Accessibility to public spaces will be part of every building project from here on out. By standardizing the details, cost are coming down and the idea is to minimize errors and omissions.

It isn't going away, just becoming more ingrained into the Building Code to protect owners/occupants.

For existing buildings there are some exemptions, but not much.

What was it that Clayton Williams said? "Might as well enjoy it?"

dave94 said:

---

_mpaul said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

If you think the ADA shouldn't exist at all, you lack empathy. This is not something the free market will solve. There are not enough handicapped people to move the needle on profit/loss to get this done. It costs businesses money, but if you don't like it, talk to your Congressman.

---

I don't think the ADA should exist at all. If anything, it should be up to the states to handle. And I disagree this is something the free market couldn't solve. For one, you are arbitrarily deciding there's a problem that needs solving. Moreover, to the extent there is a problem, I think you are drastically underestimated the desire of most small business to make their customers feel welcome and at ease.

So go ahead . . . tell me I lack empathy. "Empathy" has no place in federal policy and gets us into trouble every damn time.

---

The State of Texas has their own Accessibility Standards (which are based on the ADA). Several other states have their own enforceable standards as well.

---

There is something to be said for a national standard. Imagine a company like McDonalds having to wade through 50 states' laws. It's already a compliance nightmare.

That said, I think they need to be loosened up a bit. They are a little too exacting.

I do find it interesting the number of people that think disability accommodations would be made through the private sector. If there was no law requiring it, how many businesses would put up flashing fire alarms? I can almost guarantee that it would be in the single-digit percentage.

Tergdor said:

---

I do find it interesting the number of people that think disability accommodations would be made through the private sector. If there was no law requiring it, how many businesses would put up flashing fire alarms? I can almost guarantee that it' would be in the single-digit percentage.

---

Right up until they're told they'll pay millions and potentially face criminal charges when they're sued for a wrongful death when a deaf person does not evacuate from a fire alarm.

waitwhat? said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

The free market isn't going to be putting these ramps in place, or making any sort of adjustments on their own. The market is too small to get any sort of return. Hence the need for the government to step in.

So take your pick litigation, or a beefed up inspection process.

---

This could also be an instance where a (state/local) tax break for a business to implement ADA measures would be better than a mandate to do it. Provide them an incentive/help to become more disabled friendly and many businesses will choose to, especially since they could wear it as a "badge of honor."

And then allow property owners to still make the choice to not be accessible to everyone if they want to (especially when it just doesn't make sense to them), without penalizing them for it.

---

LOL, voluntary compliance means no compliance.

Statists denigrate humanity. Libertarians don't.

Bubblez said:

---

The free market isn't going to be putting these ramps in place, or making any sort of adjustments on their own. The market is too small to get any sort of return. Hence the need for the government to step in.

So take your pick litigation, or a beefed up inspection process.

---

And you have no proof the free market wouldn't solve this better. Once again, it is a good sounding (noble?) pursuit that gets screwed up the millisecond government gets involved. Why don't you just come out and say you don't believe in free markets? That is the excuse used for every single government overreach. I'm going to guess your response will start like this: "I believe in free markets, buuuuut……."

What I can't understand is that, by your own argument, people are untrustworthy to do the right thing, so we need government to force them. How do you reconcile that with the fact that government is run by people who are FAR LESS trustworthy? Apply this question to every single thing the government does and the only logical stance is freedom and limited government.

A ramp is always cheaper than a lawsuit.

But when a boomer digs in, money becomes no object.

waitwhat? said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

waitwhat? said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

The free market isn't going to be putting these ramps in place, or making any sort of adjustments on their own. The market is too small to get any sort of return. Hence the need for the government to step in.

So take your pick litigation, or a beefed up inspection process.

---

This could also be an instance where a (state/local) tax break for a business to implement ADA measures would be better than a mandate to do it. Provide them an incentive/help to become more disabled friendly and many businesses will choose to, especially since they could wear it as a "badge of honor."

And then allow property owners to still make the choice to not be accessible to everyone if they want to (especially when it just doesn't make sense to them), without penalizing them for it.

