Regulation is also the way 'hated government' limited the reach of AT&T in the US, and Bell Canada now BCE in Canada, and let dial-up become the way most of us get onto the internet.

Regulation is the way government limits, though cannot prevent the adulteration of food and drugs, through the Food and Drug Administration in The United States, and what's left of the Health Protection Branch in Canada.

Regulation sets at least limited standards for the manufacture of cars, airplanes, electrical devices, including computers, and the purity of water provided by municipal water utilities, though there are failures, like the recent one in Walkerton, Ontario.

Walkerton seems to be the result of a loosening of regulation by the Tory government of Mike Harris.

Even so-called, voluntary self-regulation only works if industry knows that their failure to self-regulate will be backed up by the force of the state.

Only when regulation is in the public sector can we hope, maybe not always to stop tragedies, but to find out why they happen, and prevent them from ever happening again.

We often hear from right-wing politicians to let companies involved in hazardous industries regulate themselves. Frankly, I’d rather have an industry dealing with hazardous processes and materials to be SMOTHERED in regulation than one that lets the companies involved to do as they please. Every single problem we have today, from the mine explosion to the financial meltdown to the oil disaster can be directly attributed to lack of regulatory control.

Even in cases where proper regulations exist, industry managed to defeat the controls. This is why most regulation is overly complex. It is a direct result of gray-area activity on the part of the industry being regulated. Politicians get paid off, regulators get bribed, and the very system itself is undermined by lobbyists and special interests as the regulations are created.

I often hear about profit. If the business wants to make an obscene profit it should go do something else. Even the most heavily-taxed industries in places like taxachusetts (home of some of the most cutting-edge electronic companies) can manage to turn a profit. Those against regulation just want more profit than is prudent for ethical operation. IMHO they can go f*ck themselves.

These companies need to run their operations in a more responsible manner, period. they have demonstrated that they cannot or will not do it themselves. Therefore we must regulate to protect oursevles from those who consider profit more important than the health and welfare of the people.


I did get a comment on my statement "more profit than is prudent" from someone who said "And I guess you get to decide what is "prudent." You sound like such a cliche." To which I answer "To me, prudent profit is that which results from proper business practices. If you cut corners to make a profit you are being imprudent, simple as that. The market is still the determinator but the true costs must be reconciled."

Reg`u*la"tion (-l?"sh?n), n.

1.

The act of regulating, or the state of being regulated.

The temper and regulation of our own minds. Macaulay.

2.

A rule or order prescribed for management or government; prescription; a regulating principle; a governing direction; precept; law; as, the regulations of a society or a school.

Regulation sword, cap, uniform, etc. Mil., a sword, cap, uniform, etc., of the kind or quality prescribed by the official regulations.

Syn. -- Law; rule; method; principle; order; precept. See Law.

 

© Webster 1913.

Log in or registerto write something here or to contact authors.