West Virginia Water

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
41

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
It doesn’t make sense for companies to have to create labels that explain every single part of the creation process, which employee was responsible for which part, etc. That’s too much regulation. [/quote]

Interesting you should mention that. You see, I have worked on common industrial implements in a place that practices what is called 100% trace-ability. To be in compliance you must document the raw materials, what plant it is from, what heat # (or batch) it was derived from, every item produced, every person who performed any task and what task it was etc. A friend of mine is a tech. in another company that uses the same practice when building the actuators which operate the control surfaces of commercial aircraft.

Reason being that if items like these fail, people will in fact die- most likely in mass.

Both companies are very successful international corporations. They pay very well, and despite all of these cumbersome regulations turn a very healthy profit and issue a nice dividend every quarter. In fact, they are quite proud of the fact that they uphold and in many cases exceed any and all national and international standards and regulations.
[/quote]

Wouldn’t that fall under common sense regulation though? I mean if I’m making hamburgers I would expect the regulations to be different than with nuclear power. A restaurant if something goes bad the damage can never be THAT bad even if every single person who eats in the place on a given day gets sick. With some industries a mistake may cost countless people lives.

Doesn’t common sense tell us restaurants should be regulated much different than nuclear reactors? I would expect many more safety steps at a nuclear plant (and I’m aware of a lot of them since I live near one) than at a cafe.

42

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
I like Nick but I wouldn’t describe Nick as a Libertarian. Nick views things in a different manner than I do. I want a smaller government and more personal freedom, Nick wants NO government. Some things Nick says I think are spot on and some things he says I think are not right at all. I know we could say the same thing about everyone though.

Correct me if I’m wrong Nick wouldn’t you describe yourself as an anarcho-capitalist? I voted for Gary Johnson in 2012. Gary Johnson never said we should get rid of all government I don’t believe. If he thought that I wouldn’t vote for him. [/quote]

The recent politicians I most agree with are probably Ron Paul(got to vote for him in last year’s Republican Presidential Primary) and Karen Kwiatkowski(ran in the Republican Primary in this district last year, against a ten-term incumbent). I don’t believe I have ever cast a vote for the Libertarian Party. I will probably never vote again(I’d rather not play along by voting for some maybe-lesser of two evils, but likely the same, candidate), unless another Ron Paul-type comes along(not voting is a type of protest I’d never even thought about until recently). My state’s Libertarian Party nominated Robert Sarvis to run for governor last year, and he is almost as far from libertarian as anybody I can think of in the two main parties. I am not a Libertarian, I’m a libertarian.

I’m fine with being called an Anarcho-Capitalist, but remember that coin was termed by…Mr. Libertarian.

I’d love to have smaller government and more personal freedom, but neither is coming back under this government(and both will be incrementally taken under ANY government). I imagine you can look back to 1776 and find that there have been hardly any instances where government has taken freedom, then returned it. Even in the case of gay marriage, for instance, nobody gained freedom. The government just decided to recognize a few more peoples’ contracts. The government didn’t butt out of marriage, it just recognized another form-it granted some people a new privilege.

If government emerges from non-government, so be it-we’re still better off starting over at no government.[/quote]

I was not really aware where the term anarcho-capitalist came by it just seems like that is the term that most described you. I’ve never been too good at knowing the differences between minarchists, ACists, or whatever. I know differences exist it just depends on how much non government one prefers I guess.

I do agree with you that government for the most part has no incentive to return freedom. Or even if it does society does not desire that freedom back in a strong enough manner to force change via voting/revolution.

While I’m not anywhere near as limited government as you are (I feel in some instances government is necessary, but respect you feeling different) I feel as if a two party system is one of the worst ways to attempt to run our system ever. I may never vote for another Democrat or Republican in my life. I just feel as if that is being part of the problem.

43

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
It doesn’t make sense for companies to have to create labels that explain every single part of the creation process, which employee was responsible for which part, etc. That’s too much regulation. [/quote]

Interesting you should mention that. You see, I have worked on common industrial implements in a place that practices what is called 100% trace-ability. To be in compliance you must document the raw materials, what plant it is from, what heat # (or batch) it was derived from, every item produced, every person who performed any task and what task it was etc. A friend of mine is a tech. in another company that uses the same practice when building the actuators which operate the control surfaces of commercial aircraft.

Reason being that if items like these fail, people will in fact die- most likely in mass.

Both companies are very successful international corporations. They pay very well, and despite all of these cumbersome regulations turn a very healthy profit and issue a nice dividend every quarter. In fact, they are quite proud of the fact that they uphold and in many cases exceed any and all national and international standards and regulations.
[/quote]

Wouldn’t that fall under common sense regulation though? I mean if I’m making hamburgers I would expect the regulations to be different than with nuclear power. A restaurant if something goes bad the damage can never be THAT bad even if every single person who eats in the place on a given day gets sick. With some industries a mistake may cost countless people lives.