---

LOL, voluntary compliance means no compliance.

---

I take this to mean that the only reason you don't kill people is because the government tells you that you can't.

---

Would you pay your property tax bill if you could choose to simply opt out by paying whatever you amount you desired or nothing at all?

Helicopter Ben said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

The free market isn't going to be putting these ramps in place, or making any sort of adjustments on their own. The market is too small to get any sort of return. Hence the need for the government to step in.

So take your pick litigation, or a beefed up inspection process.

---

And you have no proof the free market wouldn't solve this better. Once again, it is a good sounding (noble?) pursuit that gets screwed up the millisecond government gets involved. Why don't you just come out and say you don't believe in free markets? That is the excuse used for every single government overreach. I'm going to guess your response will start like this: "I believe in free markets, buuuuut……."

What I can't understand is that, by your own argument, people are untrustworthy to do the right thing, so we need government to force them. How do you reconcile that with the fact that government is run by people who are FAR LESS trustworthy? Apply this question to every single thing the government does and the only logical stance is freedom and limited government.

---

Take a look how the big players in the free market fought tooth and nail so they can continue to pump lead into the atmosphere through the use of leaded gasoline decrying the costs involved. This goes to just about every environmental regulation that prevents a business from dumping whatever they want into the environment. Our air is much cleaner today because of this. None of this would have happened without the government forcing the hands of business to do it while time and time again business showed the only thing they care about is their bottom line, lead exposure be damned.

The Nanny State is strong in lots of folks' minds. Especially those who profit from the enforcement of it. Government always expands in unintended ways, often becoming the problem instead of fixing the one it was originally supposed to address. Kinda like how in the last few decades MSM 'correspondents' become THE story instead of the story they were supposed to cover.

America is divided into 2 camps. One of crybabies and busybodies. And another one of folks who just want to be left alone to do the right thing for the right reasons. Charity by coercion is tyranny and robs both the giver and receiver of dignity and honor.

A good friend of mine discussed this over some BBQ yesterday for lunch. We both are in agreement that the only remedy for America will be a very hard event. Something like the Great Depression or similar hard times that will return our populace back to virtues lost. We have so many people who think that they are owed something. The great replacement will not be what some folks on the Left anticipate. Hard times are coming.

Quote:

---

Charity by coercion is tyranny and robs both the giver and receiver of dignity and honor.

---

Well said.

WBBQ74 said:

---

The Nanny State is strong in lots of folks' minds. Especially those who profit from the enforcement of it. Government always expands in unintended ways, often becoming the problem instead of fixing the one it was originally supposed to address. Kinda like how in the last few decades MSM 'correspondents' become THE story instead of the story they were supposed to cover.

America is divided into 2 camps. One of crybabies and busybodies. And another one of folks who just want to be left alone to do the right thing for the right reasons. Charity by coercion is tyranny and robs both the giver and receiver of dignity and honor.

A good friend of mine discussed this over some BBQ yesterday for lunch. We both are in agreement that the only remedy for America will be a very hard event. Something like the Great Depression or similar hard times that will return our populace back to virtues lost. We have so many people who think that they are owed something. The great replacement will not be what some folks on the Left anticipate. Hard times are coming.

---

I am not convinced another Great Depression will do that. Our government's response to the last one was an explosion of makework for the unemployed and a welfare and social security system that is an albatross around the neck of taxpayers.

Bubblez said:

---

Would you pay your property tax bill if you could choose to simply opt out by paying whatever you amount you desired or nothing at all?

---

Property tax is an oxymoron, so no I would not pay them. I don't agree with government schools so I consider that theft. Just like the vast majority of what the government wastes our hard earned money on, I would not pay my income taxes either. All of that money would have been far better utilized if left in the hands of those who earned it.

Quote:

---

Take a look how the big players in the free market fought tooth and nail so they can continue to pump lead into the atmosphere through the use of leaded gasoline decrying the costs involved. This goes to just about every environmental regulation that prevents a business from dumping whatever they want into the environment. Our air is much cleaner today because of this. None of this would have happened without the government forcing the hands of business to do it while time and time again business showed the only thing they care about is their bottom line, lead exposure be damned.

