One step forward, two steps back for regulations.

[Phil1111 1,172]

SkyDekker

***

Quote

http://thelibertarianrepublic.com/...o-stupid-to-believe/

For those who don't feel like clicking on the link, here are the stupid regulations:

1. Oregon state water collection permitting
2. No selling of raw milk (Federal)
3. Some localities in Florida require recycling
4. Some unnamed localities don't let kids have lemonade stands
5. You have to follow fire codes in Phoenix, even if you are doing Bible study
6. Residential zoning laws in Tulsa restrict the height of plants

Only one of those laws is a Federal regulation. The same one is the only one that could be interpreted as harming small businesses, namely raw milk providers.

Try again.

True. Though the raw milk one is likely in effect because salmonella, E. coli and listeria outbreaks are expensive.

Raw milk can be consumed safely, but will likely need....you guessed it, regulation that is enforced to keep it safe on a large scale.

Raw milk can really only be sold within a day to a week of production. If any transportation is involved it can be dangerous. Temperature control is critical.

I remember being on the farm when I was five or so. Getting squirted right in the mouth from the teat of the cow. There is allot of junk science in the interwebs regarding milk. One promoter of raw milk goes on and on about the health benefits of it. Absolute fu**king garbage, garbage. Its no more beneficial than pasteurized. He goes on to state that over one percent is sold unpasteurized. That 1/over 90,000 cases of raw milk consumption results in a case of food illness.

What's not stated is that the consumption of this raw milk is for cheese production. Not direct consumption. People read this and they form the same opinions of anti-science. The CDC knows nothing. The national centers of xx science research are all idiots for these reasons. All arising from the opinions of a high school graduate with a website.

If trump wants to cut regulation. He has to direct departments of the government to come up with the regulations to be cut. i.e. Dept of Agriculture "X" regulation cut for xyz reasons. Then a 60-90 day feedback period for submissions. Or some similar procedures.

Any other methodology for cutting of regulations from a top down perspective. i.e. bannon writes the Executive Order to cut 3000 regulations. Will result in the same mess as in the refugee admission hold order now.

If people think some politicians in Washington are going to cut State, city or municipal regulations. They are being pandered to.

People in China:
" Are Chinese citizens fully aware of food safety problems in their country? How do they deal with them?

The residents of Beijing are well aware of (food safety) problems. I can think of four ways in particular that their concern has become evident in recent years.

The first is the proliferation and patronage of foreign import food stores. When I first came to mainland China, there was one such store in Beijing, little more than a hole in the wall, which catered entirely to the foreign population. Today that original shop has eight locations in the city. There are now four competing chains as well, and most have numerous full-sized grocery stores. Even as recently as five years ago, the vast majority of patrons were still foreigners. However, today these stores are filled with Chinese patrons, even though the product markup can often be 100 percent or more above what those items would cost back home."
http://www.foodsafetynews.com/2014/07/chinas-food-safety-issues-are-worse-than-you-thought/#.WJCm6n88Z0w

US exports flow to the world. Have brand loyalty and identity thought the world, for a reason. Safety and consistency. Two factors that typically arise from either regulation. Or compliance to a set of standards and protocols that would parallel regulations.

Some people have been led to believe that US regulations are so erroneous on business, such a drag on development. That the rest of the world benefits because they don't have similar regulations. That burden US exporters. Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the EU, Japan and China to some extent. All have similar manufacturing, food safety and production regulations. ISO 9000, 9001, standards are a world standard. All the aforementioned countries have to comply to almost the same regulations for export products.

The so called "deregulation" drive to US competitiveness is a sham idea. Perpetuated by those who are just anti-government. Anti-regulation. Those who see Washington and the US federal government as a "enemy" so to speak. Thats not to say that China is at times guilty of "dumping".

"In economics, "dumping" is a kind of predatory pricing, especially in the context of international trade. It occurs when manufacturers export a product to another country at a price either below the price charged in its home market or below its cost of production."

