Maximum role of Government?

[JA37]

Two questions:  1)  What do you do?  2) How can I do it too?    

So what you are saying is that the government gets to decide what "unnecessary" risks are, regardless of what people are or are not willing to do themselves?  Why?  What I want to know is why government gets to trump people's personal liberty.

Find something you're good at and then find someone wiling to pay you to do it. Preferably good money. 

I'm saying that a company isn't allowed to take risks for you. Foreseeable risks should be mitigated by the company.
When those risks have been mitigated but risk still remains, as it always does, the company sets a salary that they believe will attract workers. People then use their personal liberty to choose if that reward is enough for them to take the job with the risk that follows.

[myrkul]

I'm saying that a company isn't allowed to take risks for you. Foreseeable risks should be mitigated by the company.
When those risks have been mitigated but risk still remains, as it always does, the company sets a salary that they believe will attract workers. People then use their personal liberty to choose if that reward is enough for them to take the job with the risk that follows.

Not once did you mention the word 'regulation', as indeed, it's not needed. By George, I think he's got it.

[JA37]

I'm saying that a company isn't allowed to take risks for you. Foreseeable risks should be mitigated by the company.
When those risks have been mitigated but risk still remains, as it always does, the company sets a salary that they believe will attract workers. People then use their personal liberty to choose if that reward is enough for them to take the job with the risk that follows.

Not once did you mention the word 'regulation', as indeed, it's not needed. By George, I think he's got it.

What regulation does is raise the minimum standard. Companies are allowed and encouraged to go above the minimum standard, but not below. Yes it's needed.
I have nothing against market solution to problems, but believing it's the one and all solution to all problems is naive to the point of stupidity.

[The Script]

I'm saying that a company isn't allowed to take risks for you. Foreseeable risks should be mitigated by the company.
When those risks have been mitigated but risk still remains, as it always does, the company sets a salary that they believe will attract workers. People then use their personal liberty to choose if that reward is enough for them to take the job with the risk that follows.

Not once did you mention the word 'regulation', as indeed, it's not needed. By George, I think he's got it.

What regulation does is raise the minimum standard. Companies are allowed and encouraged to go above the minimum standard, but not below. Yes it's needed.
I have nothing against market solution to problems, but believing it's the one and all solution to all problems is naive to the point of stupidity.

Why do regulations tend to go so far beyond what is really necessary, and how do we mitigate that?  I'm not sure what country you live in, but here in the US the culture of work place safety is ridiculous.  It creates horrible inefficiencies and attitudes of snitching.  Do I really need a safety harness and rope if I'm on a ladder farther than six feet off the ground, and does Joe really need to report me to OSHA?

[JA37]

Why do regulations tend to go so far beyond what is really necessary, and how do we mitigate that?  I'm not sure what country you live in, but here in the US the culture of work place safety is ridiculous.  It creates horrible inefficiencies and attitudes of snitching.  Do I really need a safety harness and rope if I'm on a ladder farther than six feet off the ground, and does Joe really need to report me to OSHA?

Not knowing your local laws I really can't say if they're ridiculous or not. I'll just take your word for it. What you should do in that case is to have the regulations rewritten. They're part of the political process so it's not hard, and probably being rewritten every now and then anyway. Lobby for change, position yourself so that you can take part in the rewrite.

I'm also not familiar with OSHA and how that works, but here the employer is responsible for making sure that you follow the regulations, and it's the employer that will be in trouble if you're not doing it. Unless they can prove that they've done everything they can to make your work safe as can be and you choose to ignore the rules.

A relative (US Citizen) told me that laws in the US are historical and not logical. Once you start to look at laws from a historical point of view, they start to make some sort of sense, but from a logical point of view many are downright dumb.

