Why Government Regulation is Necessary

Here are a couple of arguments against government regulation that I've seen thrown around the internet and from people I personally know such as coworkers and why I think they're wrong. I'm curious about /newpol/'s position on this.

1. If agencies like the EPA and FDA were disbanded companies would not do things like destroy the environment and sell toxic substances as food and hygiene products because if they did, consumers would be outraged and not buy their products.

My response: Every time a large company decided to cut corners then much damage could potentially be done to the environment and many people harmed before their actions were recognized and anything done about it. Its better for these things to be monitored so that at least some of this stuff gets stopped before it has a chance to harm lots of people. Americans still buy Chinese products even though Chinese companies do things that they should not.

2. If there were no minimum wage then businesses would still pay a decent living wage because they want to attract the best workers and because it is in the best interests for businesses to maintain a large pool of people that can afford to buy the products and services they provide.

My response: Businesses do not seriously compete for talent for many if not most jobs. They do for specialized jobs that require lots of education, training, or experience but not for factory workers, store clerks, and lawncare or farm workers. Without a minimum wage huge numbers of workers would not be paid reasonably because they are not considered skilled. This was demonstrated back when there were no unions and factory workes worked in dangerous conditions hardly being paid enough to live. Even though they are unskilled they still should be paid a living wage because they do important jobs. Many businesses hire illegal workers or send their production overseas for cheaper labour and do not pay their employees enough to buy the products that they are making. They are made to be bought by other people that make more money. Nothing is wrong with making high quality products that factory workers cannot afford to buy, but this does show that businesses will rely on other sectors do generate demand for their products and will not necessarily keep their own wages reasonably high just to increase their employees' purchasing power.

Statements 1 and 2 are not strawmen, I've heard both these positions taken by multiple people.  So what are /newpol/'s thoughts?

>So what are /newpol/'s thoughts?

You'd better brace for copious amounts of trolling. In 3... 2... 1...

>>1
>Americans still buy Chinese products even though Chinese companies do things that they should not.
This is really the problem. People are idiots. They support companies with their money and then claim that they think actions are deplorable. If people are happy to delegate responsibility to the government because of their own apathy then they deserve to have unchecked corporations walk all over them. The people have failed in their duty to be intelligent, responsible individuals if the government has to step in and regulate.

>>3

If people want decent looking clothes and don't make much money, and the cheapest good looking clothes are made in China then buying those clothes is logical. People don't deserve to be walked all over because they made that decision. That is like saying that a person who is a victim of robbery deserved it because they weren't better at protecting their stuff. That is why the government should take steps to promote American businesses and stop them from outsourcing. And in the case of robbery, why we need police.

>>4
That is why the government should take steps to promote American businesses and stop them from outsourcing.
The government is made up from the people; these people don't just fall out from the sky. If the general populace is ignorant of the dangers of outsourcing and relying on other nations for their production, then logically the government is not going to care all that much, either.

If people want decent looking clothes and don't make much money, and the cheapest good looking clothes are made in China then buying those clothes is logical.
That is like saying that a person who is a victim of robbery deserved it because they weren't better at protecting their stuff.
That's a completely false analogy. You almost always have a choice to buy or not buy. You've brainwashed yourself into thinking you don't but you do. I'm sure there are very rare cases where someone really has no choice. For the most part though, people buy from China because it's easier not because they have to. And remember, when you pay money for something, you're not only endorsing it but you're also directly causing part of it.

>>6
ABC has an ongoing segment on their World News program that discusses products being made in the United States and for people to buy said products. Of course what is never mentioned is the harm that various trade agreements like NAFTA have done to domestic manufacturing over the last nearly two decades.

>>4
>That is like saying that a person who is a victim of robbery deserved it because they weren't better at protecting their stuff.
No, it's like buying weed off someone you know is an active robber and then being outraged when they rob you, armed to the teeth with weapons they bought with money you gave them. And then saying that, "This is clearly the governments fault I funded them!"

>>4
That is like saying that a person who is a victim of robbery deserved it because they weren't better at protecting their stuff.
The people who buy Chinese made goods are victims of propaganda, du/tri/quadopolies that dominate the market, "free trade" agreements, and other such things.

---------------------
http://i44.tinypic.com/2j0zbcn.jpg

I still don't see how Americans deserve to be treated poorly because American businesses aren't competitive and actively harm America by doing things like outsourcing. The government is the only body that can put tariffs on imports and give tax breaks to companies that hire Americans. If they're the victims of propaganda then the American government ought to be promoting American businesses and products made in America even more.

