Less government regulation in action

Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
So the tragedy is not important and you freely admit that you are exploiting it to make a case against free markets. Ok.
Click to expand...

Where financial greed is the cause of lapses in safety, tragedy is easily avoided. At the private park there is someone to damn for their lapses in safety .
The profit motive of a private enterprise is more likely to induce a lack of safety initiatives than a public park.
That is why OSHA is necessary.
Public Park officials have no motivation to forgo safety oversight. Private park operators do.
Follow the money.
 
Last edited:
Legionthecat said:
Where financial greed is the cause of lapses in safety, tragedy is easily avoided.
The profit motive of a private enterprise is more likely to induce a lack of safety initiatives than a public park.
That is why OSHA is necessary.
Click to expand...


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.
 
Legion Grind said:
You mean that's what you wanted to infer from his answer, don't you?
Click to expand...

No. I asked "why isn't an accident at a national park as damning as one at a private park" and he clearly answered it was not as damning because of profit motive. I did not infer anything.
 
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 used OSHA as an an example of how corporate greed will cause corporations to cut corners on safety if not required to do so.
You give the example of public parks "opportunity costs" as an argument but that example simply illustrates how a financial concerns can lead to lapses in safety, bolstering my argument.
The difference is public parks are generally not in existence to produce a bottom line profit.
Private parks generally are. They will calculate lawsuit costs against the cost of safety initiatives all day long if left to their own devices.
Accidental deaths in any park are tragedies. Accidental deaths that occur in parks where a profit motive caused the owner to forgo safety initiatives are damnable tragedies.
Enforced government safety regulations give the public the best outcome.
 
Last edited:
Legionthecat said:
I used OSHA as an an example of how corporate greed will cut corners on safety if not required to do so.
You give the example of public parks "opportunity costs" as an argument but that example simply illustrates how a financial concern can lead to lapses in safety, bolstering my argument.
Click to expand...

It does not bolster your argument. Your argument was that only a private entity or one with a profit motive would seek to cut costs. Of course, that is nonsense.

Again, OSHA, does not help you. OSHA regulations cover the government workers as well. Is that because bureaucratic greed will cut corners on safety unless required to do so? Maybe.

Legionthecat said:
The difference is public parks are generally not in existence to produce a bottom line profit.
Private parks generally are.
Click to expand...

So?


Legionthecat said:
Accidental deaths in any park are tragedies. Accidental deaths that occur in parks where a profit motive caused the owner to forgo safety initiatives are damnable tragedies.
Click to expand...

IOW, an [accidental deaths that occur in government parks where opportunity costs caused them to forgo safety initiatives are not really tragedies.]
 
A boy, 10, was decapitated when he was thrown out of a waterslide's raft.

Caleb Schwab, the son of a Kansas state legislator, was killed while riding the 168-foot-tall Verruckt ride at Schlitterbahn Waterpark - the world's tallest - on Sunday.

The Schlitterbahn waterpark has been sued three times for negligence since 2014.

In March 2014, Linda Stomboly sued the water park alleging she was seriously injured.

She said her flotation tube collided with another tube during the descent, sending her flying.

While trying to get back in her tube, her leg became stuck 'resulting in multiple spiral fractures of her tibia and fibula,' according to the suit, which was settled for $20,000.

Robert Boepple filed his lawsuit just two months later claiming he suffered injuries to his head, neck, back, arm and spine when his toe got caught on a 'protruding item' on the ride.

His case was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.

The third suit was brought by Frances Logan which alleged she had been severely injured on the ride when her left foot hit a concrete wall.

She claimed there were no lifeguards on duty at the time to help and she had to be saved customers.

Her case was also settled, according to her lawyer.

There are no federal inspection laws for waterparks in the U.S., and inspections are handled on a state-by-state basis.

'There are no federal standards and so it really is up to the park operators, the manufacturers of the rides and the states to make sure this is a safe environment," said Deborah Hersman, president and CEO of the National Safety Council.'

The tragedy happened on day the park offered lawmakers and other elected officials a buffet lunch, hot dogs and hamburgers. Kansas state Sen. Greg Smith, a Republican, said that 'state law doesn't specifically address waterslides'.

Caleb's death is not the first at a Schlitterbahn facility. In 2013, lifeguard Nico Benavides, 20, was killed at the company's park on South Padre Island, Texas.

The park was hit with fines of $96,000 although they settled for $66,000.




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3730558/Witnesses-day-ten-year-old-boy-DECAPITATED-flew-world-s-tallest-waterslide-fell-safety-net.html
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
It does not bolster your argument. Your argument was that only a private entity or one with a profit motive would seek to cut costs. Of course, that is nonsense.