---

Once again, you are asking us to prove a negative. You have no proof the government did this better than the free market. OTOH we have countless examples of destructive government actions.

So I'll ask again. If people are so untrustworthy to do good that we need government to force them…how do you reconcile that with the fact that government is run by FAR LESS trustworthy people?

Helicopter Ben said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Would you pay your property tax bill if you could choose to simply opt out by paying whatever you amount you desired or nothing at all?

---

Property tax is an oxymoron, so no I would not pay them. I don't agree with government schools so I consider that theft. Just like the vast majority of what the government wastes our hard earned money on, I would not pay my income taxes either. All of that money would have been far better utilized if left in the hands of those who earned it.

Quote:

---

Take a look how the big players in the free market fought tooth and nail so they can continue to pump lead into the atmosphere through the use of leaded gasoline decrying the costs involved. This goes to just about every environmental regulation that prevents a business from dumping whatever they want into the environment. Our air is much cleaner today because of this. None of this would have happened without the government forcing the hands of business to do it while time and time again business showed the only thing they care about is their bottom line, lead exposure be damned.

---

Once again, you are asking us to prove a negative. You have no proof the government did this better than the free market. OTOH we have countless examples of destructive government actions.

So I'll ask again. If people are so untrustworthy to do good that we need government to force them…how do you reconcile that with the fact that government is run by FAR LESS trustworthy people?

---

We know the free market fought all of these things, as they sure has heck had no plan of action to fix them.

GeorgiAg said:

---

dave94 said:

---

_mpaul said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

If you think the ADA shouldn't exist at all, you lack empathy. This is not something the free market will solve. There are not enough handicapped people to move the needle on profit/loss to get this done. It costs businesses money, but if you don't like it, talk to your Congressman.

---

I don't think the ADA should exist at all. If anything, it should be up to the states to handle. And I disagree this is something the free market couldn't solve. For one, you are arbitrarily deciding there's a problem that needs solving. Moreover, to the extent there is a problem, I think you are drastically underestimated the desire of most small business to make their customers feel welcome and at ease.

So go ahead . . . tell me I lack empathy. "Empathy" has no place in federal policy and gets us into trouble every damn time.

---

The State of Texas has their own Accessibility Standards (which are based on the ADA). Several other states have their own enforceable standards as well.

---

There is something to be said for a national standard. Imagine a company like McDonalds having to wade through 50 states' laws. It's already a compliance nightmare.

That said, I think they need to be loosened up a bit. They are a little too exacting.

---

I have no idea why that's anymore of a nightmare than individual cities adopting different building codes or having special requirements regarding exterior finishes, landscaping, etc. It's all going to be worked through as part of the design and review process.

There shouldn't be a national standard. That's not a constitutional role for the federal government.

GeorgiAg said:

---

dave94 said:

---

_mpaul said:

---

GeorgiAg said:

---

If you think the ADA shouldn't exist at all, you lack empathy. This is not something the free market will solve. There are not enough handicapped people to move the needle on profit/loss to get this done. It costs businesses money, but if you don't like it, talk to your Congressman.

---

I don't think the ADA should exist at all. If anything, it should be up to the states to handle. And I disagree this is something the free market couldn't solve. For one, you are arbitrarily deciding there's a problem that needs solving. Moreover, to the extent there is a problem, I think you are drastically underestimated the desire of most small business to make their customers feel welcome and at ease.

So go ahead . . . tell me I lack empathy. "Empathy" has no place in federal policy and gets us into trouble every damn time.

---

The State of Texas has their own Accessibility Standards (which are based on the ADA). Several other states have their own enforceable standards as well.

---

There is something to be said for a national standard. Imagine a company like McDonalds having to wade through 50 states' laws. It's already a compliance nightmare.

That said, I think they need to be loosened up a bit. They are a little too exacting.

