I would not really do it out of concern for safety, but all of these issues also have huge impact on scheduling causing delay's, cancellations, etc.. which is already a big problem.
Yes we all know the authorities do a terrible job of actual investigation instead jumping to assumption, speculation, and "gut" of their "experience" to intuit the "truth" of the matter with out any logic or reason..
Presuming and Assuming when it comes to a death investigation is often the start of how innocent people go to jail
There is a case where a woman "stabbed her self" 17 or so times, including in the back of the head and it was ruled a "suicide"
It does not take much for a motivated medical examiner to rule a death a suicide, their are plenty of examples where clearly not suicide was been rule suicide in history.
Then there is always the movie "The Shooter" where they had an arm contraption purpose built to force someone to "commit suicide", The device itself is plausible
In the age of information ignorance is no longer an option, Before I buy a car, most often the second largest purchase a person will make in their life next to housing. I do i TON of research, I look at insurance rates, I look at Theft Rates for that model, I look on Car Complaints and other Database for common failure items for that model, I have it inspected by a independent mechanic having them pay extra attention to the common failure items. etc
If you just roll in and let the salesman take you for a ride then you deserve the outcome.
Yes anyone who doesn’t have the knowledge/time/motivation/cynicism to prevent themselves getting taken advantage of is basically asking for it, nay “deserves” it.
Yeah, and if you did not read T&S and now going to become a part of human centipede, that’s on you. I mean, how hard can it be to read a 22 page legalese, before going through a sign up flow, that was heavily optimized to increase conversion?
anyone who thinks there is anybody in the universe other than themselves that is going to take responsibility for their safety, security, happiness, etc. absolutely "deserves" what they get.
i didn't say they did! i said they need to take responsibility for their own safety/security or suffer the consequences. whether they should be expected to... is totally irrelevant. i'm not stating a preference, i'm stating a fundamental law of nature.
and not knowing even that simple fact is what makes it "deservedly" so.
Regulation can remove those consequences for any chosen safety/security feature by making every choice have it. Fundamental law of nature? You're deluding yourself.
(And if you say you mean outside of regulation, that people need to be responsible in general for other aspects of life, then your argument is no longer connected to the original comment you replied to.)
regulation is part of the universe. to expect that it protects you exactly when you'd want it to, but does not inhibit you want you'd not want it to is stupid. trying to offload your responsibility onto some "them" is not a fix.
i'm definitely not deluding myself. that is life. you need to have both the freedom and the inclination to take care of yourself, if you don't have both you'll suffer.
I do not need the freedom to buy a defective lock.
Mandating basic safety and security features is not always going to protect me, but it will mostly protect me. It's not stupid to want that tradeoff. I don't care if you define "fix" as 100% so therefore it's not a fix. I want the 95%. I want defense in depth, regulation on top of personal investigation.
you are right. you do NOT need the freedom to buy a defective lock.
you need the right to decide for yourself if the lock is defective or not.
if you give that away, you will instantly be given the "freedom" to buy a lock that is defective-by-design. perhaps the lock designer's brother is a friend of the govt. perhaps the govt. agency does not want bad publicity, whatever.
the point is "defense-in-depth" (cliche) or not, you are ultimately responsible for you. there can be no other way.
> you are right. you do NOT need the freedom to buy a defective lock.
> you need the right to decide for yourself if the lock is defective or not.
This sounds like you agree with me. This kind of regulation sets a minimum, not a maximum.
We don't need freedom to buy very bad locks. We do need freedom to buy the best lock we want to buy.
But the rest of your post implies that regulation will change both minimum and maximum and mandate a specific lock. I disagree with that premise.
> (cliche)
Are you trying to imply something there?
> you are ultimately responsible for you. there can be no other way.
I am "ultimately" responsible, but product makers should have responsibilities too. If I fail at something, I should not be 0% safe. The baseline should be pretty high before I apply my own efforts.
Should we allow cars without seatbelt? Everyone knows cars with seatbelts are safer. If consumers don’t like it, they can just choose to buy the ones with seatbelts.
