0 votes

Looking for clarification with a RP issue

I need some help on one of RP's issues that I'm struggling with. I would imagine it's due to my own lack of
knowledge on government and economics and therefore I'm asking for a hand. I have the basic concepts of subsidies,
competition and so forth. I can certainly understand the benefits of competition and how subsidies hurt the economy.
Where I struggle is regulations.

I believe he wants to remove all government regulations. Is this correct or is he just wanting to scale it back?
I have been in construction since I was 18 yrs old. I have seen first hand what companies do to try and
get around OSHA requirements. It seems to be all in the name of money, profit, and/or to save time
which points to the first two. So what I'm questioning is that if the Gov. (even if a really small part of it)
isn't keeping an eye on things can we trust businesses to do the right thing any more than the gov.? I understand the ideas of
private property and not polluting your neighbors etc. and I'm 100% with that aspect of self regulation.

Where I have trouble I think is accountability of self regulation. Where is the checks and balances in self regulation?
If material I'm using to build something is dangerous (asbestos for example) who will make sure that it gets detected and removed?

I actually hadn't thought of this until I was trying to introduce RP to one of my long time friends and co-worker
and when we came upon this issue he stumped me. That and he heard RP say he would get rid of SS
which his parents need atm. I know of the transition period myself but I think it was enough to lose my friends vote.

Just as a heads up I am fully supporting RP. I'm only struggling with 1 issue and have just recieved my
FL. Rep. Voters Registration Card in the mail. I will be voting for the first time in my 32 yrs.

*********
Edit:
I'm not against this I'm just looking for information so i can better understand exactly how the system works.
***********

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Thank You

Thank you to all who replied. I respect most of the posters on this forum. In the last 3 weeks or so I have assimilated more info than I can handle lol.

NAU, CFR, gold standards (and purchasing), Federal Reserve, among many other things were fairly foreign to me and I have learned a great deal. I'm fairly solid on all of RP's issues but I was a bit confused on this one.

Some of the most important issues for my wife and I are health care, homeschooling/education and the economy. RP hits a home run for us in this regard. The rest of his genius is just a bonus :P

regulations and transition

First of all a sidenote about transition periods. Everytime you hear someone blankly state that RP wants to abolish this and cut that, everyone of us should stress that those are longterm goals and longterm in many of those cases means decades rather than years. And that if we don´t start now with slowly phasing those programms out they ultimately will crash someday because they aren´t sustainable over the long term in their current form and even less with adding on and on like it happens now. And when this inevitable crash happens, then we will have exactly the situation some wrongly accuse RP of proposing: dependent citizens thrown out on the streets almost from one day to the next. So better start phasing out now and give everybody ample time to adjust.

As far as Regulations go, it´s very similar to the Enviromental questions. You can´t remove all regulations from one day to the next. There is one vital condition you have to build first: a strong and truly independent judicary that really protects property and personal rights and actually enforces them.
Any company will pay attention as hell to provide save products or services if the alternative is to be sued to the hilt for every damage anyone takes due to their neglect of responsibility.
Actually regulations are even counterproductive because what they really do is to implicitly ALLOW companies to be less safe than they probably could be if they had full responsibility (not to go into the question who actually makes the regulations. Lobbyism anyone?).

Let´s look at a fictional example : A construction company gets an order to build two structures in a valley. One sits in a cranny at the bottom of the valley and the other one high up on the edge, where the winds howl.
Let´s say that there is a national regulation that states that such a structure has to withstand wind forces up to X. Now the engineer knows that there´s absolutely no way such wind forces could ever hit the structure on the bottom, but he has to comply with the regulation. On the other hand he suspects that with a little bit of bad luck the structure on the top could pretty well encounter storms greater than X. But he needs not to worry about reinforcing the structure because if anything happens he can just say: "Well, I can´t be blamed. I complied with all regulations."
If it were his own responsibility he would have an incentive to scale down the one structure and save some costs and he would be compelled to strenghten the other structure to minimize his risk of litigation.

Hope that helps somehow ;-)

Thank You

That makes perfect sense to me looking at it that way.

Codes & Regs = MINIMAL standards

One of the KNOWN problems with building codes, etc. is that they are all MINIMAL standards.

Problem is that once that minimum is established, it often becomes the de facto standard. Companies seldom try very hard to EXCEED the standard because everyone thinks that the "minimum" MUST be acceptable.