---

Nobody is forcing McDonald's to do business in all 50 states. Besides, we have that already with California emissions and privacy laws. If the 50-state compliance part is a nightmare, an entity can choose to comply with the strictest state law on that matter and be done with it. That's their choice.

I don't think the fact that "[poor, unfortunate global entity] just can't figure out all the states' various laws" is a good rationale for invoking the power of the federal government.

Bubblez said:

---

Helicopter Ben said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Would you pay your property tax bill if you could choose to simply opt out by paying whatever you amount you desired or nothing at all?

---

Property tax is an oxymoron, so no I would not pay them. I don't agree with government schools so I consider that theft. Just like the vast majority of what the government wastes our hard earned money on, I would not pay my income taxes either. All of that money would have been far better utilized if left in the hands of those who earned it.

Quote:

---

Take a look how the big players in the free market fought tooth and nail so they can continue to pump lead into the atmosphere through the use of leaded gasoline decrying the costs involved. This goes to just about every environmental regulation that prevents a business from dumping whatever they want into the environment. Our air is much cleaner today because of this. None of this would have happened without the government forcing the hands of business to do it while time and time again business showed the only thing they care about is their bottom line, lead exposure be damned.

---

Once again, you are asking us to prove a negative. You have no proof the government did this better than the free market. OTOH we have countless examples of destructive government actions.

So I'll ask again. If people are so untrustworthy to do good that we need government to force them…how do you reconcile that with the fact that government is run by FAR LESS trustworthy people?

---

We know the free market fought all of these things, as they sure has heck had no plan of action to fix them.

---

I have a response to this, but you keep avoiding the FAR more important question…. So I'll ask again. If people are so untrustworthy to do good that we need government to force them…how do you reconcile that with the fact that government is run by FAR LESS trustworthy people?

Don't bother. Lot Y won't answer and if she does it will be some liberal gibberish that will end with blaming conservatives.

Look at cigarette smoking.

All the Feds did was release a report in the early 60s.

After that the public led and the govt followed.

TV ads stopped and then later print ads.

However, the public stopped on their own. It was only after so few people smoked that the government could use force did laws start being passed.

This is from the meme thread, but seems apt...

Helicopter Ben said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Helicopter Ben said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Would you pay your property tax bill if you could choose to simply opt out by paying whatever you amount you desired or nothing at all?

---

Property tax is an oxymoron, so no I would not pay them. I don't agree with government schools so I consider that theft. Just like the vast majority of what the government wastes our hard earned money on, I would not pay my income taxes either. All of that money would have been far better utilized if left in the hands of those who earned it.

Quote:

---

Take a look how the big players in the free market fought tooth and nail so they can continue to pump lead into the atmosphere through the use of leaded gasoline decrying the costs involved. This goes to just about every environmental regulation that prevents a business from dumping whatever they want into the environment. Our air is much cleaner today because of this. None of this would have happened without the government forcing the hands of business to do it while time and time again business showed the only thing they care about is their bottom line, lead exposure be damned.

---

Once again, you are asking us to prove a negative. You have no proof the government did this better than the free market. OTOH we have countless examples of destructive government actions.

So I'll ask again. If people are so untrustworthy to do good that we need government to force them…how do you reconcile that with the fact that government is run by FAR LESS trustworthy people?

---

We know the free market fought all of these things, as they sure has heck had no plan of action to fix them.

---

I have a response to this, but you keep avoiding the FAR more important question…. So I'll ask again. If people are so untrustworthy to do good that we need government to force them…how do you reconcile that with the fact that government is run by FAR LESS trustworthy people?

---

That is not a fact at all. The issues with government are the incessant lobbying by private industry that do all they can to kill off any attempts to employ vital regulation. Eventually the tide ultimately turns. The facts haven't changed, the ability for private industry to dictate policy has. Even at that point, whether its Big Tobacco, or Big Oil in conjunction with other industry players, they all still fight against those regulations.

Its certainly not big business finally having an epiphany deciding to clean up their own acts. They are still forced to do so.