>>10
Look, it's really very simple. As a consumer, you don't give your money to companies you don't want to support. Retailed based companies that don't receive money from consumers generally don't do well. If you give money to a company that does things you don't agree with, you don't really have the right to complain because you gave your consent when you handed over your cash. At no point does the government need to get involved in this process.

>At no point does the government need to get involved in this process.

Comrade Obama might disagree. There is always room for big brother to get involved in everything!

>>10
There's nothing wrong with outsourcing, it lowers prices.

>>11

If we're in agreement that there are companies that do things that could be harmful to people or the nation and both realize that the free market doesn't fix this issue on its own do to ignorance, laziness, or lack of morals on the part of consumers then why shouldn't the government get involved? I've heard people make the argument that the government shouldn't regulate businesses because the free market is good at fixing problems. You're pretty much admitting that there are issues that the free market does not properly address, but still think the government should do nothing about. This makes no sense to me, societies ought to at least try and deal with problems that they encounter instead of just accepting that thats just how things are and letting them continue or potentially get worse. I know a guy who said that the Russian and Japanese governments should not pay people to have more kids and that the Indian and Chinese governments should not pay people to have fewer kids because regulating birth rates is not the governments job. He acknowledges that these countries have serious or even catastrohic demographic problems but does not think its right for the governments to be involved simply on principal, no matter what this ends up doing to the countries. Aren't you applying the same logic to the economy?

>>13

Thats great as long as there are plenty of jobs, but its not so great when there is a job shortage at home. Also,the money that goes to paying foreign employees leaves the American economy and is spent by those employees in their home countries.

>>14
>the free market doesn't fix this issue on its own do to ignorance, laziness, or lack of morals on the part of consumers then why shouldn't the government get involved?
Because the proper role of government is not to protect people from their own stupidity. If people want to make stupid decisions then they should be able to and suffer the consequences, of course they should be educated against making bad decisions but not forcefully prevented from doing so.

Because the proper role of government is not to protect people from their own stupidity.
I'd agree with you except that you can't lump people together like that in this case. It shouldn't protect me from my own stupidity but it damn sure should protect me from other people's stupidity.

>>15

Seems like you answered the first half of my question but not the second. And as >>16 points out, if I only buy products from companies that don't dump toxic waste in rivers bt lots of other people do, then why do I have to live in a country full of nasty rivers? I can inform my neighbours of the companies practices, but this won't have much of an effect if its a nation wide company.

>>17
>then why do I have to live in a country full of nasty rivers?
You don't. You can always move.

>>18
You can always move.
Not everyone has that luxury.

---------------------
http://i44.tinypic.com/2j0zbcn.jpg

>>18

So you believe that its persectly fine for corporations to destroy a nation as long as total economic freedom is being preserved? So nationstates should not even be self-perpetuating entities? lets just totally trash everything and let those who don't like it try and leave! The idea that societies should not even make a token effort to fix known problems or to actively try to improve the lives of their citizens at all is crazy. I thought that I'd been responding to someone with strong capitalistic views, but now I think there's anarchists in this thread. The governement doesn't need to run everything, but its nice to have laws against people doing things that are obviously harmful to large numbers of people and potentially damaging to the entire nation.

>>18
Where to? Across the river? They'll just follow me. Or worse, beat me to the place.
You'll only run out of places to move, it's a question of time before they phuxx0r the whole planet.

THEN where'll you move?

You don't get it. The problem is the government has failed to regulate, we need to get back the time when public safety was considered a task of the criminal justice system, not passive light handed easily corrupted bureaucratic regulatory bodies that were hastily and spuriously rushed through congress by yes-men politicians without anyone noticing.

>>22

Maybe you should read up on what safety in the work place and pollution used to be like before the government got involved.

>>23
Businesses that failed to maintain safety standards faced criminal charges instead of small fines?

>>24
No, businesses employed children for 12- 14 hours a day, employees routinely died or were maimed by machinery and their family starved... stuff like that.

>>24

What in the holy fuck are you talking about? ...oh that's right, you're trolling. My apologies. Carry on then.

Capitalism not socialism!

Regulation causes outsourcing and business to LEAVE the US.

If a business fails that is their fault, we need personal respectability not regulation or safety nets.

Look at Singapore, their economy is booming and their wages are one of the highest... and they DO NOT HAVE MINIMUM WAGE.