[compro01]

Why do regulations tend to go so far beyond what is really necessary, and how do we mitigate that?  I'm not sure what country you live in, but here in the US the culture of work place safety is ridiculous.  It creates horrible inefficiencies and attitudes of snitching.  Do I really need a safety harness and rope if I'm on a ladder farther than six feet off the ground, and does Joe really need to report me to OSHA?

you start with a functional system.

the US culture of an illusion of workplace safety is ridiculous and i agree.  too much focus is placed on trivial crap, deflecting attention from actual gaping holes in the regulations e.g. no double belting (having two ropes so one is always attached while you're moving the other one to a new attachment point) requirement at extreme heights such as radio towers or wind turbines.

i'm not sure whether your last sentence is being serious or not, but OSHA regs do not require that.  fall protection is not required unless you're above 25 feet.

[The Script]

Why do regulations tend to go so far beyond what is really necessary, and how do we mitigate that?  I'm not sure what country you live in, but here in the US the culture of work place safety is ridiculous.  It creates horrible inefficiencies and attitudes of snitching.  Do I really need a safety harness and rope if I'm on a ladder farther than six feet off the ground, and does Joe really need to report me to OSHA?

you start with a functional system.

the US culture of an illusion of workplace safety is ridiculous and i agree.  too much focus is placed on trivial crap, deflecting attention from actual gaping holes in the regulations e.g. no double belting (having two ropes so one is always attached while you're moving the other one to a new attachment point) requirement at extreme heights such as radio towers or wind turbines.

i'm not sure whether your last sentence is being serious or not, but OSHA regs do not require that.  fall protection is not required unless you're above 25 feet.

Fall protection is required if it's above 6 feet.  This does not necessarily mean you need a harness to go above six feet, so I was exaggerating a little.   

http://www.osha.gov/doc/outreachtraining/htmlfiles/subpartm.html

[MoonShadow]

Why do regulations tend to go so far beyond what is really necessary, and how do we mitigate that?  I'm not sure what country you live in, but here in the US the culture of work place safety is ridiculous.  It creates horrible inefficiencies and attitudes of snitching.  Do I really need a safety harness and rope if I'm on a ladder farther than six feet off the ground, and does Joe really need to report me to OSHA?

you start with a functional system.

the US culture of an illusion of workplace safety is ridiculous and i agree.  too much focus is placed on trivial crap, deflecting attention from actual gaping holes in the regulations e.g. no double belting (having two ropes so one is always attached while you're moving the other one to a new attachment point) requirement at extreme heights such as radio towers or wind turbines.

i'm not sure whether your last sentence is being serious or not, but OSHA regs do not require that.  fall protection is not required unless you're above 25 feet.

Fall protection is required if it's above 6 feet.  This does not necessarily mean you need a harness to go above six feet, so I was exaggerating a little.   

http://www.osha.gov/doc/outreachtraining/htmlfiles/subpartm.html

In practice, it's four feet, because if you are using a ladder over 6 feet tall you are expected to harness, and you're also not permitted to use the top two steps to actually step upon.

[DiamondPlus]

Okay. I'll follow this line of reasoning just for kicks and giggles. Let's say that no one individual owns the road exclusively. So what? That means now everyone shares a partial ownership in the road, or "easement". Again, so what? That would basically mean the road is part-owned by everyone, right? I'm not sure what portion or in what way each individual would make his "rightful claim" but then it would just be a matter of sorting things out I would think. If you can't sort it out, it would basically fall into the category of homesteadable unclaimed land. There isn't an owner, so why not you, or me, or that "other" guy over there, who might want to make a business out of toll road fees. No one should complain that the road was "staked and claimed". You didn't step up and make a claim to it, so why not the guy who's interested in doing something with it? Or in other words, no one owns it and we just use it as we deem fit until things change. Notwithstanding, this temporary state of "unownership" could not demand forceful intervention for maintenance purposes (or any other similar coercive purpose). That would imply a condition of ownership. You either own it and defend it against trespass, or it remains commonly utilized by all -no more owned than the stars in the sky could be appropriated.