Do you look up the software security measures implemented by the keyfob too? That information would be very difficult for a layperson to find and make sense of.
This may be the "age of information", but information is only useful as your ability to find, understand, and evaluate it.
Lets see, oooo tiktok, heres the kia challenge. Or maybe google "are kias secure". Whatever format you can understand, you will be presented several sources that explain the situation quite clearly.
Isn't there an aftermarket solution you can buy that would make the kia you bought three years ago more secure?
Sure, it sucks that you have to unexpectedly spend money on it, but when you bought a cheap car you knew you were taking the risk of having to deal with unknown unknowns.
If you googled kias at any time ever you would have seen they are absolutely riddled with issues. People on HN seem to think buying a car is like designing a CPU or investing in a portfolio of stocks, you could try doing some research.
Car thefts are extremely dangerous for everyone on or near the road. It's obviously better to just not allow car manufacturers to neglect basic security practices. There's also entire categories of issues you don't have to research anymore because they've been optimized out of every modern car. Soon cars being hacked with toys will be added to that list for you. Notably, "airbag explosion rate" wasn't on that research project of yours.
>>As well as discourages intentionally messing up within the company and profiting from short selling
While I do not agree with the OP on insider trading being good.... I also think short selling is a net negative and should be banned right along side insider trading
> I also think short selling is a net negative and should be banned
Why? The potential losses for shorting are infinite whereas the profit is capped, so entering a short requires high conviction. Stock markets are also a market for information: banning short selling takes away a large amount of information and has negative impacts on price discovery, liquidity etc.
I have been working for over 30 years, never once have I considered the NLRB being for me the normal worker.... never once have I ever wanted to be part of a union, and never once have I ever seen personally unions provide any benefit to workers. I have worked in and around unionized manufacturing plants my entire life, including many times during the formation of a union. In all most all cases the workers lives, pay, and conditions were WORSE post union than before...
Considering how many business owners I know who complain about the amount of benefits they need to give/pay to their union workers, I can only assume they are gaining something.
Deadweight losses exist, and it is also possible for things that the union demands of the employer to cost the employer more than they provide in benefits to the worker.
This would imply that congress has unlimited authorirty to regulate anything it chooses, that would be a complete inversion of constitutional purposes which is to limit the power of congress to just a few things.
now over the centuries bad judges making terrible rulings (see Wickard) , and a few poor amendments (17th being one of them) have allowed the federal government to expand well beyond its original limited powers.
Thankfully and mercifully the current Supreme Court seems very willing to put the federal government back into its proper constitutional box... Amazon I am sure is looking to leverage that... As outside the terrible expansion of the Commerce Clause in Wickard does the federal government have any authority to regulate employment in any state... No where other than a massive liberal reading of the commerce clause is that power found in Article 1 Section 8 from which all congressional and federal authority is derived.
The Wickard ruling is by far one of the most far reaching bad decisions ever made. The mental gymnastics required to justify it are inexcusable, as it boldly spits in the face of the 10th Amendment.
I think it's horribly bad application of law but a good ruling in practice. The federal government is the last desk in situations where coordinated action between or restrictions on states is needed to avoid bad outcomes and prisoner's dilemmas for everyone. If the federal government had only one power I think it should be that.
I wish they would apply it to ban the sweetheart deals states give companies so that we can end the race to the bottom where states have to suck ceos off to get them to set up shop.
> The federal government is the last desk in situations where coordinated action between or restrictions on states is needed to avoid bad outcomes and prisoner's dilemmas for everyone.
That kind of regulation is the core of the central planning fallacy. If people know how much demand for wheat there would be next year or what crop yields would be then farmers would know how much to plant before it would become unprofitable and you wouldn't need anyone to order them to. If that information isn't available then it isn't available to the government either and they're not going to make any better a decision, and in most cases it will be worse because they'll have less information than the people actually doing it or less reason not to be careless or hidebound because it's not their livelihood on the line.
The purpose of the interstate commerce clause is that sometimes the victims of a misdeed are in a different state than the perpetrators and then the victims have to be able to go somewhere for redress that has jurisdiction over the perpetrators. But that only applies when the commerce is actually inter-state.