That China and other countries are not currency manipulators. Who use deflated currencies to drive exports. Those are separate from over-regulation. US citizens who believe regulation is destructive to US exporters need to leave the US and travel.

Or dive into a section of EU regulations regarding say... wine production, labeling,branding and exporting. Till then they are being deluded by bannon type(s) who just hate government. Who really just want to live in the mountains of Idaho and tell the "Feds in Washington" to go "fu*k themselves" and to take California with them. As all i need is my guns.

US nationals need to look at the regulations in Switzerland, Germany. Yet these countries compete. Compete worldwide. Yet these counties have, ( DM prior to the euro) had strong currencies. Yet they competed and dominated some markets. There are not US business that are decrying over-regulation. Berkshire Hathaway is not banging on the doors on congress. Cat, Boeing, etc. No its those being led around by the nose. Those who have preconceived notions about Washington D.C. directing their lives. That without Washington, GDP would jump to 4%. Incomes would rise $30k a year.

Its....a...sham.

[billvon 3,109]

>You don't really think the USPA is looking out for your best interests in DC do you?

USPA is looking out for the skydiving industry's best interests. And when I make enough of a stink, they look out for my interests too. So I support them.

The BSR's seem to work. It would be foolish indeed to start removing them just because someone thinks there are too many to remember, or there are too many to fit on one page.

Edited to add - to be more accurate, USPA is looking out for the interests of its most vocal members - the people who write letters, show up at meetings, call Jay and Ed and complain etc. Most of them are DZO's and gear manufacturers.

[kallend 2,146]

billvon

>You don't really think the USPA is looking out for your best interests in DC do you?

USPA is looking out for the skydiving industry's best interests. And when I make enough of a stink, they look out for my interests too. So I support them.

The BSR's seem to work. It would be foolish indeed to start removing them just because someone thinks there are too many to remember, or there are too many to fit on one page.

I support my local DZ owners because without them I would have a very hard time skydiving. And if USPA looks out for their interests I have no problem with that so long as there is no actual conflict with my interests.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[airdvr 210]

kallend

***>You don't really think the USPA is looking out for your best interests in DC do you?

USPA is looking out for the skydiving industry's best interests. And when I make enough of a stink, they look out for my interests too. So I support them.

The BSR's seem to work. It would be foolish indeed to start removing them just because someone thinks there are too many to remember, or there are too many to fit on one page.

I support my local DZ owners because without them I would have a very hard time skydiving. And if USPA looks out for their interests I have no problem with that so long as there is no actual conflict with my interests.

No argument from me on those points however, if you think regulations aren't passed that favor one entity over the other you're in denial.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[Royreader8812 0]

USC §§333, 352 & 21 CFR §332.30(b) make it a federal crime to sell anti-flatulent drugs without noting flatulence is "referred to as gas"

USC §1011(f) & 36 CFR §261.4(b) make it a crime to say something so annoying to someone that it makes them hit you in a national forest.

U.S.C. §207, §205(e) & 27 C.F.R. §4.39(a)(9) make it a federal crime to sell wine with a brand name including the word "zombie."

USC §333 & 21 CFR §102.39 make it a crime to sell onion rings resembling normal onion rings, but made from diced onion, without saying so

U.S.C. §8103(b)(4) makes it a federal crime to injure a government-owned lamp.

USC §1865 & 36 CFR §7.96(b)(3) make it a federal crime to harass a golfer in any national park in Washington, DC.

Who needs skydiving organisations when.you have federal laws;

U.S.C. §46316(a) & 14 C.F.R. §105.7(a) make it a federal crime to skydive while drunk.

Lol. There are many.many stupid laws. Get rid of them.

[jakee 1,594]

airdvr

No argument from me on those points however, if you think regulations aren't passed that favor one entity over the other you're in denial.

And how is the new order going to affect that?

The companies that have the best lobbyists right now are just going to get a 2 for 1 deal aren't they? Push through a regulation that hinders their competition, and get rid of two regulations which hinder them (which presumably their competition brought down on them back when they had the best lobbyists).