Obviously, no one has a specific right to travel on another man's property without permission. This would be trespass. He may attempt to travel on un-homesteaded land, but that would be the only right he would have, and even then, it would only be temporary until someone wanted to own it. Then he couldn't arbitrarily traverse it, because he didn't acquire it first, and make it exclusive to himself or his assigns. Let's not get caught up in all of the vague verbiage (government, state, "unorganized public"). This merely clouds the issue. And here's why.

If the "unorganized public" wants to fix/improve/reroute the road they apparently jointly own, then they, and only they could expend their effort, money, assets, resources and other what-have-you to improve this "easement" of their own free will. They could not of a natural right, force, expropriate, tax, extort, coerce (I think you get my drift here) from others to achieve this end. If others travel on your road, then they must get permission to use it. If you improve the road, but still not claim it as your own, you shouldn't be upset if others travel on it. You improved it out of the charity of your heart I guess.

Is this a little more clear? We don't need lawyers and legislators making definitions as to what a "highway" or "road" or "easement" is, but we should merely examine who is the rightful owner of such things. I'm trying to keep things simple here. John Locke said, the appearance of property has the distinction of labor mixed with something in Nature. It had to appear to be changed from its natural state when man intervened. If that's the case, I want to see who owns the deed or title, and if there is none, I'll take it.

Last but not least, if the government doesn't own it, then why are they forcing me to pay for its construction, maintenance and improvement?

-DiamondPlus

[anticolay26]

There seems to be a reality distortion field on both sides of the field here. People hardly get stuck in bad positions everybody is proposing. Life isn't this rough guys.

[bahrun55]

None of the above.

Instead, public control of public services through a mixture of localised government owned democracies and privately owned cooperatives.

[rjbtc2017]

My Opinion is based on my experience on my own country, i think it's better for the Government to have an absolute power over prices
specially here in my country, over pricing is one of issues which is not yet resolved.
It may vary on different on country, but how i wish Government role will be absolute specially on regulating product prices.

[hyunee]

According to Merriam Webster Dictionary, Government is a system or institution or a group of people who controls and make decisions for our country. They are the ones who are responsible in creating and imposing laws for making a better a country. In terms of role of the government it is said in the countries preamble.
1. 'To form a more perfect Union'

2. 'To establish Justice'

3. 'To insure domestic Tranquility'

4. 'To provide for the common defense'

5. 'To promote the general Welfare'

6. 'To secure the Blessings of Liberty'

This all should be the capacity of the role and power of the government.

[Mometaskers]

I haven't thought of this as much before but I'd probably like moderate role for the government. Aside from basics that the private sector would probably find hard to fulfill like military, I'd still want to see the government in things that require central planning like infrastructures, the like of roads, etc.

Same with utilities like water and electricity I'm a bit torn about transportation and healthcare, those are vital but it seems the government fucks them up when they try to handle them.

[TheCoinGrabber]

Much that I don't trust the government with money, I still find it necessary for regulation and obviously keeping order. I'd also prefer public infrastructure and utilities to be handled by the government. These are basic services after all.

[Sithara007]

The prices of all the commodities will be determined through the balance between demand and supply. The government mus stay out of this, unless it is found that the organized cabals are artificially inflating the prices.

[joebrook]

The government should be tasked with making sure that society is safe for every individual,  that is they should make and enforce the laws of the country , as well as protect the citizens from external and internal threats that they face.

[Lancusters]

The government should be tasked with making sure that society is safe for every individual,  that is they should make and enforce the laws of the country , as well as protect the citizens from external and internal threats that they face.

The government should do for people service that people do not feel uncomfortable and can focus on creating various benefits. But in fact, the government considers the people his slaves and tries to control and impose their conditions.

[Nikola95]

I think: The Government should control some services, and not others. In first place, beacuse government should prevent that someone has a monopoly on market. It is really important job for government. Other things like subsidizing some kind of production, and some regulations are second thing that government should do. Lets say, they need to control air pollution, and put restriction to some kind of companies.
Everything else should be left over to people to work and create better economy for country.

[altcoinboss177]

Enforce select laws.
Build and maintain infrastructure.
Tax only enough to maintain the two above functions.