Less government regulation in action

[Timshel]

You were absolutely comparing apples and oranges to arrive at a false equivalency.

You are a liar. Here is exactly what I said...

I doubt it, but why isn't an accident at a national park as damning as one at a private park?

It's very obvious that I am comparing the reactions to each tragedy. In no way am I comparing the problems of regulating a natural ecosystem to an amusement park and my preceding post was directly in response to your point about the Disney incident, that absolutely involved natural ecosystems.

The Disney case is not a natural ecosystem. The lagoon was man made 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.

Yes, it involved a natural ecosystem. Alligators are natural. They are not man made and your ridiculous argument that it was not a natural ecosystem because the lagoon was dredged is like saying the recent incident at one of our national parks was not part of the natural ecosystem because the boardwalk that the kid walked off of was man made.

Mott's point, which was somewhat valid, is that all you can effectively do in the setting of a natural ecosystem is try to control the behavior of humans. Well, the same is true in the Disney incident. The signs that were missing would have done a better job at controlling human behavior and maybe more are needed at the national parks, as well.

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.

Fuck you and your emo nonsense! A rational reason to oppose safety regulations is that the regulations are ineffective and that the money could be better spent on some other safety regulation or life saving/enriching pursuit.

 

[Legionthecat]

You are a liar. Here is exactly what I said...



It's very obvious that I am comparing the reactions to each tragedy. In no way am I comparing the problems of regulating a natural ecosystem to an amusement park and my preceding post was directly in response to your point about the Disney incident, that absolutely involved natural ecosystems.



Yes, it involved a natural ecosystem. Alligators are natural. They are not man made and your ridiculous argument that it was not a natural ecosystem because the lagoon was dredged is like saying the recent incident at one of our national parks was not part of the natural ecosystem because the boardwalk that the kid walked off of was man made.

Mott's point, which was somewhat valid, is that all you can effectively do in the setting of a natural ecosystem is try to control the behavior of humans. Well, the same is true in the Disney incident. The signs that were missing would have done a better job at controlling human behavior and maybe more are needed at the national parks, as well.



Fuck you and your emo nonsense! A rational reason to oppose safety regulations is that the regulations are ineffective and that the money could be better spent on some other safety regulation or life saving/enriching pursuit.

The need for effective safety regulations can only be fully assessed in their absence. That need for effective regulations has made itself clear at this water park with the death of this boy.
A rouge predator, recklessly allowed to encroach on a manmade lagoon designed for human use, does not an ecosystem make. Sorry the Disney resort is not a naturally occurring wilderness. It merely borders on one.
You agree more than you disagree with me, that Disney did not adequately warn it's guests of the danger that they allowed into their man made lagoon that guests obviously assumed to be a safe place.

 

[Legion Troll]

That is an article on trusts. So you can't list a single monopoly?

Trusts aren't monopolies?

 

[Timshel]

Trusts aren't monopolies?

Really?

A trust is not necessarily a monopoly and market share has nothing at all to do with the definition of a trust.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_law

A trust is a relationship whereby property is held by one party for the benefit of another.

Is this a monopoly?

http://www.pewtrusts.org/en

Why are you so afraid to cite a specific example?

 

[anatta]

we need state waterparks inspectors. cause if anyone is actually hurt/dead, the only way to make it right
is hire a bunch of bureacrats and raise taxes.

You must be safe at all times -100% , we'll take the risks out of living

 

[Timshel]

The need for effective safety regulations can only be fully assessed in their absence. That need for effective regulations has made itself clear at this water park with the death of this boy.
A rouge predator, recklessly allowed to encroach on a manmade lagoon designed for human use, does not an ecosystem make. Sorry the Disney resort is not a naturally occurring wilderness. It merely borders on one.
You agree more than you disagree with me, that Disney did not adequately warn it's guests of the danger that they allowed into their man made lagoon that guests obviously assumed to be a safe place.

Sorry, the boardwalk that that boy left is not a naturally occurring wilderness. It merely encroaches on one.

The lagoon is part of the ecosystem and the tragedy at Disney clearly involved the natural ecosystem.

Besides that, it's already been made clear that I was not making the comparison Mott claimed, but rather I was comparing the trollish reactions. So, you are making a fool of yourself with this hair splitting that is only relevant to a point that you've already lost.

I am not opposed to safety or proper precautions. That was never any part of my argument. My problem, again, is with the cynical use of this tragedy for political gain and your irrational argument against free markets. There is no rational reason that accidents at Disney, the water park or the national parks must be used as an argument against private property or national parks, in general. They may provide a good argument for a specific regulation (one you still have not offered).

 

[zappasguitar]

I doubt it, but why isn't an accident at a national park as damning as one at a private park?

National parks are public land, owned by us all, and part of their beauty is the untouched, natural state they exist in.

Visitors understand this

A private park is privately owned and exists to primarily to monetarily enrich the park owner.

As such, the owner bears responsibility for injuries that occur on his property.

 

[Legion Troll]

Really?

A trust is not necessarily a monopoly and market share has nothing at all to do with the definition of a trust.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_law

A trust is a relationship whereby property is held by one party for the benefit of another.