Case in point is electrical wiring. In most cases it is an EXCELLENT IDEA to put in wire that is LARGER than the "minimal standard" required by electrical code (Ask any electrician, they will admit that this is true -- they probably use larger wire on their own home projects because they know the cost difference is minimal -- but they also know that they almost never do it on contract work, why? because of "cost" and the minimal code is considered "good enough").

Same thing applies to just about everything else... whether it is what size lumber is used for framing, or insulation thickness, or etc. Unless a homeowner/builder is VERY knowledgeable and DEMANDS something above the standard, then everything is done ONLY to the minimum require by the code.

Which means pretty much everything ends up being built to a minimum (aka "barely acceptable") standard.

Nonprofit Foundations would play a part

First of all, RP has specifically stated that he does not want to get rid of Social Security and in fact, he is the only candidate who has never voted to spend out of the current SS fund, and he would fund it by bringing our troops back home where they belong, to defend our borders, not Iran's or Syria's.

I agree with everyone here who has made the excellent points that regulation would go to the states.

The "libertarian/Libertarian" view on this would be that private groups could do this type of regulation in a better and more efficient way than the government bureaucracy ever could. A nonprofit group or foundation could be set up to monitor workplace safety. Some may scoff at this, but you do trust Consumer Reports to give you what cars, car seats and other products are safest, don't you? You do trust the Sierra Club to protect the environment, don't you? Why couldn't there be an equivalent nonprofit group that would test workplace safety? People could have local groups that tested local workplaces, and not at the expense of everyone's taxpayer dollars.

Keep in mind that under an RP government we'd all have about 30% more salary to do with as we pleased, so 30% more money would be available for people to give to nonprofits to do things like this.

-----------------------------
Girl Gets Ron Paul License Plate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NtdaK1UPNkQ

I own a manufacturing

I own a manufacturing company.

My insurance company sends in an inspector to evaluate us for safety concerns annually. He looks things over, consults with us, makes suggestions for improvement.

If there were a serious problem, he would advise me to fix it soon or face rate increases or loss of insurance. He would follow up on the problem. In a good business relationship (of non-corporatist insurance) we would work together to improve safety and reduce my insurance rates.

Why do we need a state bureaucracy in OSHA?

Not having the "answer" is not a bad thing

One of the trappings of arguing against central planning is trying to find the right response to the "so what would you replace it with?" question.

The answer is - I don't have a better central plan to replace central planning.

You don't need a prescription for everything. You have faith that order emerges from the sum of millions of individual actions, carried out by individual actors seeking their own self-interests.

I know this may sound ethereal, but it is the essence of free markets. No one person, group, or appointment of "experts" can set the rules by which everyone else works. It is antithetical to growth and development.

Standards emerge in the free market. No central body dictated that we should have "D", "C", "A", "AA" and "AAA" batteries. No one dictates that you can't introduce a "EE" battery. You just have to make it attractive and add value to the market.

As the buyer of these batteries, you have the responsibility to assure that they fit your requirements. If you don't know, you can hire a consultant to point out the pros and cons of the various choices. I'm paralleling here, of course, to the building of a home.

Please read this interview

"I understand the ideas of private property and not polluting your neighbors etc. and I'm 100% with that aspect of self regulation. Where I have trouble I think is accountability of self regulation. Where is the checks and balances in self regulation?"

It's not so much self regulation; it is the judicial system and the free market that will do the regulating. Paul gave an excellent interview to an environmental group that explains it far better than I can:

http://grist.org/feature/2007/10/16/paul/

Different subject; same solution.

=====================

There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:

1. Soap
2. Ballot
3. Jury
4. Ammo

Please use in that order.

--Ed Howdershelt (Author)

Dr. Paul

would return the power of regulations back to the states where they belong, so the people would have more say in the way the regulations would be implemented.
As for OSHA our company is in the construction business and we install glass on high story buildings and OSHA has fined us no less that $1500.00 on each time they have sanctioned the job site we were on.
The violations resulted in not tying oneself to the stage used on the side of the building to having chemicals to close to our truck that are combustable, they are the GESTAPO of the construction business.
Don't forget also when OSHA fines you , your workmens comp insurance goes up 3 times that amount you were fined.