Doesn’t common sense tell us restaurants should be regulated much different than nuclear reactors? I would expect many more safety steps at a nuclear plant (and I’m aware of a lot of them since I live near one) than at a cafe. [/quote]

You would think so, but in an unbridled environment, common sense is the first thing to go out the door.

Just ask “Mr. No regulations because they cost too much and inhibit competition”.

44

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
It doesn’t make sense for companies to have to create labels that explain every single part of the creation process, which employee was responsible for which part, etc. That’s too much regulation. [/quote]

Interesting you should mention that. You see, I have worked on common industrial implements in a place that practices what is called 100% trace-ability. To be in compliance you must document the raw materials, what plant it is from, what heat # (or batch) it was derived from, every item produced, every person who performed any task and what task it was etc. A friend of mine is a tech. in another company that uses the same practice when building the actuators which operate the control surfaces of commercial aircraft.

Reason being that if items like these fail, people will in fact die- most likely in mass.

Both companies are very successful international corporations. They pay very well, and despite all of these cumbersome regulations turn a very healthy profit and issue a nice dividend every quarter. In fact, they are quite proud of the fact that they uphold and in many cases exceed any and all national and international standards and regulations.
[/quote]

Wouldn’t that fall under common sense regulation though? I mean if I’m making hamburgers I would expect the regulations to be different than with nuclear power. A restaurant if something goes bad the damage can never be THAT bad even if every single person who eats in the place on a given day gets sick. With some industries a mistake may cost countless people lives.

Doesn’t common sense tell us restaurants should be regulated much different than nuclear reactors? I would expect many more safety steps at a nuclear plant (and I’m aware of a lot of them since I live near one) than at a cafe. [/quote]

You would think so, but in an unbridled environment, common sense is the first thing to go out the door.

Just ask “Mr. No regulations because they cost too much and inhibit competition”.

[/quote]

Well we can find a million examples of dumb regulation or not enough regulation. I was just saying to me MOST people can agree on common sense regulation. We might not always have it, but I don’t think too many people are against food companies being required to say what’s in the product they make. Honestly I don’t see how someone COULD be against that with all the different type of food allergies, obesity, etc. How could anyone be mad that is a requirement?

45

[quote]H factor wrote:
I was not really aware where the term anarcho-capitalist came by it just seems like that is the term that most described you. I’ve never been too good at knowing the differences between minarchists, ACists, or whatever. I know differences exist it just depends on how much non government one prefers I guess.

I do agree with you that government for the most part has no incentive to return freedom. Or even if it does society does not desire that freedom back in a strong enough manner to force change via voting/revolution.

While I’m not anywhere near as limited government as you are (I feel in some instances government is necessary, but respect you feeling different) I feel as if a two party system is one of the worst ways to attempt to run our system ever. I may never vote for another Democrat or Republican in my life. I just feel as if that is being part of the problem. [/quote]

46

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
lol at the pittttt’s partisan bullshit in this thread.

Nothing like this could EVER happen in a good ol’ blue state run by good ol’ democrats now could it…

Oh wait… People actually died when it came from a “democrat”. [/quote]

There is one difference between that meningitis situation and the water situation the difference was there were regulations in place for the meningitis situation but the pharmacy BROKE THE LAW and in the water situation there were no laws broken
[/quote]

No, the difference is dead people, and the liberal democrat narrative you are trying to spew is blown to pieces by the pharmacy story.

You can have 200 million laws on the books, if it isn’t enforced, the law is moot.

47

[quote]H factor wrote:
Well we can find a million examples of dumb regulation or not enough regulation. I was just saying to me MOST people can agree on common sense regulation. We might not always have it, but I don’t think too many people are against food companies being required to say what’s in the product they make. Honestly I don’t see how someone COULD be against that with all the different type of food allergies, obesity, etc. How could anyone be mad that is a requirement?
[/quote]

Someone could oppose that type of regulation because it allows the government to regulate production. That type of regulation is a gateway drug. If the government can mandate that everything be labeled, why can’t it just decide that nothing that a certain percentage of the population is allergic to be produced in the first place?

If someone has a food allergy, how stupid would he have to be to eat something of unknown content that is unlabeled? How stupid would he have to be to eat something produced by a person/company that has a reputation for using stuff that’s not listed in the ingredients?

48

[quote]H factor wrote:
How could anyone be mad that is a requirement?
[/quote]

I can’t say with any specificity other than what I’ve been told and observed but here goes-

Any part of an industrial process costs money. As soon as another set of hands touches an item or it is passed through another process- The price goes up. That might seem insignificant from a per unit standpoint, but look at the number of units that may be in production (of anything) at a given point and you will see that there is a cumulative increase per unit and process added to the cost. Part of management is to keep costs down. In mass that means keep speed up, and adding steps to the process reduces speed and increases cost.