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 3,109]

All of those sound like good ones to get rid of. Why wait until someone passes a new regulation?

[billvon 3,109]

>however, if you think regulations aren't passed that favor one entity over the other
>you're in denial.

Or aspects of the same entity. Cloud clearance requirements place skydiver safety over DZ (and boogie) profitability. Minimum opening altitudes favor skydiver safety over skydiver freedom - but both are aspects of a single entity, the skydiver.

[Phil1111 1,172]

Royreader8812

USC §§333, 352 & 21 CFR §332.30(b) make it a federal crime to sell anti-flatulent drugs without noting flatulence is "referred to as gas"

USC §1011(f) & 36 CFR §261.4(b) make it a crime to say something so annoying to someone that it makes them hit you in a national forest.

U.S.C. §207, §205(e) & 27 C.F.R. §4.39(a)(9) make it a federal crime to sell wine with a brand name including the word "zombie."

USC §333 & 21 CFR §102.39 make it a crime to sell onion rings resembling normal onion rings, but made from diced onion, without saying so

U.S.C. §8103(b)(4) makes it a federal crime to injure a government-owned lamp.

USC §1865 & 36 CFR §7.96(b)(3) make it a federal crime to harass a golfer in any national park in Washington, DC.

Who needs skydiving organisations when.you have federal laws;

U.S.C. §46316(a) & 14 C.F.R. §105.7(a) make it a federal crime to skydive while drunk.

Lol. There are many.many stupid laws. Get rid of them.

I see these "regulations" posted on the same anti-government websites. But when i google the exact regulation. I get vastly different results.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/331

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/7/8103

Has anyone actually researched the(these) supposed regulations to see if they are "real"?

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CFR-2002-title27-vol1/pdf/CFR-2002-title27-vol1.pdf

"(9) Any word in the brand name or class and type designation which is the name of a distilled spirits product or which simulates, imitates, or created the impression that the wine so labeled is, or is similar to, any product customarily made with a distilled spirits base. Examples of such words are: “Manhattan,” “Martini,” and “Daquiri” in a class and type designation or brand name of a wine cocktail; “Cuba Libre,” “Zombie,” and “Collins” in a class and type designation or brand name of a wine specialty or wine highball; “creme,” “cream,” “de,” or “of” when used in conjunction with “menthe,” “mint,” or “cacao” in a class and type designation or a brand name of a mint or chocolate flavored wine specialty. "

This is the section and the context of one of these supposed outrageous government regulations. With the context intended.

Open eyes, brain in gear, start day.

[DanG 1]

Fascinating.

So anyway, was Russia's invasion and annexation of Crimea illegal?

- Dan G

[Phil1111 1,172]

Royreader8812

U.S.C. §8103(b)(4) makes it a federal crime to injure a government-owned lamp.

I tried to find this regulation since google searches show so many references to anti-regulation and anti-government websites. Occasionally they come up referencing water and marine navigation.

I'm going to take a stab at this.

Its unlawful for anyone to remove, modify, conceal, disguise, any lamp, beacon, light or to " injure a government-owned lamp", beacon,light, etc. used, installed, intended, by any government agency. For the purpose of marine navigation.

Above all fabricated for illustration. Perhaps someone else can find the real regulation. Not that it would satisfy for a second the minds of those who believe Washington is populated by the devil incarnate. That government regulations should be discarded wholesale. In order to make America GREAT and achieve 4% GDP.

[kallend 2,146]

Phil1111

***
U.S.C. §8103(b)(4) makes it a federal crime to injure a government-owned lamp.

I tried to find this regulation since google searches show so many references to anti-regulation and anti-government websites. Occasionally they come up referencing water and marine navigation.

I'm going to take a stab at this.

Its unlawful for anyone to remove, modify, conceal, disguise, any lamp, beacon, light or to " injure a government-owned lamp", beacon,light, etc. used, installed, intended, by any government agency. For the purpose of marine navigation.

Above all fabricated for illustration. Perhaps someone else can find the real regulation. Not that it would satisfy for a second the minds of those who believe Washington is populated by the devil incarnate. That government regulations should be discarded wholesale. In order to make America GREAT and achieve 4% GDP.

Indeed, without specifying which particular title of the USC it comes from, it's meaningless. Rather like most of Comrade Roy's posts.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,109]

Found one!

"USC §1865 & 36 CFR §7.96(b)(3) make it a federal crime to harass a golfer in any national park in Washington, DC."

Here's the actual regulation:

"This section applies to all park areas administered by National Capital Region."

"(b) (3) No person may use golf or tennis facilities without paying the required fee, and in compliance with conditions approved by the Regional Director. Trespassing, intimidating, harassing or otherwise interfering with authorized golf players, or interfering with the play of tennis players is prohibited."

So you have to pay to use the course/court (if required) you can't trespass, and you can't interfere with people who did pay.

That sounds . . . pretty reasonable.

[Phil1111 1,172]

Well in his defense there are hundreds of websites and thousands of reference to these exact regulations. The one for wine is entirely appropriate and so in the one for Onion Rings. I haven't looked up the onion ring regulation. I don't need to.

When food products are involved and export requirements to be met by either brands. Or by food categories. It has to be specified and regulated by federal law. Otherwise cheating, mislabeling, puffing, would be the norm. It's like Idaho potatoes. If it ain't from Idaho...

Other countries require these standards for importation. Its like wheat. Its defined by moisture content, protein content, herbicide and pesticide residue, etc. etc. I'm guessing a kernel of wheat had a page of regulations and definitions associated with it. Otherwise it could not enter the export food chains to be sold by/to Cargill, Con-agra, Tyson etc.

[SkyDekker 1,465]

billvon

Found one!

"USC §1865 & 36 CFR §7.96(b)(3) make it a federal crime to harass a golfer in any national park in Washington, DC."

Here's the actual regulation:

"This section applies to all park areas administered by National Capital Region."

"(b) (3) No person may use golf or tennis facilities without paying the required fee, and in compliance with conditions approved by the Regional Director. Trespassing, intimidating, harassing or otherwise interfering with authorized golf players, or interfering with the play of tennis players is prohibited."

So you have to pay to use the course/court (if required) you can't trespass, and you can't interfere with people who did pay.

That sounds . . . pretty reasonable.

How dare you call that reasonable. Only pompous jackass douchebags play golf or tennis. They probably all drive Teslas too.

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Found it:

§8103. Application of District of Columbia laws to public buildings and grounds
(a) Application of Laws.-Laws and regulations of the District of Columbia for the protection of public or private property and the preservation of peace and order are extended to all public buildings and public grounds belonging to the Federal Government in the District of Columbia.
(b) Penalties.-A person shall be fined under title 18, imprisoned for not more than six months, or both if the person-
(1) is guilty of disorderly and unlawful conduct in or about those public buildings or public grounds;
(2) willfully injures the buildings or shrubs;
(3) pull downs, impairs, or otherwise injures any fence, wall, or other enclosure;
(4) injures any sink, culvert, pipe, hydrant, cistern, lamp, or bridge; or
(5) removes any stone, gravel, sand, or other property of the Government, or any other part of the public grounds or lots belonging to the Government in the District of Columbia.
( Pub. L. 107–217, Aug. 21, 2002, 116 Stat. 1205 .)
source

The term "injures" seems a bit antiquated, no doubt a consequence of the law dating to the laws origins in the 1890s. "Damage" would be the modern sense or the word.

Apparently Royreader thinks it would be perfectly fine for people to damage or destroy public buildings, bridges, walls, etc. Only an over-zealous government could possibly object to someone taking a sledgehammer to, for example, the Lincoln Memorial.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Phil1111 1,172]

For sure. Today injures would be causes damage. There are not many cisterns left. Most people wouldn't even know what one is. Let alone try to find a company to deliver water.

To the topic at hand. In the interests of saving money. In the interests of government efficiency, economy and cost reduction. Is it worth while to have legislation drafted to change "injury" to "causes damage". When most people, juries and judges would know the difference. When the relevant regulation is read in court because a crack whore broke a light in a public washroom in Washington D.C.?

When a contractor doing renovations to a hotel at 1100 Pennsylvania Ave NW, Washington, DC 20004 knocks down a light. Then never replaces it because it casts a shadow on a huge golden T. Interfering with the glow of the "T", distracting from the importance of the golden symbol.

IMO its all part of a package of ideas. Government, regulations, Washington are evil and unnecessary.

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Clearly some regulations are "out of date", as are some laws, in that they pertain to situations that no longer are relevant. These are the usual source of those "hilarious" lists of stupid laws, such as the ones about not tying your horse to a street light on Sunday or whatever. It might be worthwhile going through the books and cleaning those up once in a while, but that is not entirely cost-free as legislatures may have to take time to pass legislation repealing old laws, and the statutes then have to be printed in x number of hard copies and distributed to courthouses/libraries etc. Sometimes it's more cost effective to just leave them be but don't enforce them.

It's something else entirely to take a reasonable law or regulation, strip much of the text out of it, then invent an absurd scenario to apply the "abridged" law to, so as to make the law look ridiculous. That is a dishonest tactic used to discredit regulations or laws that are a "burden" to someone who doesn't care about the harm done by abandoning the law. An example would be Trump's absurd rant against regulations banning certain ozone-destroying chlorofluorocarbons because his buildings are so airtight his hairspray doesn't get out.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[GeorgiaDon 379]

Here's a few more. I didn't bother to look them all up. The common thread in many of the items in Royreader's list is that they come from laws that require you to accurately describe the products you are selling. Apparently in Trumpland or Russia or wherever it's OK to sell counterfeit drugs and medical devices, pretend that prominent people have endorsed your product when they have not, and so on.

Royreader8812

USC §§333, 352 & 21 CFR §332.30(b) make it a federal crime to sell anti-flatulent drugs without noting flatulence is "referred to as gas"

21 U.S. Code § 352 - Misbranded drugs and devices

The law in question makes it a crime to sell misbranded or counterfeit drugs or medical devices, and stipulates information that must be included on the label. Apparently Royreader thinks selling unknown drugs or medical devices disguised as authentic products is just fine. Not his problem if your chemo drug is horse piss and you die of cancer, I suppose. I did not find any mention of "flatulence" or "gas".

Quote

USC §1011(f) & 36 CFR §261.4(b) make it a crime to say something so annoying to someone that it makes them hit you in a national forest.

Quote

U.S.C. §207, §205(e) & 27 C.F.R. §4.39(a)(9) make it a federal crime to sell wine with a brand name including the word "zombie."

§ 4.39 Prohibited practices.
(a)Statements on labels.Containers of wine, or any label on such containers, or any individual covering, carton, or other wrapper of such container, or any written, printed, graphic, or other matter accompanying such container to the consumer shall not contain:

(1) Any statement that is false or untrue in any particular, or that, irrespective of falsity, directly, or by ambiguity, omission, or inference, or by the addition of irrelevant, scientific or technical matter, tends to create a misleading impression.

(2) Any statement that is disparaging of a competitor's products.

(3) Any statement, design, device, or representation which is obscene or indecent.

(4) Any statement, design, device, or representation of or relating to analyses, standards, or tests, irrespective of falsity, which the appropriate TTB officer finds to be likely to mislead the consumer.

(5) Any statement, design, device or representation of or relating to any guarantee, irrespective of falsity, which the appropriate TTB officer finds to be likely to mislead the consumer. Money-back guarantees are not prohibited.

(6) A trade or brand name that is the name of any living individual of public prominence, or existing private or public organization, ... if the use of such name or representation is likely falsely to lead the consumer to believe that the product has been endorsed, made, or used by, or produced for, or under the supervision of, or in accordance with the specifications of, such individual ...

(7) Any statement, design, device, or representation (other than a statement of alcohol content in conformity with § 4.36), which tends to create the impression that a wine:

(i) Contains distilled spirits;

(ii) Is comparable to a distilled spirit; or

(iii) Has intoxicating qualities.

(9) Any word in the brand name or class and type designation which is the name of a distilled spirits product or which simulates, imitates, or created the impression that the wine so labeled is, or is similar to, any product customarily made with a distilled spirits base. Examples of such words are: “Manhattan,” “Martini,” and “Daquiri” in a class and type designation or brand name of a wine cocktail; “Cuba Libre,” “Zombie,” and “Collins” in a class and type designation or brand name of a wine specialty or wine highball; “creme,” “cream,” “de,” or “of” when used in conjunction with “menthe,” “mint,” or “cacao” in a class and type designation or a brand name of a mint or chocolate flavored wine specialty.

Quote

USC §333 & 21 CFR §102.39 make it a crime to sell onion rings resembling normal onion rings, but made from diced onion, without saying so

Another one relating to a law requiring sellers to accurately label/not misrepresent food products they sell. Duh!

Quote

U.S.C. §8103(b)(4) makes it a federal crime to injure a government-owned lamp.

I dealt with this one already. It's a crime to destroy public property including buildings, bridges, walls, and "lamps". Duh!

Quote

USC §1865 & 36 CFR §7.96(b)(3) make it a federal crime to harass a golfer in any national park in Washington, DC.

(3)Golf and tennis; fees. No person may use golf or tennis facilities without paying the required fee, and in compliance with conditions approved by the Regional Director. Trespassing, intimidating, harassing or otherwise interfering with authorized golf players, or interfering with the play of tennis players is prohibited.

I guess Royreader thinks golfers should welcome being assaulted?

Quote

Who needs skydiving organisations when.you have federal laws;

U.S.C. §46316(a) & 14 C.F.R. §105.7(a) make it a federal crime to skydive while drunk.

Also a crime for the pilot to be drunk. Why do we need laws against drunk pilots? Or drunk drivers for that matter? Damn interfering government, getting between a pilot and his booze. None of their business I say!

Quote

Lol. There are many.many stupid laws. Get rid of them.

Absolutely! If you are so stupid as to believe packages should actually contain the products listed on the label, or that prescription drugs will actually contain real medicine, or that your pilot is sober, you're a liberal fool! Get rid of all these laws and let the marketplace decide! We don't need no nanny state to protect us! These useless regulations just make it harder for dishonest folks to make a buck. Next thing you know, people will expect Trump steaks to contain actual meat!

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[Royreader8812 0]

Quote

All of those sound like good ones to get rid of. Why wait until someone passes a new regulation

?

Well I didn't do my homework enough and posted some misleading ones that I came across on a website.
.
This is not to say many laws exist that do not need to. The order will no.doubt be retracted when the point comes that there are no more stupid laws to.repeal. probably before.

[Stumpy 284]

Royreader8812

Well I didn't do my homework enough and posted some misleading ones that I came across on a website.

This behaviour led people to vote for trump

Never try to eat more than you can lift

[billvon 3,109]

>This is not to say many laws exist that do not need to.

Agreed. Repeal them. Don't keep them on the books so you have some to use when you want to pass a new regulation.

But back to the BSR's. Let's say you wanted to pass a new one regarding wingsuit training, or canopy flight in a pattern. Which two would you repeal?

[JerryBaumchen 1,465]

Hi Roy,

Quote

Well I didn't do my homework enough and posted some misleading ones that I came across on a website.

This is How to Look Stupid 101. Want to take the next course?

Or you could ask rushmc for some guidance, he's an old hand at it.

Jerry Baumchen

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Well I didn't do my homework enough and posted some misleading ones that I came across on a website.

You are in fine company, both Rush and Trump appear to operate the same way.

[rushmc 23]

JerryBaumchen

Hi Roy,

Quote

Well I didn't do my homework enough and posted some misleading ones that I came across on a website.

This is How to Look Stupid 101. Want to take the next course?

Or you could ask rushmc for some guidance, he's and old hand at it.

Jerry Baumchen

Well aren't we in a good mood today

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln