Establishing Secular Morality

[Astrid]

Deregulation is a constant theme of Republican policy

You have failed to identify anyone because there
is no such person. It wouldn't kill you to just admit that.

 

[BCP1928]

You have failed to identify anyone because there
is no such person. It Iwouldn't kill you to just admit that.

It is hard for me to admit it, as I live in the US where Republicans preach deregulation constantly in accord with a plank in their party platform. It is hard for me to admit it when I witnessed Republican-championed bank deregulation lead to recession. It is hard for me to admit it when I see red state governors roll back child labor and workplace safety laws. If you want me to admit that none of this stuff is happening you are going to have to give me some help.

 

[Astrid]

Because it's a capitalist enterprise there are no Christian moral concerns about it save that it should be unregulated.

Nobody says " unregulated" is desireable, or possible.
Surely that is obvious without imdetail examples of
what "no regs" would do.


Here in China one unaccountable group, one person even, sets regs.


Often with terrible consequences.

In the USA you have a chance- that you generally
blow- to have some dynamic equilibrium, in a contest of ideas.

You, like us, have both over regulation and under regulation. Stupid regs. Good ones.

And sure, one US party generally wants more regs, the other generally less.

I dont know how that's a bad thing, other than the
failure of intelligence, and the concept of being a good
fiduciary with public funds. Which runs top to bottom, side to side in "public service ".


How that system gets translated into that one
party wants no regulations on capitalism is something
only you could say.

 

[BCP1928]

Nobody says " unregulated" is desireable, or possible.
Surely that is obvious without imdetail examples of
what "no regs" would do.


Here in China one unaccountable group, one person even, sets regs.


Often with terrible consequences.

In the USA you have a chance- that you generally
blow- to have some dynamic equilibrium, in a contest of ideas.

You, like us, have both over regulation and under regulation. Stupid regs. Good ones.

And sure, one US party generally wants more regs, the other generally less.

I dont know how that's a bad thing, other than the
failure of intelligence, and the concept of being a good
fiduciary with public funds. Which runs top to bottom, side to side in "public service ".


How that system gets translated into that one
party wants no regulations on capitalism is something
only you could say.

I won't argue with that; evidently I was talking about something else.

 

[BCP1928]

I copied your words.

OK, OK, I was wrong. Mea Culpa. I had on my mind the current regulatory climate of the US and what the Republicans call their "Deregulatory Agenda" There are, of course, extremists who have called for the end of all corporate regulation, but I'm not sure if that wouldn't make the issuance of a corporate charter legally impossible.

 

[o_mlly]

Deregulation is a constant theme of Republican policy

Nope. Doing away with excessive regulation is the constant theme.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Nope. Doing away with excessive regulation is the constant theme.

"Excessive" is, as it always has been, "whatever impedes the ability of the donor class to make a large profit."

 

[BCP1928]

Nope. Doing away with excessive regulation is the constant theme.

How can you tell when it is excessive?

 

[Astrid]

"Excessive" is, as it always has been, "whatever impedes the ability of the donor class to make a large profit."

There's like a bit more to it than that.

 

[Astrid]

How can you tell when it is excessive?

Well, some regs can be pretty dumb.
Good only to provide bureaucrats with something to
do, but nothing for health, fairness, safety.

Back at Uni., my friend ( Ha, Wyoming cowgirl meets
HK girl, at NYU) invited me to their family ranch!

Her dad had questions about HK, what had made it so
rich, what the commies we both hate have done.


In return he had some comments on American
govt regs. My favourite was one that cowboys have to
be issued hardhats. ( he didn't obey that law)

 

[o_mlly]

"Excessive" is, as it always has been, "whatever impedes the ability of the donor class to make a large profit."

Only in the eyes of the irredeemable radical liberal.

How can you tell when it is excessive?

See Estrid's comments. When the regs do little to improve safety for consumers and workers but increase the costs to provide goods and services then the poor take it on the chin.

 

[Hans Blaster]

There's like a bit more to it than that.

Not really. I've seen no definition that would alter my opinion. These "regulations" that are excessive are those that control businesses and the arguments against them are always about profitability. Other concerns don't come in to question in the opposition to regulation. The profit motive is clearly displayed in the aggregate.

 

[Astrid]

Not really. I've seen no definition that would alter my opinion. These "regulations" that are excessive are those that control businesses and the arguments against them are always about profitability. Other concerns don't come in to question in the opposition to regulation. The profit motive is clearly displayed in the aggregate.

I gave an example

 

[FredVB]

Compassion is a virtue that is right for us. Many could come to that more. But the state over us does nothing for that. With it, there is still great destruction to the earth with what is still permitted, and profit is being valued over other things.