>>27
Capitalism not socialism!
Socialism, by definition is having ownership and control of the means of production, distribution, capital, land, etc. in the hands of the community as a whole. That's not what's going on here. Far from it. If the US really were a socialistic country, its populace would not be very happy with the majority of its representatives supporting neoliberal ``free trade'' agreements like NAFTA that literally sell whole industries' manufacturing outright for pennies on the dollar.
Regulation causes outsourcing and business to LEAVE the US.
Regulations or not, they'll go to wherever is cheapest (with the very rare exceptions of those businesses who's owners actually exhibit some principles in their behavior). There are only two ways to halt, or at least, stall this trend. One is to dramatically reduce the pay of employees and completely cut off benefits (something like 2 dollars per hour to make cheap Asian slave labor less appealing by comparison). Obviously that won't work, and it's not a livable wage by any means — even in free market Dixie with rent at bargain prices. Two, repeal all harmful ``free trade'' agreements and introduce legislation that protects existing industries and promotes new ones. One, no business wants any free trade agreements repealed, they make ungodly profit from it alone and will lobby like hell to stop any such reform from happening, and two, government actually giving a shit about protecting existing industries and promoting new ones will automatically be shot down as ``dangerous socialism'' by detractors and then we're back to square one.
If a business fails that is their fault
Generally, I'd agree. Not in the case with businesses that engage in finance capital who's repercussions affect not only the US, but most Western nations and governments, letting those fail would have had much bigger consequences.
we need personal respectability not regulation or safety nets.
The businesses that have received ``special treatment'' is because of heads of regulator departments that were former employees and also because of the unique position the businesses were in. New legislation barring former employees of bad businesses later being employed in governmental departments needs to be introduced. They'll of course lobby tooth and nail against that. The growing unemployed on welfare are victims of this malice, and safety nets to support them while the economy stabilizes until they can get back on their feet.
Look at Singapore, their economy is booming and their wages are one of the highest... and they DO NOT HAVE MINIMUM WAGE.
It's the only state in the region that doesn't have one, but that's likely to change in due time http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/14/business/global/14wage.html?_r=1&emc=tnt&tntemail0=y

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=21o6myWxMUI

>>25
Child labor laws during the great depression differ greatly from the EPA and FDA, they are enforced by the police and courts while the EPA and FDA are giant government bureaucracies.
>>26
1969 Santa Barbara oil spill
100000 barrels spilled: multiple class action lawsuits forcing them to pay damages in full

2010 Deepwater Horizon oil spill
5 million barrels: no legal action, BP sets up a token compensation fund, Obama sends a bill for $70 million out of the $40 billion estimated cost of the disaster

If reality is trolling you then you seriously need to re-evaluate your priorities right here.

>no legal action
>BP sets up a token compensation fund

I love it when you retards make shit up.

>>30

Aren't the police and courts part of giant government bureaucracy? The President appoints Supreme Court Justices.

>>32
Yes but he doesn't like Obama so obviously his SCOTUS picks don't count. Why are you trying to use logic on a stormfag anyway? In his mind all cops are heroes and anyone else that's part of the legal system shouldn't be trusted (unless maybe they were former cops). In fact, we might as well skip all of that bureaucracy and not bother having courts at all.

>>32
Criminal charges or trials cannot be rubber stamped by a bureaucrat. Maybe I should say it's far more difficult for a legitimate case to be dismissed in the legal system whereas within a secretive closed bureaucracy without juries and due process it's very easy to let things slide.
>>33
logic
In his mind all cops are heroes

So it's logical to put words in people's mouths now? Let me try..

hurrr look at me I'm the crunchiest of hipsters and anyone who questions me is the biggest dumbest conservative hick ever hurr durr derp

>>34

Criminal charges might as well be rubber stamped by a bureaucrat when judges receive payments from privatized prisons and when the officers of the highest court are appointed by the President. This idea that many conservatives seem to have that we should go back to the good old days is flawed because the good old days never really existed, its just the result of romanticizing the past. Alcoholism, domestic abuse,  homosexuality, and political corruption existed you just weren't supposed to talk about them, working conditions were comparable to those in third world countries today, and blacks and women were treated like crap. Those are the realities of the time some people glorify and want a return to these days.

The default condition of life is to be harsh and short. Of course we've progressed beyond that, but the fundamental aspect of it is still there, just much less pronounced.