Talk-Polywell.org

http://www.dump.com/2011/07/15/fascinat ... ine-video/

Was linked to this on another forum. Very fascinating the amount of automation they'd managed even then. Also note some of the safety stuff--losing OSHA and the like wouldn't necessarily destroy safety standards.

You mean we don't need a government agency telling a company that workers don't like to have hands and arms chopped off? You don't say...

Why people in Government can't understand the fact that we can get along just fine without 95% of them and their "programs", I'll never know.

And why supposedly intelligent people believe that we can get along fine without "xxxx" government agency, program, law... Until we can't.

And then forget or ignore the history of why said agency, program or law was created! It's beyond me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_S ... ctory_fire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_Canal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Civil_Action
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silkwood
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Brockovich_%28film%29
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camp_Lejeu ... tamination
Katrina/FEMA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massey_Energy
Mercury and Arsenic poisoning from coal fired power plants
Lead poisoning from gasoline and paint

Actually, the stupidity feedback loop is clear. We poison/damage/destroy ourselves thus increasing stupidity leading to more incidences of acts which increase our stupidity.

Netmaker wrote:Actually, the stupidity feedback loop is clear. We poison/damage/destroy ourselves thus increasing stupidity leading to more incidences of acts which increase our stupidity.

There should be a law for that!

There is no cure for stupid, so why legislate it?

I want to add: every single linked example you gave is an example where people were acting in violation of existing law, and additional laws were not required.

There's that, and the fact that almost everything the gov does, it does because someone thought it needed to be done.

That's not going to change, even if you get rid of government entirely. People will still want/need things done, and if they go at it hard enough, and it'd needed enough, it will happen.

Safety was a big issue for the unions, IIRC. If the laws hadn't passed, "voluntary" compliance would have happened sooner or later. As people were getting educated and concerned with safety, factories not willing to spend the money on it were going to find it too hard to stay in business.

The trouble with law theses days would seem to be the driving desire over complicate things fuonded in an effort to provision for every possible contingency "in writing".
I say keep the written laws simple, and use case law to interpret.
Instead of today's, keep written law as complex as possible, so the entire law industry can remain a successful self licking ice-cream cone. And, then to help it along use all the case law you can get your mitts on further justifying the demand for for complex "loophole closing" and accidently-on-purpose "loophole providing" further legsilation further increasing complexity.
Lick, slurp...lick, lick, slurp...lick...

I want to add: every single linked example you gave is an example where people were acting in violation of existing law, and additional laws were not required.

This is a major problem with Western governments in the last few decades: the belief that a problem requires a new law to address, instead of proper enforcement of the existing laws. It has contributed to the current mess.