|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
 Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 4:02 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
^
You have to realise that there is a trade off between regulations that make us marginally more safer and everything else in the world.
Once again we are back at the cost benefit analysis of implementing a regulation. If you have a 1 in 10,000 chance of becoming sick from coffee, how much would you be willing to pay to eliminate that risk? The govt can't just decree that from here on out coffee will be safe. They have to enforce the rule, which costs a lot, and often isn't effective any way.
To be honest, this is a really trivial matter and wholly outside the realm of what any normal person would bother thinking about. Getting a stomach ache from time to time is part of life, and thankfully, something that isn't that much of risk to those of us who were lucky enough to be born into "western" society.
I didn't respond to your last post because your arguments were border line retarded. I assure you that society wouldn't some how turn "Mad Max" if people were expected to exercise some personal responsibility. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 4:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
^
You have to realise that there is a trade off between regulations that make us marginally more safer and everything else in the world. |
Even if I hadn't realized it before ever coming to this site (I had), how could I fail to realize it now? You say it constantly.
Yes, there's a trade off, and I want to make that trade off. Every time you say this, my answer will be the same: I want the trade off. I don't care how cost effective you personally feel it is.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| I didn't respond to your last post ... |
Feel free to make a habit of it, you're pretty much on repeat mode at this point anyway, and I could do without the insults. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Life is risky. You can't legislate for every little thing that might happen to a person in the course of his life. All we can do is try to keep safe on a personal level. |
Many risks can be reduced via legislation, and I and many others want many risks reduced via legislation. I understand you want to live in some sort of Mad Max world where you're responsible for your own safety and the government doesn't provide services, but honestly I don't think most of us do (which is why people tend to vote for more regulation, not less).
I want to be able to buy food in a grocery store without wondering if it's toxic. I want to be able to buy a car certain it's reasonably safe. I want to be able to buy medicine without wondering if the people are lying to me about what it does. Regulation can give me this, and I'm willing to pay part of my income for it.
You want a risky life and no taxes? Feel free to move to Somalia. Most of us in the developed world aren't interested in your hypothetical unregulated Utopia. |
Jesus. Just call a lawyer and sue them for negligence. |
I'd prefer to never suffer in the first place than to suffer then possibly be compensated if I can prove it was their fault. |
Sounds great! The War against Carelessness. Oh, I'm sure we'll win this one this time! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 4:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
Yes, there's a trade off, and I want to make that trade off. Every time you say this, my answer will be the same: I want the trade off. I don't care how cost effective you personally feel it is.
|
So, you're willing to make an infinite trade off in money for an unmeasurable increase in your perceived safety? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 4:52 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Life is risky. You can't legislate for every little thing that might happen to a person in the course of his life. All we can do is try to keep safe on a personal level. |
Many risks can be reduced via legislation, and I and many others want many risks reduced via legislation. I understand you want to live in some sort of Mad Max world where you're responsible for your own safety and the government doesn't provide services, but honestly I don't think most of us do (which is why people tend to vote for more regulation, not less).
I want to be able to buy food in a grocery store without wondering if it's toxic. I want to be able to buy a car certain it's reasonably safe. I want to be able to buy medicine without wondering if the people are lying to me about what it does. Regulation can give me this, and I'm willing to pay part of my income for it.
You want a risky life and no taxes? Feel free to move to Somalia. Most of us in the developed world aren't interested in your hypothetical unregulated Utopia. |
Jesus. Just call a lawyer and sue them for negligence. |
I'd prefer to never suffer in the first place than to suffer then possibly be compensated if I can prove it was their fault. |
Sounds great! The War against Carelessness. Oh, I'm sure we'll win this one this time! |
I don't feel reasonable efforts to keep people safe from harm deserve to be disparaged in this fashion. There's a decided difference between carelessness (e.g. tripping because you weren't watching where you were going) and getting sick from a cup of iced coffee because you didn't take it in for bacterial testing before drinking it. It's not like you can see the bacteria if only you look closely enough, and it's not like the fact that previous cups didn't make you sick in any way demonstrates future cups won't. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
Yes, there's a trade off, and I want to make that trade off. Every time you say this, my answer will be the same: I want the trade off. I don't care how cost effective you personally feel it is.
|
So, you're willing to make an infinite trade off in money for an unmeasurable increase in your perceived safety? |
No, I'm willing to trade a finite amount of money for a reasonable overall increase in my (and others) actual safety, because that's how things work in reality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 5:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
^ ^
In the last year, how many people died from drinking contaminated coffee? How many got sick? This matter is trivial. Contaminated coffee is NOT an issue to spend any time thinking about let alone passing legislation for. Granted, some regs(I have no idea which one, do you?) have a net benefit to society. Regulating the water that goes into iced coffee is decidedly not going to provide a net benefit to society. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 5:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
Yes, there's a trade off, and I want to make that trade off. Every time you say this, my answer will be the same: I want the trade off. I don't care how cost effective you personally feel it is.
|
So, you're willing to make an infinite trade off in money for an unmeasurable increase in your perceived safety? |
No, I'm willing to trade a finite amount of money for a reasonable overall increase in my (and others) actual safety, because that's how things work in reality. |
How do you measure it? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| This matter is trivial. |
I honestly don't care if you think it's trivial, there's nothing trivial about food quality.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Contaminated coffee is NOT an issue to spend any time thinking about let alone passing legislation for. |
The food quality law in question is part of a suite. It's not like this is the safe coffee act of '05, food products in general is regulated to a certain standard, and coffee happens to be included.
