United States Chemical Safety Board (USCSB) Thread
- Thread starter Aaron Fox
- Start date
Well, given what was going on in the Gilded Age is part of why, is it surprising that the Left had a point, even if the Socialists co-opted it, like they do with so many other things?Appeal to Reason (newspaper) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
The abuses of the Gilded Age robber barons are what led to socialism seeming so appealing, when the other side of the coin were the worst excess of the unrestricted, pre-trust busting, pre-safety/labor standards corpo's of the early 20th century.
Incompatible Chemicals: Explosion at AB Specialty Silicones
Aaron Fox
Well-known member
It should be noted that, if given the choice, many companies would rather go back to that sort of SOP or go full Cyberpunk instead of going the morally uplifting route. While there are 'good faith' business elements that work, the problem is that it doesn't pay well in the view of the stockholders.
So, the sad reality is that you have to have enough rules and regulations to ensure that the above never happens... at least unless you want the planet to look like something straight out of Cyberpunk... or worse, because that's what decreasing the number of regulations means in the short and long run.
Hell, we had incidents where the staff were undertrained just to make a quick buck:
So, before you go for the 'LESS REGULATIONS!' spiel, remember that the fewer regulations you have, the more incidents like all the ones we've seen and others that didn't have the staff do everything in their power to rectify the situation will happen.
I think regulations should be efficient and easy to understand, so they are less open to both misunderstanding and less prone to being abused for frivolous litigation by bad actors who want to undertake regulatory capture.
If two rules can be condensed into one for the same effect on overall safety, or if a rule has been rendered moot by progress on either the tech or social side, then change is needed.
Just saying "MORE REGS IS ALWAY GOOD!" is part of how abusive regulatory capture schemes have enabled certain actors to create effective monopolies in emerging markets.
Aaron Fox
Well-known member
Problem is, doing that is how they worm their way to get rid of necessary regulations. Companies have always taken the 'give an inch, they get a mile' to its logical, profit-minded conclusion.
Basically, these groups tend to be the guys that prove the Chinese Legalists right. Period.
Inferno: Dust Explosion at Imperial Sugar and Iron in the Fire
Aaron Fox
Well-known member
The industries will not regulate themselves. Explosive/combustible dust is a hazard that many corporate types will ignore because the equipment, training, and safety mentality cut into the bottom line. Most US sugar mills are of the older design that caused the accident in question. However, regulations have been made to ensure that another Imperial Sugar isn't likely to happen again, but I'm not holding my breath.
See, that the thing, yes companies need to be kept in check when it come to cutting corners on safety and such.
However, regulations for the sake of regulations are far too often used in regulatory capture operations with for-profit motives, or as ways enact political attack operations against disfavored members of an industry.
Regulations, like laws, must be viewed not simply in isolation under the 'intended' guise, but must also be viewed as a double-edged sword that can both save and harm depending on the intentions of those wielding it.
It's not just a way to 'worm in and remove necessary regs', it's a way to fight back against regulatory and bureaucratic overreach; every bureaucracy exists to perpetuate itself, OSHA/NTSB/EPA not exempt.
Some regulations save lives, some just pad the bank accounts of the politically favored or strip the livelihoods from the disfavored, and some regs exist just to justify work hours for the inspectors.