"Freedom is a right that can never be won in war,only by each individual "

Don't get me wrong

OSHA is one hell of a pain in the ass. I was nearly fined for simply having my hard hat in my hands when the inspector walked up. If they are in fact not the ones doing the material testing then I am simply mistaken as to what I thought was one portion of their job.

I know the government does a poor job most of the time. I'm simply unsure who would keep material manufacturers from doing even worse than them lol.

Removal of OSHA

I am not sure if he has plans to eliminate OSHA, but it would not suprise me. First of all OSHA came about in 1970, so it is a relitively new department. Second not having a federal dept. to oversee job safety or asbestos removal in your example would not remove any local and state laws that exist. If you are in construction you allready have local inspectors that come to jobsites and enforce regulations. There are LOTS of local laws on the books requiring certain safety regulations especially if you live in or near a city.

Something for everyone to think about - why is it that the federal govt gets the largest portion of tax revenue and then state and city get smaller portions. Wouldn't it be best if the money went local first (seeing as how they would be most accountable to the people)? Local govts provide local road repairs, water and sewer treatment, waste management, police dept, fire dept, parks and recreation, and lots more services. The state provides the next level of services. Clearly the constitution kept seperate the duties of the federal government from the states so that issues could be handled on a much more local level. I am not for legalizing prostitution, but I could care less if there is a federal law about it. People in other states can allow it, but I would always vote against it locally. Things would be better off if the federal govt got out of most apects of our lives. I am not advocating for big state government, but I am saying that there is a reason our founding fathers gave the federal govt limited power and state govt broad power.

Let me clarify

I edited my first post. I'm not against this. I am here because I believe in RP. I am not trolling. I am simply looking for more information so I can better understand how exactly the system works.

So lets say RP gets rid of the federal regulations. Florida would still have the ability to implement some type of protection process be it state or county? Perhaps something similar to our county building inspectors?

I understand my original post is slightly contradictory with OSHA and the fact that companies try to get around it but I want someone checking to make sure that as an employee my health isn't dependent solely on how much money my employer can make.

you

you as the employee have the right to work anywhere you want.. your not forced to work for just 1 employerr if you don't like the way things are done at business A then go work for business b etc!

i see it

I see it this way.. I own a roofing company.. when i was working for my dad on the roof we never wore fall protection.. I fell off the roof 2 times.. my back and neck pay for it! now that i'm the owner osha mandates fall protection etc. I see it this way.. If the worker wants to take chances and work with out fall protection etc. it should be up to the worker.. not some government jerkoff to tell him what he can and can't do.. I mandate that the fall protection etc has to be worn! they don't want to wear it so if osha catches them I get the fine not the worker who is disobeying the company rules. i think that is bunk! as for me.. with how my neck and back feel I for sure wish I woulda wore it back then but 25 years ago we didn't have it.. if the company has a policy of mandating wearing fall protection, the employee has been trained and signed a statement he understands that the proetection must be worn it is the employee who should pay the fine! not the employer. once again it should come down to personal responcibility.. if a guy chooses not to wear the safety equipment and gets hurt it should be his responcibility to take care of himself. not the employer... if the employee wants to be protected then the employer should do everything to make sure the employee is! hope that is clear lol i'm kinda writing in circles!

I agree with this...

What I am more referring to would be the products used. It is my understanding that OSHA tests and passes materials but I may be wrong. However I am just using OSHA as my example because that happens to pertain to me. You could use any gov agency I'd imagine.

For example, in your case, you might worry that the nails you are using are full of lead.

You're thinking about UL, etc.

UnderWriters Labs (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underwriters_Laboratories) does the lions share of testing of electrical and other equipment.

It is *NOT* a government agency, but rather a private enterprise.

Materials testing is typically done by other (similar) certification organizations (also mostly private NON-governmental enterprises).

OSHA is basically just a bloated bureaucracy -- they hand out awards to places that have a history of few accidents, and then fines when an accident does occur (and how in the heck the fine is supposed to help anyone is beyond me -- the money does NOT go to the "victim" or his/her family; it does NOT go to pay for specific safety equipment or anything to prevent future injuries; nope, it goes into the coffers of a bloated gummint agency so it can hand our future award plaques and more fines).