Bubblez said:

---

Helicopter Ben said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Helicopter Ben said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Would you pay your property tax bill if you could choose to simply opt out by paying whatever you amount you desired or nothing at all?

---

Property tax is an oxymoron, so no I would not pay them. I don't agree with government schools so I consider that theft. Just like the vast majority of what the government wastes our hard earned money on, I would not pay my income taxes either. All of that money would have been far better utilized if left in the hands of those who earned it.

Quote:

---

Take a look how the big players in the free market fought tooth and nail so they can continue to pump lead into the atmosphere through the use of leaded gasoline decrying the costs involved. This goes to just about every environmental regulation that prevents a business from dumping whatever they want into the environment. Our air is much cleaner today because of this. None of this would have happened without the government forcing the hands of business to do it while time and time again business showed the only thing they care about is their bottom line, lead exposure be damned.

---

Once again, you are asking us to prove a negative. You have no proof the government did this better than the free market. OTOH we have countless examples of destructive government actions.

So I'll ask again. If people are so untrustworthy to do good that we need government to force them…how do you reconcile that with the fact that government is run by FAR LESS trustworthy people?

---

We know the free market fought all of these things, as they sure has heck had no plan of action to fix them.

---

I have a response to this, but you keep avoiding the FAR more important question…. So I'll ask again. If people are so untrustworthy to do good that we need government to force them…how do you reconcile that with the fact that government is run by FAR LESS trustworthy people?

---

That is not a fact at all. The issues with government are the incessant lobbying by private industry that do all they can to kill off any attempts to employ vital regulation. Eventually the tide ultimately turns. The facts haven't changed, the ability for private industry to dictate policy has. Even at that point, whether its Big Tobacco, or Big Oil in conjunction with other industry players, they all still fight against those regulations.

Its certainly not big business finally having an epiphany deciding to clean up their own acts. They are still forced to do so.

---

So it's not a fact, but the issue is elected officials allowing themselves to be swayed from what they might otherwise think is best for the country by lobbyists?

Yeah, that was a bit of a short sighted argument on their part...

The entire leftist ideology seems to be based on the concept that the government and those that are in it are incorruptible people who are selflessly motivated to improve the country and its people. It's highly delusional.

_mpaul said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Helicopter Ben said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Helicopter Ben said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Would you pay your property tax bill if you could choose to simply opt out by paying whatever you amount you desired or nothing at all?

---

Property tax is an oxymoron, so no I would not pay them. I don't agree with government schools so I consider that theft. Just like the vast majority of what the government wastes our hard earned money on, I would not pay my income taxes either. All of that money would have been far better utilized if left in the hands of those who earned it.

Quote:

---

Take a look how the big players in the free market fought tooth and nail so they can continue to pump lead into the atmosphere through the use of leaded gasoline decrying the costs involved. This goes to just about every environmental regulation that prevents a business from dumping whatever they want into the environment. Our air is much cleaner today because of this. None of this would have happened without the government forcing the hands of business to do it while time and time again business showed the only thing they care about is their bottom line, lead exposure be damned.

---

Once again, you are asking us to prove a negative. You have no proof the government did this better than the free market. OTOH we have countless examples of destructive government actions.

So I'll ask again. If people are so untrustworthy to do good that we need government to force them…how do you reconcile that with the fact that government is run by FAR LESS trustworthy people?

---

We know the free market fought all of these things, as they sure has heck had no plan of action to fix them.

---

I have a response to this, but you keep avoiding the FAR more important question…. So I'll ask again. If people are so untrustworthy to do good that we need government to force them…how do you reconcile that with the fact that government is run by FAR LESS trustworthy people?

---

That is not a fact at all. The issues with government are the incessant lobbying by private industry that do all they can to kill off any attempts to employ vital regulation. Eventually the tide ultimately turns. The facts haven't changed, the ability for private industry to dictate policy has. Even at that point, whether its Big Tobacco, or Big Oil in conjunction with other industry players, they all still fight against those regulations.

