3 ms·

This was an amazingly stupid action on the CPSC's part to begin with. Are magnets often considered a "toy"? Yes. Can magnets actually cause harm? Yes. But this

This was an amazingly stupid action on the CPSC's part to begin with. Are magnets often considered a "toy"? Yes. Can magnets actually cause harm? Yes. But this is true of almost anything in our world. There are a lot more dangerous things that are a lot less regulated than a wholesale ban. The CPSC needs, apparently, a much strong leash put on it. We need a government, not a nanny state.

dmix 10y ago
Much like how Kinder Eggs are banned in the US but not Canada (and many other countries). Besides firearms, the US is in many ways as regulation and control obsessed as many state-heavy European countries - probably much more so given the size and capitalization of the various governments and agencies, plus the breadth of industry there - despite having the image of being a place of liberty and freedom. One of the problems is the hysteria of the press whenever anything close to bad happens. It's created a culture of hyper critical control systems over defaulting to trusting the common sense of individuals, the ability of information to disseminate to educate peoplel (warning labels, stories of people getting hurt educating people on what not to do, etc), and the ability of parents.
- ashark 10y ago
  I read through the archives of some Russian world traveller's extensive photo blog a couple years back, and I remember him commenting more than once that one of the most striking things about the US is how many posted regulations and notices there are compared to other countries. None but a couple other countries (I think Australia was one) were similar to the US in that regard.
mejari 10y ago
You can argue the correctness of the ban, but saying that because there is worse problem X we shouldn't try and solve less-bad problem Y doesn't make any sense.
- cgriswald 10y ago
  To use your terminology, he is saying worse problem X was solved with less costly means that are considered effective and pointing out problem Y could have been solved with equal or lesser cost but was instead treated as if it was worse than problem X and solved at greater cost.
  - mejari 10y ago
    Sorry, I don't see anywhere in their comment where they talk about the cost or efficacy of solving any problems. They mention other problems that have regulations, but not whether they are effective or cost-efficient.
    - cgriswald 10y ago
      It seems implied to me that he considers the regulation effective. His argument requires it. The cost is also implied: a wholesale ban has a steeper cost than the other, less onerous methods of regulation. My comment was merely meant as an explication of his comment since your interpretation of his comment seems unsupported and bizarre. He stated clearly "We need government," but feels a wholesale ban is overkill in this case because for more dangerous things, we don't ban them outright.

dmix 10y ago

Much like how Kinder Eggs are banned in the US but not Canada (and many other countries). Besides firearms, the US is in many ways as regulation and control obsessed as many state-heavy European countries - probably much more so given the size and capitalization of the various governments and agencies, plus the breadth of industry there - despite having the image of being a place of liberty and freedom. One of the problems is the hysteria of the press whenever anything close to bad happens. It's created a culture of hyper critical control systems over defaulting to trusting the common sense of individuals, the ability of information to disseminate to educate peoplel (warning labels, stories of people getting hurt educating people on what not to do, etc), and the ability of parents.

ashark 10y ago
I read through the archives of some Russian world traveller's extensive photo blog a couple years back, and I remember him commenting more than once that one of the most striking things about the US is how many posted regulations and notices there are compared to other countries. None but a couple other countries (I think Australia was one) were similar to the US in that regard.

mejari 10y ago

You can argue the correctness of the ban, but saying that because there is worse problem X we shouldn't try and solve less-bad problem Y doesn't make any sense.

cgriswald 10y ago
To use your terminology, he is saying worse problem X was solved with less costly means that are considered effective and pointing out problem Y could have been solved with equal or lesser cost but was instead treated as if it was worse than problem X and solved at greater cost.
- mejari 10y ago
  Sorry, I don't see anywhere in their comment where they talk about the cost or efficacy of solving any problems. They mention other problems that have regulations, but not whether they are effective or cost-efficient.
  - cgriswald 10y ago
    It seems implied to me that he considers the regulation effective. His argument requires it. The cost is also implied: a wholesale ban has a steeper cost than the other, less onerous methods of regulation. My comment was merely meant as an explication of his comment since your interpretation of his comment seems unsupported and bizarre. He stated clearly "We need government," but feels a wholesale ban is overkill in this case because for more dangerous things, we don't ban them outright.