Perhaps "I choose to be rich" fellows such as yourself feel they don't need such protections because they can shop at top end grocers, but evidently a large segment of the population stupidly and foolishly chose not to be rich, and although I know it's monsterously selfish of me, I feel their food deserves to be held to a high standard of quality as well, even if it costs money to do it. Food quality regulation is good regulation, and this incident happens to fall within its purview. Stop trying to construe it as "Oh, it's just coffee," because we both know it's about more than coffee. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
Yes, there's a trade off, and I want to make that trade off. Every time you say this, my answer will be the same: I want the trade off. I don't care how cost effective you personally feel it is.
|
So, you're willing to make an infinite trade off in money for an unmeasurable increase in your perceived safety? |
No, I'm willing to trade a finite amount of money for a reasonable overall increase in my (and others) actual safety, because that's how things work in reality. |
How do you measure it? |
If you care to measure it in hard data terms, a good place to start would be collecting data regarding instances of food borne illness in unregulated countries and comparing it to similar data regarding regulated countries. Have at it, and bear in mind that a lot of these unregulated countries are so piss poor that they're unlikely to have accurate registers of their actual illness rates, so you'll have to gather the data in the field. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 6:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Why is the burden of proof on me? Shouldn't it be up to regulators to prove what they do, works? I'm not saying that govt regs wouldn't lower food borne illness but for what trade off? 100 food service jobs? 40 less coffee stores? Multiply this across the whole economy for every sector where regs impose costs on business, and you have a big problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 7:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Why is the burden of proof on me? |
Because you're the one arguing for a change in the status quo that could possibly endanger people. Lacking such information, I feel we should error on the side of human safety.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| I'm not saying that govt regs wouldn't lower food borne illness but for what trade off? |
So you're suggesting we give up governmental regulation of food which you admit lowers food borne illness rates in return for some benefit which you yourself are uncertain of?
That aside, I don't really want more coffee shops or food service jobs, I want safe food. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rusty Shackleford
Joined: 08 May 2008
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Why is the burden of proof on me? |
Because you're the one arguing for a change in the status quo that could possibly endanger people. Lacking such information, I feel we should error on the side of human safety. |
I'm just asking for more rigorous thought into the down stream consequences of regulating every fart and queef that's is emitted in society on a bi-annual basis.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| I'm not saying that govt regs wouldn't lower food borne illness but for what trade off? |
So you're suggesting we give up governmental regulation of food which you admit lowers food borne illness rates in return for some benefit which you yourself are uncertain of?
That aside, I don't really want more coffee shops or food service jobs, I want safe food. |
Yes, because I'm not convinced the lower rate of illness is larger than what we gave up(eg jobs, choice, dignity). You may want to wiki "opportunity cost" because you don't seem to know what it means, (not an insult, just an observation). What's the point in having safer food if it costs 10X more and you can only get it by standing in line for 3 hours at the local govt food distribution bureau.
Also btw, I'm using the coffee store as an analogy. I'm not really talking just about coffee anymore, but about regulations of seemingly trivial things, in general.
In the long term the food chain that produced the best food, ie cheapest, cleanest, best tasting etc would have market share and those that caused negative effects would go out of business.
A lot of the bad that happens in society is because people expect that whatever happens, govt will protect them or bail them out. If a coffee chain makes you sick, sue them. They won't stay in business very long, or will change their ways. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 8:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| I'm just asking for more rigorous thought into the down stream consequences of regulating every fart and queef that's is emitted in society on a bi-annual basis. |
Then have at your research: if you want it, and you care about it, do it. Given your anti-government spending attitude, it's ridiculous for you to ask the government to spend money producing a report in order to convince you of things many of us feel are fairly intuitive.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| Yes, because I'm not convinced the lower rate of illness is larger than what we gave up(eg jobs, choice, dignity). You may want to wiki "opportunity cost" because you don't seem to know what it means, (not an insult, just an observation). |
Again, you're just on repeat mode here, you've talked about this before. Everyone here knows what an opportunity cost is. I'm perfectly fine paying it in this case. You can keep saying, "But it's not free!" and I can keep replying, "I know it's not free, and I don't mind," or you can just accept that the vast majority of us understand it's not free and still want it.
| Rusty Shackleford wrote: |
| What's the point in having safer food if it costs 10X more and you can only get it by standing in line for 3 hours at the local govt food distribution bureau. |
When someone suggests anything remotely like that, feel free to ask them what the point of it is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
eperdue4ad
Joined: 22 May 2006
|
| Posted: Sun May 31, 2009 8:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Rusty, enough. You and Fox have polar opposite views on this. It is interesting that, unless you are a Korean citizen, few if any of your coveted tax won are even going to the Korean FDA. Exhale now.
It's poor logic to use the bacteria example to make light of a much larger issue. A "stomachache" is hardly the worst that can happen from a free, unregulated market.
Anyway, anyone who wishes to avoid paying a moderate price for public health measures may gladly move to a country which has no EPA, FDA, etc. I personally enjoy having my safety to be considered. Especially safety over the profit margins and "dignity" of a corporation whose franchises are allowed free rein to sicken or kill their customers. Someone must test them. They will not test themselves  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