Its certainly not big business finally having an epiphany deciding to clean up their own acts. They are still forced to do so.

---

So it's not a fact, but the issue is elected officials allowing themselves to be swayed from what they might otherwise think is best for the country by lobbyists?

---

They are an arm of big business at that point, so you have big business fending off vital regulation because it'll cost them a few dollars.

To say that same big business would suddenly come to a realization that pumping lead into the atmosphere is bad on their own, despite fighting regulation attempts for decades is laughable.

You're missing the point here.

Why are humans imbued with the power to coerce action via force (the government) somehow more noble and more capable of improving society than the free actions of independent humans?

Hint: they aren't. In fact, as has been proven throughout history governments have done more harm than than good. Today, the the free and pervasive access to information, the free market is even more able to enact societal good than any government ever could.

cecil77 said:

---

You're missing the point here.

Why are humans imbued with the power to coerce action via force (the government) somehow more noble and more capable of improving society than the free actions of independent humans?

Hint: they aren't. In fact, as has been proven throughout history governments have done more harm than than good. Today, the the free and pervasive access to information, the free market is even more able to enact societal good than any government ever could.

---

You are completely missing the point. The failures of government are directly tied to big business influence and tremendous lobbying efforts. And its not big business making lives better. It is big business perfectly fine destroying lives.


Why didn't big business acknowledge and act upon the science that putting lead in gasoline was problematic until they were forced to do so?

Quote:

---

The failures of government are directly tied to big business influence and tremendous lobbying efforts.

---

So absent that influence government is noble and good, with only the best interests of the people as a motivation?

If you truly believe that I do feel pity for you.

Humans are flawed. Humans with more power have the ability to do more harm. Government is power. (period)

cecil77 said:

---

Quote:

---

The failures of government are directly tied to big business influence and tremendous lobbying efforts.

---

So absent that influence government is noble and good, with only the best interests of the people as a motivation?

If you truly believe that I do feel pity for you.

Humans are flawed. Humans with more power have the ability to do more harm. Government is power. (period)

---

And Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Any Industry, isn't power?

Bubblez said:

---

_mpaul said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Helicopter Ben said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Helicopter Ben said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Would you pay your property tax bill if you could choose to simply opt out by paying whatever you amount you desired or nothing at all?

---

Property tax is an oxymoron, so no I would not pay them. I don't agree with government schools so I consider that theft. Just like the vast majority of what the government wastes our hard earned money on, I would not pay my income taxes either. All of that money would have been far better utilized if left in the hands of those who earned it.

Quote:

---

Take a look how the big players in the free market fought tooth and nail so they can continue to pump lead into the atmosphere through the use of leaded gasoline decrying the costs involved. This goes to just about every environmental regulation that prevents a business from dumping whatever they want into the environment. Our air is much cleaner today because of this. None of this would have happened without the government forcing the hands of business to do it while time and time again business showed the only thing they care about is their bottom line, lead exposure be damned.

---

Once again, you are asking us to prove a negative. You have no proof the government did this better than the free market. OTOH we have countless examples of destructive government actions.

So I'll ask again. If people are so untrustworthy to do good that we need government to force them…how do you reconcile that with the fact that government is run by FAR LESS trustworthy people?

---

We know the free market fought all of these things, as they sure has heck had no plan of action to fix them.

---

I have a response to this, but you keep avoiding the FAR more important question…. So I'll ask again. If people are so untrustworthy to do good that we need government to force them…how do you reconcile that with the fact that government is run by FAR LESS trustworthy people?

---

That is not a fact at all. The issues with government are the incessant lobbying by private industry that do all they can to kill off any attempts to employ vital regulation. Eventually the tide ultimately turns. The facts haven't changed, the ability for private industry to dictate policy has. Even at that point, whether its Big Tobacco, or Big Oil in conjunction with other industry players, they all still fight against those regulations.

Its certainly not big business finally having an epiphany deciding to clean up their own acts. They are still forced to do so.

---

So it's not a fact, but the issue is elected officials allowing themselves to be swayed from what they might otherwise think is best for the country by lobbyists?

