[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE: Why mostclassificationsare fuzz

To: "'[ontolog-forum] '" <ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Rich Cooper" <rich@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2011 13:38:26 -0700
Message-id: <26218964FFDB4DEBB093928E710D6D28@Gateway>
John,    (01)

I agree that forced and exclusive regulation is
SOMETIMES necessary, but I prefer the way the ISO
9000 and ISO 9001 standards committee operates,
where companies that claim to practice their
standards are audited by ISO-accredited auditors,
and given a certification only if their practices
pass the audit.  Buyers can then purchase from
accredited companies or not, depending on their
needs and predilections.      (02)

But chemicals in food or in food packages that can
be scientifically shown to harm people should
certainly be prohibited by law or regulation
though, since they do violence to individuals who
don't suspect anything is wrong, as you pointed
out.  But most regulations and regulatory bodies
are not (IMHO) best forced upon the public without
alternatives.  The ISO 9K pattern is one I would
prefer for products and services that are not
inherently dangerous.      (03)

There are other cases of damaging products and
services which should also be prohibited, but
knowing where to draw the line needs a closer
look.      (04)

Have you seen the recent NASA study that says
global warming alarmism is not justified, and that
the earth is emitting heat into space, and also
adapting to higher levels of CO2 by emitting more
heat and pushing the gas higher in the atmosphere?    (05)

asa_says_computer_models_wrong_about.html    (06)

That indicates that the UN committee of global
warming alarmists are just pursuing a political
agenda, especially with the administration and the
UN promoting cap and tax in the US, and other 1st
world countries, at US and 1st world expense,
while redistributing the funds to 3rd world
governments (not 3rd world citizens).      (07)

I am in favor of helping 3rd world citizens, but
the moneys from cap and tax, and other similar
political movements, are intended for the foreign
governments, which are often dictatorships,
theocracies, and often just plain scalawags, not
representative of their people, and certainly not
raising the standard of living of their people.
Bill Gates has more practical and effective ideas
about how to help the 3rd world, even with a much
smaller budget, and no government is forcing him
to do so.  I like that approach, and I believe it
will work better than all the aid combined the US
gives to governments all over the world as
inducements to vote the administration's way in
the UN, and play nice.      (08)

For another example, the Obama administration's
intended policies of prohibiting drilling of oil
and coal resources, even if research has shown
ways to clean up the coal, is economically
counterproductive.  It has hurt the economy,
killed (by some estimates) five million jobs in
the industry, and diverted our focus from what it
takes to get energy independence at reasonable
prices.  Yet NASA's evidence shows that its not a
problem.  Its just another way to use regulation
to crowd out the small oil producers and refiners,
and raise the cost of entry.  That is one example
where stated remedies, like the new gas mileage
the Obama admin has forced on all of us by
regulation with no alternative for those who knew
the GW alarmists were up to no good with no good
evidence.  There are only a few huge auto
companies which dominate the market for good
reason - political pressure and donations that
suck funds from taxpayers struggling to make ends
meet.      (09)

Watch alternative news, such as Al Jazeera, Russia
Today, and other country opinions of US actions to
get the countervailing view as opposed to just the
mainstream media which stays politically correct.
The other side of the story is very informative if
you are interested in the topics they discuss.
One viewpoint is nearly guaranteed to be wrong in
certain ways, and only by stepping outside of the
prevailing views will you get a balanced
understanding.  Even Fox Business Channel, which
focuses almost solely on financial issues,
provides a countervailing view to CNN, for
example.      (010)

These compelling regulatory bodies are usually
populated with people from huge companies in the
industry being regulated.  Guess what?  The huge
companies become huger and the smaller companies
with better products and services disappear.      (011)

-Rich    (012)

Rich Cooper
Rich AT EnglishLogicKernel DOT com
9 4 9 \ 5 2 5 - 5 7 1 2    (013)

-----Original Message-----
From: ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:ontolog-forum-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of John F. Sowa
Sent: Tuesday, August 09, 2011 12:32 PM
To: ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [ontolog-forum] intangibles (was RE:
Why mostclassificationsare fuzzy)    (014)

On 8/9/2011 11:50 AM, Rich Cooper wrote:
> Just how much does each of us value safety,
honest advertising,
> cleanliness, and other honest and fair
practices?    (015)

I would rate those things extremely high.  Most
people are willing
to pay extra for safe, sound, and effective food,
drugs, restaurants, 
hotels, homes, cars, and appliances.  But there is
no way to ensure
safety without standards and inspections.  And
there is no way to
ensure that the information people get is reliable
without laws that
prosecute false claims and counterfeit labels.    (016)

If you want to see what happens without effective
gov't regulation,
just look at what happened with the food and water
system in China.
People there are terrified that they can't trust
their food and
water supply.  Look at the disastrous levels of
casualties caused
by earthquakes and mine disasters in areas with no
building codes.    (017)

The Chinese gov't has imposed some drastic capital
for managers responsible for food that killed
people.  But I'd
much rather have standards and inspections in
advance than harsh
penalties for the people who killed me.    (018)

You can call that the "nanny state", but I call it
common sense.    (019)

> I disagree with one-size-fits-all regulation.    (020)

The European Union has prohibited BPA as a plastic
softener for
food containers and children's toys, and
California is trying
to do the same.  But the US still allows BPA.  The
Chinese produce
plastic with and without BPA.  The cost difference
is minimal, but
many manufacturers will shave pennies.  So they
produce both kinds,
and they ship the BPA versions to the US.    (021)

I am all in favor of freedom, especially for
myself.  But if
there is no regulation, the contaminated stuff
dominates the market.
Worst of all, the people who produce the
contaminated stuff don't
want any regulations that would force them to
disclose what's
in their product.    (022)

That is not freedom for me.  That's freedom for
the people who
produce the contaminated goods.  I have no choice.    (023)

John    (024)

Message Archives:
Config Subscr:
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join:
ge#nid1J    (025)

Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/  
Config Subscr: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/  
Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/
Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ 
To join: http://ontolog.cim3.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl?WikiHomePage#nid1J    (026)

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>