Is this a monopoly?

http://www.pewtrusts.org/en

Why are you so afraid to cite a specific example?

There are examples at the link I cited. You deny they are monopolies.

 

[Legion Troll]

we need state waterparks inspectors. cause if anyone is actually hurt/dead, the only way to make it right is hire a bunch of bureacrats and raise taxes. You must be safe at all times -100% , we'll take the risks out of living

Headless children are a small price to pay for lower taxes and the smug satisfaction of knowing you're libertarian.

Let's cut bureaucracy and taxes by eliminating the FAA, the USDA, the FDA, and all other governmental entities that were created to protect the public from predatory businesses.

 

[Timshel]

National parks are public land, owned by us all, and part of their beauty is the untouched, natural state they exist in.

Visitors understand this

A private park is privately owned and exists to primarily to monetarily enrich the park owner.

As such, the owner bears responsibility for injuries that occur on his property.

That's not legally accurate and there is certainly no support for it philosophically. Whoever owns or controls the property has a duty to provide reasonable care for those that they invite on to the property. They are responsible for injuries only if they were negligent in providing that reasonable care. While sovereign immunity laws will often allow government owners to avoid their responsibilities and duty for care it does not apply in all cases (see the Federal Torts Claim Act).

There is no valid reason why caveat emptor should apply to publicly controlled lands and not private ones.

 

[Timshel]

There are examples at the link I cited. You deny they are monopolies.

I am not doing your work for you or guessing at which one you mean. If you can't cite a single example of a monopoly then you don't have an argument.

 

[Legion Troll]

I am not doing your work for you or guessing at which one you mean. If you can't cite a single example of a monopoly then you don't have an argument.

Laziness is a hallmark of libertarianism, I hear.

Too much work to read the article I cited?

Guess it's true, in your case.

 

[Timshel]

Laziness is a hallmark of libertarianism, I hear.

Too much work to read the article I cited?

Guess it's true, in your case.

I read it. Again, it was not about monopolies but trusts and I don't have any idea which one you think is an example of a monopoly that arose due to lack of government regulation. If you are too lazy or cowardly to make a substantive assertion then, again, you don't have an argument. You are just wasting time and trolling.

 

[Legion Troll]

I read it. Again, it was not about monopolies but trusts and I don't have any idea which one you think is an example of a monopoly that arose due to lack of government regulation. If you are too lazy or cowardly to make a substantive assertion then, again, you don't have an argument. You are just wasting time and trolling.

You read the article but denied that the trusts it listed were monopolies, and now you pretend not to know which of the monopolies that you claimed not to recognize "arose due to lack of government regulation"?

I like you. You're fun.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

we need state waterparks inspectors. cause if anyone is actually hurt/dead, the only way to make it right
is hire a bunch of bureacrats and raise taxes.

You must be safe at all times -100% , we'll take the risks out of living

not at all. As a public facility the public has a right to a reasonable expectation for safety that can easily be met by having a registered professional engineer inspect the ride for an acceptable degree of safety in the engineering design, construction, engineering controls and administrative controls.

 

[Legion Troll]

not at all. As a public facility the public has a right to a reasonable expectation for safety that can easily be met by having a registered professional engineer inspect the ride for an acceptable degree of safety in the engineering design, construction, engineering controls and administrative controls.

The Unified Government’s Development Review Committee examined plans for Verrückt before the attraction opened. That committee includes representatives from the the Kansas City, Kan., Fire Department, the Board of Public Utilities, the city’s building inspection and engineering departments, and the Public Health Department. The review process did not evaluate the how the ride worked or was supposed to operate, nor is there any state or local law that compels the city to carry out such an inspection.

Since 2014, Schlitterbahn has been sued three times in Kansas City, Kan., for personal injury claims.

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article94508697.html#storylink=cpy

 

[Timshel]

You read the article but denied that the trusts it listed were monopolies, and now you pretend not to know which of the monopolies that you claimed not to recognize "arose due to lack of government regulation"?

I like you. You're fun.

So now you have implied an assertion, that is, that all of the trusts in the article were monopolies that arose due to a lack of government regulation.

The Match companies of Ivar Kreuger dominated the market because they negotiated monopoly contracts with governments of Europe, Asia and South America.

So that's your examples of how government regulation is the only thing preventing monopolies? At least you made a real argument even if it was really bad and misinformed argument.

 

[Legion Troll]

So now you have implied an assertion, that is, that all of the trusts in the article were monopolies that arose due to a lack of government regulation.

The Match companies of Ivar Kreuger dominated the market because they negotiated monopoly contracts with governments of Europe, Asia and South America.

So that's your examples of how government regulation is the only thing preventing monopolies? At least you made a real argument even if it was really bad and misinformed argument.

I don't recall giving "the Match companies of Ivar Kreuger" as an example.

 

[Timshel]

I don't recall giving "the Match companies of Ivar Kreuger" as an example.

You recall incorrectly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust_(business)

Prominent trusts included ... the match companies controlled by Ivar Kreuger, the Match King.

 

[Legion Troll]

You recall incorrectly.

I do?

Earlier you claimed I was afraid to cite a single example, and denied that trusts are monopolies.

You are extremely flexible in your positions. Is that a libertarian trait?