Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
this is such a myopic way to understand regulation, it's dizzying.
|
I don't try to explain the impact of regulation, all I have done was to give an example of what happens when regulation restrict competition.
Quote:
|
what is required for ace or ustwo's position to be coherent is that you see regulation as an end in itself carried out in the interest of the technicians who fashion the regulation. which means that you exclude up front anything and everything that could make of regulation something coherent--you even exclude the end=point. i don't understand--maybe it's something that happens in conservativeland to normalize the way of "thinking" that has resulted in the iraq war--you know, whaddya mean incoherent, this is a way of thinking across the board.
|
If the FDA has regulatory control over the tobacco industry what will actually change? You must answer that question thoroughly to understand how the argument is coherent. If you don't take the time to do that, I certainly understand your problem with the argument.
Quote:
|
in the context of any negociated process, there are going to be trade-offs--it's what negociation is about--i don't see anything particular problematic in this particular situation--obviously pm supports this because if they don't, they are concerned about more draconian regulation against tobacco further down the road.
|
Or, Phillip Morris made moves to compartmentalize market risks. Hence they spun-off Kraft, and they spun-off their international tobacco company. The domestic company is now set up to assume no unpredictable market risk. Congress has provided the protection, the FDA can not even require the elemination of nicotine in cigaretts.
Quote:
|
obviously it is in the interests of other organizations who support such regulation to have something rather than nothing to show for their efforts. obviously it is in the interest of congress to appear to be operating in a direction that distinguishes it to some extent as an actor or arbitor. all this requires is that you think in a vague way about the process itself--but if you're going to claim that this is somehow about trial lawyers alone, you can't even do that: no wonder ace and ustwo oppose regulation in principle--they have views of it that MAKE regulation incoherent, and so they see only incoherence in it.
|
Why not specify those things you state and believe are obvious?
You also make a "straw man argument" by saying "about trial lawyers alone". Much has been written here, that is not about trial lawyers. Just like DC needs a single word to summarize a complex topic, seems you need a singular point to base your dispute on.
it's mind-boggling, really, that this sort of construct has any purchase with anyone.[/QUOTE]
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dc_dux
For the record:
Not that it matters, but I found it personally offensive for you to question the principles of persons here who support this bill.
|
I stand corrected.
Why is it offensive to question principles? I question my principles every time I am confronted with a major decision. I ask myself if the actions I am planning on taking are consistent with my principles? I ask myself what is it that I truly believe? Will the consequences of my actions be consistent with my principles?Are my principles correct? Has acting on my principles been good? Can I act in a manner more consistent with my principles?
If you or others communicate your priciples to me, I will ask those same questions and expect others will do the same with me. I my view there is nothing "offensive" with that.
P.S. You are correct this does not matter. As we dive into more and more trivia as it relates to the information in this thread, i think the value is totally lost. I will go back to non-fact based "drive-by" posts in the future.