---

They are an arm of big business at that point, so you have big business fending off vital regulation because it'll cost them a few dollars.

To say that same big business would suddenly come to a realization that pumping lead into the atmosphere is bad on their own, despite fighting regulation attempts for decades is laughable.

---

As Cecil notes, you're changing the argument. We've somehow gone from the discussion of a federal regulation about the costs a small or medium business owner must incur, by force of the federal government, to accommodate people with disabilities, and the wisdom of the federal government getting involved in that relationship, to pumping lead into the atmosphere?

But that is the fundamental question, isn't it? Knowing what we about how the federal government, and that it couldn't find its way out of a wet paper bag if it had to--at least not without a couple of studies, committee meetings, Congressional side deals, and hiring an overprice government contractor--when is it a good idea to control by force how two private parties interact with each other?

Bubblez said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Quote:

---

The failures of government are directly tied to big business influence and tremendous lobbying efforts.

---

So absent that influence government is noble and good, with only the best interests of the people as a motivation?

If you truly believe that I do feel pity for you.

Humans are flawed. Humans with more power have the ability to do more harm. Government is power. (period)

---

And Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Any Industry, isn't power?

---

I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise, you're arguing a strawman with this post. On the other hand you've been arguing that the failings of government lies solely at the feet of lobbying. That's an absurd concept that flies in the face of the history of all government forms. "Big business" didn't work with China to do gain of function research on a virus that it then let escape. "Big business" didn't shut down the world's economy, try to force people to isolate from each other for inhumanely long periods of time, devalue our currency by the mass printing of money, etc, etc, etc.

And that's just in our recent history. Should we go look at all the illegal human experiments our government has done in the last century? Government is and always has been every bad thing you fear about businesses and a lack of accountability.

Bubblez said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

You're missing the point here.

Why are humans imbued with the power to coerce action via force (the government) somehow more noble and more capable of improving society than the free actions of independent humans?

Hint: they aren't. In fact, as has been proven throughout history governments have done more harm than than good. Today, the the free and pervasive access to information, the free market is even more able to enact societal good than any government ever could.

---

You are completely missing the point. The failures of government are directly tied to big business influence and tremendous lobbying efforts. And its not big business making lives better. It is big business perfectly fine destroying lives.


Why didn't big business acknowledge and act upon the science that putting lead in gasoline was problematic until they were forced to do so?

---

Government has countless failures modes including but not limited to:

Inaccurate foresight
Lack of information
Incorrect decisions
Bad policy
Foreign interference
Incompetent bureaucrats

I could go on. Lobbying by "big business" is only one of a very long list.

Fenrir said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Quote:

---

The failures of government are directly tied to big business influence and tremendous lobbying efforts.

---

So absent that influence government is noble and good, with only the best interests of the people as a motivation?

If you truly believe that I do feel pity for you.

Humans are flawed. Humans with more power have the ability to do more harm. Government is power. (period)

---

And Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Any Industry, isn't power?

---

I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise, you're arguing a strawman with this post. On the other hand you've been arguing that the failings of government lies solely at the feet of lobbying. That's an absurd concept that flies in the face of the history of all government forms. "Big business" didn't work with China to do gain of function research on a virus that it then let escape. "Big business" didn't shut down the world's economy, try to force people to isolate from each other for inhumanely long periods of time, devalue our currency by the mass printing of money, etc, etc, etc.

And that's just in our recent history. Should we go look at all the illegal human experiments our government has done in the last century? Government is and always has been every bad thing you fear about businesses and a lack of accountability.

---

We're not China. And we have the ability to elect our government, not so much for Big Business unless you have the cash to buy them out entirely. Though, their lobbying efforts has made our ability to select representatives pretty much moot.

Big Business failings are enormous. Go look at any superfund site. Go back to the 2021 blackouts where Big Business had the ability to winterize their plants, or ensure well heads didn't freeze over, but they chose not to do so.

Meanwhile, hundreds of people died. And there would have been more if everyone still had 100W incandescent light bulbs.