So it seems obvious to anybody getting their ass chewed and job threatened during a production meeting to cut what ever isn’t absolutely necessary. What is or isn’t absolutely necessary? A sanitary environment? Safety harnesses for high work? Ventilation in enclosed spaces?

Who knows? Usually the floor manager. He’s the cock of the walk who did a really good job on the floor and don’t take no shit from some dumb ass who is beneath him. Very rarely does he have any actual managerial or technical education and is usually in a sycophantic relationship with his supervisor. He does what he’s told. Cut costs.

Upper management also considers anybody, especially an outside entity, telling them how they need to run their business very offensive. It encroaches on their managerial rights to run their company how ever they see fit. So when somebody from OSHA, MSHA or any other health and safety administration tells them that they need to do something- They are offended professionally, personally, and especially financially.

This attitude goes top down. When the CEO says “Fuck 'em, and here’s why…” you can damn well bet that everybody who likes their job from there down is gonna say “Yup! Fuck 'em. And thats why!”.

And thats basically how you end up with safety devices deactivated in mines, over head cranes with no brakes, people using shit water to irrigate fields and some asshole at a press conference acting like he doesn’t owe anybody any answers about anything.

They gotta protect that bottom line. Get near it and people get mad.

49

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
lol at the pittttt’s partisan bullshit in this thread.

Nothing like this could EVER happen in a good ol’ blue state run by good ol’ democrats now could it…

Oh wait… People actually died when it came from a “democrat”. [/quote]

There is one difference between that meningitis situation and the water situation the difference was there were regulations in place for the meningitis situation but the pharmacy BROKE THE LAW and in the water situation there were no laws broken
[/quote]

No, the difference is dead people, and the liberal democrat narrative you are trying to spew is blown to pieces by the pharmacy story.

You can have 200 million laws on the books, if it isn’t enforced, the law is moot. [/quote]

You act as though I endorse the meningitis situation . There is no way to justify what happened but the people in charge may see jail time and the pharmacy paying a 100 million dollar settlement . And I know it will not compensate for the loss .

There is some irony Mrs Pittbull was using the same product in AZ. Glad they were not selling it in AZ

50

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Glad they were not selling it in AZ
[/quote]

Me too, for your sake, her sake and all the others too.

51

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
You act as though I endorse the meningitis situation .[/quote]

Not my intention. You did however push this narrative that this type of issue was a “republican” issue, if even directly, when in reality, fuck ups, mistakes, and horrid things are a purple problem.

52

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
How could anyone be mad that is a requirement?
[/quote]

I can’t say with any specificity other than what I’ve been told and observed but here goes-

Any part of an industrial process costs money. As soon as another set of hands touches an item or it is passed through another process- The price goes up. That might seem insignificant from a per unit standpoint, but look at the number of units that may be in production (of anything) at a given point and you will see that there is a cumulative increase per unit and process added to the cost. Part of management is to keep costs down. In mass that means keep speed up, and adding steps to the process reduces speed and increases cost.

So it seems obvious to anybody getting their ass chewed and job threatened during a production meeting to cut what ever isn’t absolutely necessary. What is or isn’t absolutely necessary? A sanitary environment? Safety harnesses for high work? Ventilation in enclosed spaces?

Who knows? Usually the floor manager. He’s the cock of the walk who did a really good job on the floor and don’t take no shit from some dumb ass who is beneath him. Very rarely does he have any actual managerial or technical education and is usually in a sycophantic relationship with his supervisor. He does what he’s told. Cut costs.

Upper management also considers anybody, especially an outside entity, telling them how they need to run their business very offensive. It encroaches on their managerial rights to run their company how ever they see fit. So when somebody from OSHA, MSHA or any other health and safety administration tells them that they need to do something- They are offended professionally, personally, and especially financially.

This attitude goes top down. When the CEO says “Fuck 'em, and here’s why…” you can damn well bet that everybody who likes their job from there down is gonna say “Yup! Fuck 'em. And thats why!”.

And thats basically how you end up with safety devices deactivated in mines, over head cranes with no brakes, people using shit water to irrigate fields and some asshole at a press conference acting like he doesn’t owe anybody any answers about anything.

They gotta protect that bottom line. Get near it and people get mad.
[/quote]

Well by nature ANY regulation costs a money company or at least productivity. That’s why it is so easy for government to go overboard with too much red tape. At the same time I’d never say we need no regulation. Some things REQUIRE regulation to an extent. At least to me they do.

I live near a nuke plant and I’m glad that nuke plant has certain rules they must follow. Even a limited government cat like myself thinks common sense regulation on many things is good. I may just disagree with people about what common sense regulation entails.

