The regulations against what this man did, didn't prevent him from doing what he did. Laws and regulations aren't the perfect solution.
So what was your point in posting the Codfather story? Was it to show how "workers" were benefited by the regulations? There are no perfect solutions because there are no perfect people (with the exception of you and I, of course
).
my Views on regulations
my point is very clear, (less regulations will only benefit profits not workers)
Other than clearly being a typical Marxist or socialist "worker" view, there is absolutely no other clarity in your opinion. It elicits questions rather than making anything clear. Most regulations have nothing to do with profits per se. Even workplace regulations are about a host of things other than profits. And various workplace regulations which improve conditions for workers, ultimately add to the sustainability and profitability of the company. Just because you can find examples where workers are abused doesn't mean that businesses generally try to "get away" with mistreatment of employees. You can find examples of workers "getting away" with stuff which hurts their employers. Should there be more or less regulations about that? Should regulations all be about benefitting the "worker"?
There are regulations meant to benefit workers which temporarily benefit some of them but hurt many others, as well as making it more difficult for businesses to compete. Constant minimum wage hikes, for example--some workers have to be let go, prices rise, the rise in base wage causes the eventual chain reaction of a rise in all wages and prices, which all eventually restabilizes to pre minimum wage raise equilibrium and all that is gained is inflation.
One of the most pernicious aspects of overregulation is the consolidation of business into bigger companies in order to manage problems of regulation, and that is accompanied with the squeezing out of smaller businesses which find the problem increasingly difficult to handle. We are witnessing the so-called shrinking of the middle class in part due to that connection of big government with big business. Whether by design or by accident, the regulatory burden is making small business starts and growth more difficult.
Another pernicious aspect of regulation is the politicization of federal regulatory agencies which have become perfect tools for implanting and enforcing ideological and political agendas on the whole country. The abuse of agency plenary power has become a favorite way to "transform" us in ways that would be difficult to impossible to achieve through constitutional legislative process.
Returning regulatory power back to the states would help stop and reverse the authoritarian direction of centralized power into which we are quickly heading.
yet you'll still repeat GOP talking point that reductions in regulation are some how beneficial or just that people like the cod father would just do it anyway
Other than spouting some Marxist gibberish, you haven't said anything to prove that some reductions in regulation are not beneficial, nor that people like the Codfather would not do it anyway.
take illegal immigration many have no issue using the argument that more Laws and regulations along the border would prevent crimes from Illegals.. i dont hear you say current regulations or laws "didn't prevent him from doing what he did. as an excuse for their crimes"
As has been mentioned by TDF and Jim in CT, what has been said is that current regulations or laws are not enforced. And it has been admitted that some people will not obey laws. No one has said that laws prevent all crime. That's why I don't get what your point is with the Codfather story.
Laws and regulations aren't the perfect solution. I agree 100% but if the Codfather had less regulations the ease which he committed his crimes could have easily been greater
There you go again, wading into the mud of unclear thinking.
Trump wants to abandon all rules and turn America into the Wild West.
Again, you trespass your own dislike of "the sky is falling" argument.
Thats exactly what he wants to do have you not paid attention to his appointments or his actions ?/
You're listening to the wrong people. Broaden your horizons. Digest some different opinions. It might chase away some of your Chicken Little blues.
there are 29 superfund sites in MA and 8 military sites here is just one and an example of past failures create regulations
The Shpack landfill was situated on land owned by Isadore and Lea Shpack. Isadore Shpack, a Russian immigrant and retired New York City municipal employee, began allowing dumping on the property in an effort to fill in its swamp. He then planned to raise an orchard and cultivate vegetables on the reclaimed land.[7][15] Shpack allowed completely unregulated dumping and is reported locally to have accepted any type of waste which was refused by the neighbouring municipal landfill.[16]
The ALI landfill was originally Attleboro's municipal dump from the 1940s until 1975. In 1975 it was purchased by Attleboro Landfill Inc. which continued to use it as a landfill until 1995.[17]
Discovery of contamination[edit]
In 1978 John Sullivan, a 20-year-old local resident who was also a student at the Florida Institute of Technology, became curious about why snails in the area were losing their shells. He visited the Shpack site with a Geiger counter which detected a high level of radiation emissions.[4][15][18][19] Initially "ridiculed" about his claim of discovering radioactivity at the dump, Sullivan contacted the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) which then carried out its own investigation and confirmed the presence of radioactivity.[20] The site was found to contain Radium-226, Radium-228, Uranium-235, Uranium-236 and Uranium-238.[20] The presence of Uranium-236 was indicative of reprocessed reactor fuel being dumped at the site,