Bubblez said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Quote:

---

The failures of government are directly tied to big business influence and tremendous lobbying efforts.

---

So absent that influence government is noble and good, with only the best interests of the people as a motivation?

If you truly believe that I do feel pity for you.

Humans are flawed. Humans with more power have the ability to do more harm. Government is power. (period)

---

And Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Any Industry, isn't power?

---

I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise, you're arguing a strawman with this post. On the other hand you've been arguing that the failings of government lies solely at the feet of lobbying. That's an absurd concept that flies in the face of the history of all government forms. "Big business" didn't work with China to do gain of function research on a virus that it then let escape. "Big business" didn't shut down the world's economy, try to force people to isolate from each other for inhumanely long periods of time, devalue our currency by the mass printing of money, etc, etc, etc.

And that's just in our recent history. Should we go look at all the illegal human experiments our government has done in the last century? Government is and always has been every bad thing you fear about businesses and a lack of accountability.

---

We're not China. And we have the ability to elect our government, not so much for Big Business unless you have the cash to buy them out entirely. Though, their lobbying efforts has made our ability to select representatives pretty much moot.

Big Business failings are enormous. Go look at any superfund site. Go back to the 2021 blackouts where Big Business had the ability to winterize their plants, or ensure well heads didn't freeze over, but they chose not to do so.

Meanwhile, hundreds of people died. And there would have been more if everyone still had 100W incandescent light bulbs.

---

Most of our policies at the federal level are put into place by unelected bureaucrats. All the 3 letter agencies have taken over policy making and our legislation, judicial, and executive branches have allowed them to. There is no oversight of these people because all of our checks and balances have been neglected. Our representatives are moot because they have delegated their roles and responsibilities to unelected employees with no accountability. Lobbying is out of control but the idea that our government would function properly if they didn't exist is to deny basic human nature when accountability isn't present.

Fenrir said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

Fenrir said:

---

Bubblez said:

---

cecil77 said:

---

Quote:

---

The failures of government are directly tied to big business influence and tremendous lobbying efforts.

---

So absent that influence government is noble and good, with only the best interests of the people as a motivation?

If you truly believe that I do feel pity for you.

Humans are flawed. Humans with more power have the ability to do more harm. Government is power. (period)

---

And Big Oil, Big Tobacco, Big Any Industry, isn't power?

---

I don't think anyone has claimed otherwise, you're arguing a strawman with this post. On the other hand you've been arguing that the failings of government lies solely at the feet of lobbying. That's an absurd concept that flies in the face of the history of all government forms. "Big business" didn't work with China to do gain of function research on a virus that it then let escape. "Big business" didn't shut down the world's economy, try to force people to isolate from each other for inhumanely long periods of time, devalue our currency by the mass printing of money, etc, etc, etc.

And that's just in our recent history. Should we go look at all the illegal human experiments our government has done in the last century? Government is and always has been every bad thing you fear about businesses and a lack of accountability.

---

We're not China. And we have the ability to elect our government, not so much for Big Business unless you have the cash to buy them out entirely. Though, their lobbying efforts has made our ability to select representatives pretty much moot.

Big Business failings are enormous. Go look at any superfund site. Go back to the 2021 blackouts where Big Business had the ability to winterize their plants, or ensure well heads didn't freeze over, but they chose not to do so.

Meanwhile, hundreds of people died. And there would have been more if everyone still had 100W incandescent light bulbs.

---

Most of our policies at the federal level are put into place by unelected bureaucrats. All the 3 letter agencies have taken over policy making and our legislation, judicial, and executive branches have allowed them to. There is no oversight of these people because all of our checks and balances have been neglected. Our representatives are moot because they have delegated their roles and responsibilities to unelected employees with no accountability. Lobbying is out of control but the idea that our government would function properly if they didn't exist is to deny basic human nature when accountability isn't present.

---

And you are denying every basic human instinct if you don't think Big Business would rather dump a bunch of hazardous waste down a creek because it would be cheaper than treating it.