Again, OSHA, does not help you. OSHA regulations cover the government workers as well. Is that because bureaucratic greed will cut corners on safety unless required to do so? Maybe.



So?




IOW, an [accidental deaths that occur in government parks where opportunity costs caused them to forgo safety initiatives are not really tragedies.]
Click to expand...
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.
 
OSHA doesn't apply to the case we are discussing.

Kansas state law does not require amusement parks to maintain safety standards under regulatory oversight, and a tragedy occurred. It was not the first, and it happened during a park-sponsored event for state legislators with free food being offered to lawmakers.

Yet libertarians want to argue that less regulation is desirable, apparently.
 
Legion Grind said:
A boy, 10, was decapitated when he was thrown out of a waterslide's raft.

Caleb Schwab, the son of a Kansas state legislator, was killed while riding the 168-foot-tall Verruckt ride at Schlitterbahn Waterpark - the world's tallest - on Sunday.

The Schlitterbahn waterpark has been sued three times for negligence since 2014.

In March 2014, Linda Stomboly sued the water park alleging she was seriously injured.

She said her flotation tube collided with another tube during the descent, sending her flying.

While trying to get back in her tube, her leg became stuck 'resulting in multiple spiral fractures of her tibia and fibula,' according to the suit, which was settled for $20,000.

Robert Boepple filed his lawsuit just two months later claiming he suffered injuries to his head, neck, back, arm and spine when his toe got caught on a 'protruding item' on the ride.

His case was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.

The third suit was brought by Frances Logan which alleged she had been severely injured on the ride when her left foot hit a concrete wall.

She claimed there were no lifeguards on duty at the time to help and she had to be saved customers.

Her case was also settled, according to her lawyer.

There are no federal inspection laws for waterparks in the U.S., and inspections are handled on a state-by-state basis.

'There are no federal standards and so it really is up to the park operators, the manufacturers of the rides and the states to make sure this is a safe environment," said Deborah Hersman, president and CEO of the National Safety Council.'

The tragedy happened on day the park offered lawmakers and other elected officials a buffet lunch, hot dogs and hamburgers. Kansas state Sen. Greg Smith, a Republican, said that 'state law doesn't specifically address waterslides'.

Caleb's death is not the first at a Schlitterbahn facility. In 2013, lifeguard Nico Benavides, 20, was killed at the company's park on South Padre Island, Texas.

The park was hit with fines of $96,000 although they settled for $66,000.




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3730558/Witnesses-day-ten-year-old-boy-DECAPITATED-flew-world-s-tallest-waterslide-fell-safety-net.html
Click to expand...

If the free market forces are the only thing that keep such parks safe for the public, a large number of losing law suits will motivate the park to hire a full time safety officer who is qualified and give them the power to make changes as safety issues are observed.
Often at such enterprises the safety officer, if there is one, is someone with another full time job and their recommendations are met with the predictable resistance from the bottom liners.
Until the free market forces come into play, how many need to be killed or maimed before money dictates public safety?
Enforced government regulation is the only civilized solution.
 
I seem to recall that Ford continued to sell the Pinto knowing it would cause deaths and injuries because they calculated that the cost of settling lawsuits was far less than the cost of retooling their design.

That's the "free market" libertarians want?

Is "Caveat Emptor" their law of the jungle?
 
Legion Grind said:
OSHA doesn't apply to the case we are discussing.

Kansas state law does not require amusement parks to maintain safety standards under regulatory oversight, and a tragedy occurred. It was not the first, and it happened during a park-sponsored event for state legislators with free food being offered to lawmakers.

Yet libertarians want to argue that less regulation is desirable, apparently.
Click to expand...

I am aware that OSHA had no bearing on this particular case. I point to it mainly as an illustration of how corporate greed will tolerate safety neglect and resulting death and mutilation in the workplace if left solely to market forces. Just as they will with public safety
Libertarians seem to have no moral compass when it comes to safety's monetary costs as opposed to human costs.
They cry "nanny state" and see only their bottom line.
 
Legion Grind said:
I seem to recall that Ford continued to sell the Pinto knowing it would cause deaths and injuries because they calculated that the cost of settling lawsuits was far less than the cost of retooling their design.

That's the "free market" libertarians want?

Is "Caveat Emptor" their law of the jungle?
Click to expand...

Ford was guilty of that very calculation so they did not have to redesign their rolling bomb.
Libertarians are uncivilized savages in that respect.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top