3 ms·

The familiar statist's mantra: That red tape is preventing all hell from breaking loose! I suppose if it weren't for government regulations we'd still be livin

The familiar statist's mantra: That red tape is preventing all hell from breaking loose! I suppose if it weren't for government regulations we'd still be living in caves and dying at age 30.

ChuckFrank 12y ago
In some cases that is true. Health and safety regulations have been instrumental in extending life expectancy. Building codes have been essential in creating safe habitable cities. Without those, we'd be dying in fire traps with dysentery and TB at 30.
chasing 12y ago
> I suppose if it weren't for government regulations we'd still be living in caves and dying at age 30. Probably not, but we might be living in rickety homes, eating food that's mainly sawdust, and working eighty hours per week for almost no money. Some of us would still be slaves. A few of us would be fantastically wealthy and powerful, but even they would be limited by living in a violent world populated by uneducated and over-exploited masses incapable of doing things like getting an education and finding their own passions that lead to innovation, invention, and creativity. The pleasant life you live today is due to government regulations. You know how you can shop at the grocery store without fearing that something you buy might literally kill you? You know the drugs you take for headaches? For whatever ailments you have? It's nice knowing there's some science behind those, right? Nice knowing they won't kill you, right? Speed limits? Are they a good idea? You might be more likely to think so if you had kids and wanted to feel safe allowing them to play outside. Flying to an awesome tech conference anytime soon? You'd probably prefer the plane didn't drop out of the sky, right? Etc.
- ahomescu1 12y ago
  > A few of us would be fantastically wealthy and powerful, but even they would be limited by living in a violent world populated by uneducated and over-exploited masses incapable of doing things like getting an education and finding their own passions that lead to innovation, invention, and creativity. I'd like to point out that Harvard University precedes the United States by 140 years (1636 -> 1776), and the government before 1776 wasn't exactly "for the people".
  - kiiski 12y ago
    What kind of students did Harvard have back then? Was it mainly rich upper class people, or people from "the people" too?
    - ahomescu1 12y ago
      From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University, about Harvard (known then as New College): Although never formally affiliated with any denomination, the early College primarily trained Congregationalist and Unitarian clergy. Also notable is this list (note how many Ivies have been around since then): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Colonial_Colleges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Colonial_Colleges
bigiain 12y ago
<cynical non-USA-centric view> From _outside_ "your" healthcare and welfare systems, it appears that for a not insignificant number of people "living in caves and dying at age 30" is not some hyperbolic comparison to some distant neanderthal past - but something that's a lot closer to their reality that the privileges of the 1%... (not that "government reguations" are "the good guy" here though...)
ubernostrum 12y ago
Fun fact: historically, placing someone outside the protection of the law was one of the most severe penalties governments could administer. Also cheap, because it means someone else -- whoever feels like it, basically -- carries out the execution without the government having to pay for it. Perhaps you'd like that, though, since then the "statists" wouldn't be getting in your way with all those things that they claim are to "protect" you. And I'm sure you'd live to a ripe old age that way, yes?

The familiar statist's mantra: That red tape is preventing all hell from breaking loose! I suppose if it weren't for government regulations we'd still be living in caves and dying at age 30.

ChuckFrank 12y ago

In some cases that is true. Health and safety regulations have been instrumental in extending life expectancy. Building codes have been essential in creating safe habitable cities. Without those, we'd be dying in fire traps with dysentery and TB at 30.

chasing 12y ago

> I suppose if it weren't for government regulations we'd still be living in caves and dying at age 30. Probably not, but we might be living in rickety homes, eating food that's mainly sawdust, and working eighty hours per week for almost no money. Some of us would still be slaves. A few of us would be fantastically wealthy and powerful, but even they would be limited by living in a violent world populated by uneducated and over-exploited masses incapable of doing things like getting an education and finding their own passions that lead to innovation, invention, and creativity. The pleasant life you live today is due to government regulations. You know how you can shop at the grocery store without fearing that something you buy might literally kill you? You know the drugs you take for headaches? For whatever ailments you have? It's nice knowing there's some science behind those, right? Nice knowing they won't kill you, right? Speed limits? Are they a good idea? You might be more likely to think so if you had kids and wanted to feel safe allowing them to play outside. Flying to an awesome tech conference anytime soon? You'd probably prefer the plane didn't drop out of the sky, right? Etc.

ahomescu1 12y ago
> A few of us would be fantastically wealthy and powerful, but even they would be limited by living in a violent world populated by uneducated and over-exploited masses incapable of doing things like getting an education and finding their own passions that lead to innovation, invention, and creativity. I'd like to point out that Harvard University precedes the United States by 140 years (1636 -> 1776), and the government before 1776 wasn't exactly "for the people".
- kiiski 12y ago
  What kind of students did Harvard have back then? Was it mainly rich upper class people, or people from "the people" too?
  - ahomescu1 12y ago
    From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harvard_University, about Harvard (known then as New College): Although never formally affiliated with any denomination, the early College primarily trained Congregationalist and Unitarian clergy. Also notable is this list (note how many Ivies have been around since then): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Colonial_Colleges https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Colonial_Colleges

bigiain 12y ago

<cynical non-USA-centric view> From _outside_ "your" healthcare and welfare systems, it appears that for a not insignificant number of people "living in caves and dying at age 30" is not some hyperbolic comparison to some distant neanderthal past - but something that's a lot closer to their reality that the privileges of the 1%... (not that "government reguations" are "the good guy" here though...)

ubernostrum 12y ago

Fun fact: historically, placing someone outside the protection of the law was one of the most severe penalties governments could administer. Also cheap, because it means someone else -- whoever feels like it, basically -- carries out the execution without the government having to pay for it. Perhaps you'd like that, though, since then the "statists" wouldn't be getting in your way with all those things that they claim are to "protect" you. And I'm sure you'd live to a ripe old age that way, yes?