53

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
It doesn’t make sense for companies to have to create labels that explain every single part of the creation process, which employee was responsible for which part, etc. That’s too much regulation. [/quote]

Interesting you should mention that. You see, I have worked on common industrial implements in a place that practices what is called 100% trace-ability. To be in compliance you must document the raw materials, what plant it is from, what heat # (or batch) it was derived from, every item produced, every person who performed any task and what task it was etc. A friend of mine is a tech. in another company that uses the same practice when building the actuators which operate the control surfaces of commercial aircraft.

Reason being that if items like these fail, people will in fact die- most likely in mass.

Both companies are very successful international corporations. They pay very well, and despite all of these cumbersome regulations turn a very healthy profit and issue a nice dividend every quarter. In fact, they are quite proud of the fact that they uphold and in many cases exceed any and all national and international standards and regulations.
[/quote]

You should see what I have to do at work when I add a new item to our products list at work. MSDS sheets are the easy part, I have to run the entire Safety Handling gauntlet. Any Standards Manual impacted has to be updated as well. Everything is labeled with the correct hazmat code, expiration date, lot/date code. Some items have to be refrigerated or frozen.

It seems like a lot to do, but that’s how we run the business, the right way.

Rob

54

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
You act as though I endorse the meningitis situation .[/quote]

Not my intention. You did however push this narrative that this type of issue was a “republican” issue, if even directly, when in reality, fuck ups, mistakes, and horrid things are a purple problem.
[/quote]

No it is a state that had no laws/regulations in place . This guy by law was not required to carry the liabilty INS required to even address the potential risk . No law/regulation that would move the potential risk away from the water or up off the ground so one could see if it were leaking , no containment reservoir

It was a situation that was totally preventable and there would have been no way to hide if some of those Regs. were being broke

55

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

Glad they were not selling it in AZ
[/quote]

Me too, for your sake, her sake and all the others too. [/quote]

thanks :slight_smile:

56

[quote]beachguy498 wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:

[quote]H factor wrote:
It doesn’t make sense for companies to have to create labels that explain every single part of the creation process, which employee was responsible for which part, etc. That’s too much regulation. [/quote]

Interesting you should mention that. You see, I have worked on common industrial implements in a place that practices what is called 100% trace-ability. To be in compliance you must document the raw materials, what plant it is from, what heat # (or batch) it was derived from, every item produced, every person who performed any task and what task it was etc. A friend of mine is a tech. in another company that uses the same practice when building the actuators which operate the control surfaces of commercial aircraft.

Reason being that if items like these fail, people will in fact die- most likely in mass.

Both companies are very successful international corporations. They pay very well, and despite all of these cumbersome regulations turn a very healthy profit and issue a nice dividend every quarter. In fact, they are quite proud of the fact that they uphold and in many cases exceed any and all national and international standards and regulations.
[/quote]

You should see what I have to do at work when I add a new item to our products list at work. MSDS sheets are the easy part, I have to run the entire Safety Handling gauntlet. Any Standards Manual impacted has to be updated as well. Everything is labeled with the correct hazmat code, expiration date, lot/date code. Some items have to be refrigerated or frozen.

It seems like a lot to do, but that’s how we run the business, the right way.

Rob
[/quote]

It’s a wonderful thing, ain’t it?

I’ve worked on both sides- the companies that scoff at regulation and the ones that uphold the gold standard. It’s hell to go back to the ones who scoff. There is so much more thought and builds go so much more smoothly in operations that do it right. It’s like two entirely different worlds.

57

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
It’s a wonderful thing, ain’t it?

I’ve worked on both sides- the companies that scoff at regulation and the ones that uphold the gold standard. It’s hell to go back to the ones who scoff. There is so much more thought and builds go so much more smoothly in operations that do it right. It’s like two entirely different worlds.

[/quote]

How do the companies that scoff at regulation stay in business? Are they subsidized? I would think those paying to have work done would appreciate a smooth, thoughtful operation…unless that is not necessary, and comes at a cost beyond its value.

58

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]SkyzykS wrote:
It’s a wonderful thing, ain’t it?

I’ve worked on both sides- the companies that scoff at regulation and the ones that uphold the gold standard. It’s hell to go back to the ones who scoff. There is so much more thought and builds go so much more smoothly in operations that do it right. It’s like two entirely different worlds.

[/quote]

How do the companies that scoff at regulation stay in business? Are they subsidized? I would think those paying to have work done would appreciate a smooth, thoughtful operation…unless that is not necessary, and comes at a cost beyond its value.[/quote]

You would.

And the thing is, in the better company more does get produced quickly and at a cost below its value, which is why they are more successful.

It’s hard to explain in its entirety. Maybe just go into broduction based industries for the next 20 years then we will trade notes.