In the factories I have worked in or around, if the management has brains (meaning, it wasn't just bought out in an LBO by a bunch of Investment Bankers who paid for it with funds from people's 401K accounts that they have no control over) then they understand that the best way to keep their costs low (both from suits, AND in insurance ratings) is to prevent injuries with improved safety equipment. OSHA so rarely does inspections that in all of these places it is virtually a joke. Around here (midwest) when they fine a factory, it is usually because of things the workers have CHOSEN to do (often w/o or in spite of management policies) rather than for management mistakes -- I'm sure that may not be true everywhere, but I have yet to see an example otherwise.

osha

osha don't test crap! all they want to do is write 10,000.00 fines for each violation the can find ! they are a joke!

hmmm

You could also tell your friend that if Ron Paul doesn't get elected your friend won't have to worry about any of those issues he's raised because neither of you will be working. Ron Paul is Americas ONLY hope!

Local Government

I think Paul has great faith in local communities. So when he says he would remove all federal regulations, I doubt he thinks it would be a good thing to have no regulations. I just think he believes it is not the federal government's place to enforce such regulations.

And this makes sense to me, because the more power you give federal government, the more likely it is to abuse that power. So why not keep that power divided and left up to the states, as the constitution intends?

hello, goodbye, sometimes we all just need to cry.

Two things to add..

One, although the Federal goverment has OSHA...each of the states have there own department. So in this case they duplicate the task which only adds to the confusion. If OSHA left tomorrow...there would be almost no effect.

Two, the courts are still available for damages caused to anyone or individual. Which means business associations would more than likely establish standards. Examples of this include the BAR for Attorneys or AMA for doctors.

Mike
Ron Paul is my HERO!!!

Mike
"Fire Team for Freedom"
visit www.mikeandjake.com

I would agree...

...that most of the government departments pander to business more than actually regulate industries. You usually only here about them after some disaster happens then they actually might enforce a law or reg. A good example is the Chinese toys with lead...theres examples of companies paying for regulators trips to vegas on CNN just today...and their comments have basically defended the toy industry rather than concern themselves with childrens safety.

Mike
Ron Paul is my HERO!!!

Mike
"Fire Team for Freedom"
visit www.mikeandjake.com

I think that you are making a presumption

You are assuming that the regulators have your interest at heart, when the truth is likely very very different.
To start with, what is one thing that all regulation does? It costs money, correct? Since that is one effect of regulation, then one unintended(or intended) effect of regulation is to limit entry into the market. What, ask yourself, did the world do before OSHA? Its only been around since the early seventies, you know?
Indeed, you have disproven the effacacy of regulation in your post-since you see everyone in the construction industry getting around it....rather uneffective then is it not??!
Additionally, For the most part, Ron Paul is only talking about Federal regulation, not State level....who can better momitor your construction company, the State, or the Feds? Remember, your vote has far, far, more significance at the State level that at the Federal, thereforeyou might actually have an imput on the laws that govern you....that is called freedom-I know it is an unfamiliar concept.
The final point I'd like to make on regulation

Mike Stahl

continued

The final point I'd like to make on regulation,at all levels, is the absolute open invitation to corruption-what do you think the "special interests" that you hear about ARE? They are larger companies and organizations that actively, and legally, work to secure regulation that favors THEM-not you or me.....that ok with you?
I could go on for quite awhile longer on that, but I hope I've made a dent, or at least given you a few tyhings to think abou.
As far as Social Security goes-Rob Paul does NOT suggest getting rid of it-look at his website. Certainly not in the foreseeable future, there are simply too many people depending on it-and that PAID INTO it. That being said,it was a bad idea from the get-go, like all socialism, and a way out needs to be found as it is simply not sustainable.
Hope that helps.
Mike Stal

Mike Stahl

Hi, from my understanding

Hi, from my understanding and I may not be correct. In a free market you would have someone inspect the home and see if the materials were safe, you wouldn't depend on govt.( government which can be paid off as has happened where I live). A great example could be to think of how the magazine consumer reports analyzes products, much more effectively than the FDA tests which drugs are safe. Bureacracy is where the corruption lies, free markets and competition bring the safest and best products. Just my opinion but that seems to be my understanding, hope that helps.

Other wonderful examples are

Other wonderful examples are the UL who certify fire and electrical products, and Kosher organizations that certify food quality and adherenace to a specific process. Or the Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval.