap political points for their laissez-faire crusade against government regulation.

In this instance - which we should limit our discussion to - the private sector was given the chance to prove it was capable of conscientiously maintaining safety standards without "burdensome" government oversight.

The slide at a Kansas water park where a boy died Sunday had been inspected and approved two months ago by an insurance company.

The amusement park passed a safety inspection conducted by an insurance company on behalf of the park on June 7, 2016.

The Verrückt water slide was included in the inspection.

CNN received an inspection letter that had been sent to Schlitterbahn General Manager Matt Lawrence. The letter came from certified safety inspector Chet Smith, an employee of H&W Risk Management, a division of Haas & Wilkerson Insurance.

In his letter, Smith wrote that the inspection was for insurance purposes and to ensure the park conformed to Kansas laws.

“The rides listed were found to meet underwriting guidelines for insurability with no disqualifying conditions noted,” the letter said. “Please be advised that this survey reflects the conditions observed or found at the time of the inspection only, and does not certify the safety or integrity of the rides and attractions, physical operations or management practices at any time in the future.”

Some park guests say the slide’s harness wasn’t working properly earlier in the day.

“A lady in front of me said that multiple times she rode the ride today, the Verrückt, and that the front harness did not work any of the times that she rode it,” park guest Jessica Lundquist told KSHB.


http://wtkr.com/2016/08/10/kansas-city-water-park-slide-had-passed-inspection/

I'm sure this "self-regulation" meets the moral standard of libertarians, but it doesn't meet mine.
Click to expand...

Nor for the decapitated boy.
Shutting down the slide until the failed harness could be replaced and re-inspected would have cost the park owners a considerable amount of money I am sure, and that is exactly the the reason this boy lost his life.
An enforced government regulation that called for the ride to be shut down at the first sign of a failure in the harness would have prevented this damnable tragedy.
 
Legion Grind said:
Ford wasn't alone.

GM knowingly sold trucks with deadly defects, as do many automakers and manufacturers of other consumer products to this day.

If governments didn't attempt to impose safety standards, things might be less expensive to make, but I wonder if manufacturers would lower prices to reflect the savings they'd enjoy, or simply keep their profits as high as possible regardless.

Libertarians, conservatives and other advocates of "free markets" are working tirelessly to weaken the protections consumers have already.
Click to expand...

I stand by my description of any libertarians using the term "nanny state" to define safety regulations as uncivilized immoral money savages.
 
cawacko said:
Mott, sell that b.s. to the trolls. No, Keynesianism isn't an accepted mainstream idea unless you worship Krugman. In car so won't elaborate at the moment
Click to expand...
I call BS again. Mainstream economis have rejected supply side economics for years for failing to prove even the most basic predictions of their hypothesis where as Keynesian system is time tested and proven for managing a recession. It is primarily those who use it as a front for cutting the highest marginal tax rates and the chamber of commerce crowd that support it. It sure as he'll isn't mainstream economist.
 
Legionthecat said:
OSHA has teeth that protect workers in all sectors. Without it, corporations and bureaucracies alike would save money and workers would suffer and perish in much greater numbers than they currently do. That is quantifiable fact.
Any time preventable injury or death is caused by a desire for greater financial gain, that is a damnable tragedy. If you do not agree with that statement you are an immoral savage as is Cwacko.
Money saving over lives lost and human suffering is never a moral decision.
Click to expand...

So, you concede the point that the problem has nothing to do with 'profit motive."


Legionthecat said:
Money saving over lives lost and human suffering is never a moral decision.
Click to expand...

That is emo nonsense. We are always faced with opportunity costs. Every time we make a choice to spend we make a choice not to spend on many other things. The money saved from not trying to extend grandma's life for another month might save thousands from conditions that can be easily avoided with better nutrition. Money spent on ride maintenance might be better spent on protecting customers from wildlife. There is always a tradeoff.
 
cawacko said:
Frank Dodd says what's up. Some econony killing regulations right there
Click to expand...
For small businesses I agree but it does prevent the big boys from behaving badly and crashing the entire economy. Arguing the scope of Dodd Frank I agree with but getting rid of it all together is dumb.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
You have not established that greed was the cause for a lapse in safety. Have you presented anything to substantiate that claim?

A public park has opportunity costs just like a private one. It may have reason to lower costs in some areas so that more can be spent in others or just to reduce the burden. Competing interests can just as easily lead to a lapse in safety for a public park.

OSHA... what are you even talking about? OSHA has nothing to do with amusement park rides or park safety but their regulations for workplace safety cover the national parks too.

People die in parks that have no profit motive all the time. Your argument is a total fail. This is an unfortunate tragedy which you two are trying to shamelessly and cynically exploit.
Click to expand...
I can tell you have never worked in safety. That was not an unfortunate accident. It was obviously a preventable one.

Your argument is a false equivalency logical fallacy. You cannot compare a human engineered amusement park to a natural ecosystem where, at best, you can only regulate human behavior.
 
Last edited:
Mott the Hoople said:
Again BS. I've studied the history and that's nonsense.
Click to expand...

It is simple economic fact. How else does a monopoly survive without significant barriers to market entry? It's not always the government that creates the barrier, but it very often is. What is always present in any monopolized market is a significant barrier to market entry.

Second link found from googling "monopoly market entry"...

http://cstl-hcb.semo.edu/bdomazlicky/ec101text/chap7/chap7sec1.htm

Market entry is a central point of the lesson. I doubt you can find an economic text that discusses monopolies without some discussion of barriers to market entry. But you claim that your studies prove it is nonsense? BS, indeed.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
Don't be obtuse. You have argued for regulation as a cause for the slow economic recovery from the 2008 recession where as the data and facts have shown the deregulation was a significant cause of the recession.
Click to expand...

The data has shown the Fed's easy money policy is what led to the recession and that's coming from people at the Fed themselves. And the data has shown Dodd-Frank has been a massive impediment to economic growth during this weak recovery.

And there's nothing obtuse about what I'm saying because the argument in this thread and often elsewhere for one who wants less regulation is to state I (others) want no regulation.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
I can tell you have never worked in safety. That was not an unfortunate accident. It was obviously a preventable one.

Your argument is a false equivalency logical fallacy. You cannot compare a human engineered amusement park to a natural ecosystem where, at best, you can only regulate human behavior.
Click to expand...

Well, I was not comparing those things. I was comparing the reactions from the trolls.

Besides your failed attempt at misdirection, you seem to miss the fact that I was using that, in part, to respond to the Disney incident, which did involve the natural ecosystems.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Where? No, what we have is you cynically trying to exploit this tragedy for political gain. You have not even bothered to offer a solution.
Click to expand...

The solution is obvious And has been proposed. Standardized and specific, enforced government safety regulations for all dangerous thrill rides at amusement parks everywhere in the US.
No cynicism, only humanity, and the only thing gained is public safety.
If you believe improving public safety is a political gain, so be it. I will champion that cause all day long.
 
Legionthecat said:
The solution is obvious And has been proposed. Standardized and specific, enforced government safety regulations for all dangerous thrill rides at amusement parks everywhere in the US.
No cynicism, only humanity, and the only thing gained is public safety.
If you believe improving public safety is a political gain, so be it. I will champion that cause all day long.
Click to expand...

A new federal bureaucracy? Really, that's your solution? We know the federal government can not guarantee safety and so all we can hope to do is improve safety. Do you have anything to prove the federal government can increase safety significantly. Or maybe you can show us some data that compares highly regulated amusement park rides to the less regulated?

When was this proposed? This is the first time I heard it?

It is your demagoguery against the free market that is cynical and only aimed at political gain. As we have established, safety is just your cover.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Well, I was not comparing those things. I was comparing the reactions from the trolls.

Besides your failed attempt at misdirection, you seem to miss the fact that I was using that, in part, to respond to the Disney incident, which did involve the natural ecosystems.
Click to expand...

You were absolutely comparing apples and oranges to arrive at a false equivalency. The Disney case is not a natural ecosystem. The lagoon was manmade and failure to control wild predators from encroaching into spaces designed for human use and without adequate safety warnings was the cause of that tragedy. Market forces in the form of a tragic death had to occur before easily foreseeable dangers could be addressed.
There is no reasonable excuse to oppose safety regulations when it comes to protecting human life, and especially the lives of children, who know no better and trust us entirely for their well being.
Shame on you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top