> I wish they would apply it to ban the sweetheart deals states give companies so that we can end the race to the bottom where states have to suck ceos off to get them to set up shop.
The sweetheart deals aren't a race to the bottom, they're corruption. If the state wanted to attract business generally then it would create a generally favorable environment with low administrative overhead or quality infrastructure etc., not create weird exceptions for one specific corporation. Those one-company deals never actually work out because their true purpose is to steal from the taxpayer.
Look, in this particular instance you might be right but the idea is more general. The FCC is a good example of coordination that benefits everyone but isn't really interstate commerce in rules-as-written.
> The sweetheart deals aren't a race to the bottom, they're corruption.
Call it what you want but large businesses planning to do large buildouts collect bids from states for favorable tax breaks and other incentives. In my state there are two
whole departments at the statehouse dedicated to just this. Having the federal government step in and tell every state all at once that the practice is now outlawed eliminates this source of legal corruption and levels the playing field so states that want to attract business must do exactly what you lay out.
> Look, in this particular instance you might be right but the idea is more general.
The problem is more general too.
> The FCC is a good example of coordination that benefits everyone but isn't really interstate commerce in rules-as-written.
Most of what the FCC does actually is inter-state commerce. They're regulating communications networks that cross state lines and radio products that are sold not just inter-state but internationally.
In principle they shouldn't be able to stop you from building a radio within your own state and then using it there at power levels that don't cross state lines, but why would they need to? Your state could do that if they wanted to.
> Call it what you want but large businesses planning to do large buildouts collect bids from states for favorable tax breaks and other incentives.
The bids are a competition between corrupt government officials in different states to see who is willing to offer the most taxpayer money in exchange for having their pockets lined. The problem here is that taxpayers fail to vote out anyone who does this.
> Having the federal government step in and tell every state all at once that the practice is now outlawed eliminates this source of legal corruption and levels the playing field so states that want to attract business must do exactly what you lay out.
The fact that they haven't done this rather illustrates the point. If the population doesn't want it then they'll vote for politicians who don't do it at the state level. If they don't care enough to, as seems to be the case at present, then no federal rules exist either.
Even putting aside Wickard where the Supreme Court dubiously decided that a farmer growing wheat on his own land for his own personal use was "interstate commerce", I'd say that companies that sell products outside of their home state or hire employees or contractors across state lines would be considered "interstate commerce" by any reasonable definition.
If a business only sells products within Pennsylvania and only hires residents of Pennsylvania then I'd say that they're not engaged in interstate commerce. That also means no mailing or shipping orders to customers outside of Pennsylvania. In such cases, I'd say that only Pennsylvania labor law should apply to the company not federal labor law. For approximately 99.9% of companies, this would make no difference whatsoever as businesses in a modern economy are virtually always engaged in interstate commerce. It also wouldn't matter that much because most states have state labor laws that are at least as worker friendly as federal law.
So, I'd agree that Wickard is too broad and should be overturned but I don't see any reason to overturn federal labor law. I think the Roberts Court will likely take a similar position if it ever takes up such cases. Chief Justice Roberts tends to be against extremely disruptive rulings and can usually persuade one of the other conservatives.
Also, getting rid of federal labor law would probably make the "union problem" worse not better for corporations. Many of the more radical union actions that were common in the early 20th century such as wildcat strikes and general strikes were outlawed by the Wagner Act. The labor movement is currently the most popular it has been in decades and a radically anti-union Supreme Court ruling would likely lead to a massive backlash.
there problem here is that the intent from an originalist standpoint of the commerce clause was to prevent New York from regulated commerce coming from Delaware, or vice versa.
Was to regulate, as in to make regular...
It was not to expand to allow regulations to apply to any commerce that happened to cross state lines... like your example of shipping a package.
The movement of the package may then trigger federal regulations but those regulations should not move up stream to the Person that packed the box, as that activity was wholly intrastate. The employer and the employee was both in the same state, and the transaction for the labor was enclosed into a single state.
The transaction from the consumer to the company may be interstate and that may be regulated by the Commerce clause.
