3 ms·
It's quite obviously a result of the asinine narrative of how "regulations are strangling businesses"–see quote below. There's nothing wrong with naming specif
by matt4077 9y ago
It's quite obviously a result of the asinine narrative of how "regulations are strangling businesses"–see quote below.
There's nothing wrong with naming specific regulatory requirements that you believe are onerous. But repeating the generic attack on any and all regulations is just a populistic attempt to hollow out the power of government, and leads to such disasters, and many smaller injuries to people, property, or the environment that don't get this sort of publicity.
A 2005 law known as the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety)
Order ended a requirement for government inspectors to
certify that buildings had met fire codes, and shifted
instead to a system of self-policing. Governments adopted
slogans calling for the elimination of at least one
regulation for each new one that was imposed, and the
authorities in charge of fire safety took this to heart.
- dom0 9y ago> to hollow out the power of government, It's important to remember that in many matters, the government are the people.
- jfnixon 9y agoIt is entirely possible to believe "regulations are strangling business" and that some regulations are necessary. For example, it is reasonable to require fire suppression systems in multistory buildings and reasonable to mock the regulations requiring magicians to file written disaster safety plans for their rabbits. The set of people who object to, and I quote, "any and all regulations," endquote, is an extremely small subset of the electorate.