Do we really need regulations?

[Ilie Pandia]

After looking at the video in this post: The Story of Cosmetics (http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?35569-The-Story-of-Cosmetics--2010-), I believe that recommending more regulation is not the solution, but actually a big part of the problem.

Mandatory regulations (as opposed to information bulletins) is giving your power away. Is like saying: "I am too dumb or too bored to decide myself, so I'll trust a third party with decisions related to my body, my food and my health."

Of course the FDA is advertised as "for your own good!". It omits the first part "Give your power away, for your own good!".

The main argument pro government regulation is that The Government (which allegedly represents The People) will look out for our interest and punish those companies that try to poison us.

OK, that is the declared mission. Now lets observe the actual, real results. FDA is responsible for approving substances that have studies to shows they are not good for our health. FDA has no problem to have tests done by the same company that produces the substances. FDA is responsible for actively suppressing natural remedies (such as cannabis and other natural cures for cancer and other problems).

In other words... EPIC FAIL!

The declared mission is NOT reflected in the actual real result.

But I hear you say: "Sure without any kind of regulation they would poison us even more, as nobody would check on them!!"

First, nobody is checking on them anyway! Studies made by the same company are clear conflict of interest. And as far as I know, negative results do not need to be published. (I may be wrong about this last statement). Also I believe that there are laws in place to prevent you from prosecuting a company if you have problems due to side effects (again I don't have a link to that law.)

Second, I suggest that FDA's mandatory regulation be replaced with informative bulletins. They would contain a comprehensive lists of products and where to find pro and against info about them, but leave the decision whether to use the product or not, with me!

Of course such bulletins may be biased, by those with money being able to manufacture more information, but with FDA's active suppression out of the way, and with the advent of Internet, cures that are cheap and WORK would go viral pretty fast.

I'd wager that poisonous chemical products would not stand a chance. I mean, look at us now! Even with all the bias and all the suppression we are still able to find alternatives IF we look for them, instead of waiting for FDA to do our thinking for us.

So I submit to you... more regulation is never the answer. More regulation only leads to concentration of power in the hands of those that pay the regulators.

As a conclusion:

One day I was waking with a friend. On the road before me there was a big hole. I carefully avoided it, and then came back next to my friend.

He said puzzled... "Wow.. how did you know to avoid that?... there is no regulation to say you should avoid big holes in the road... I am so confused..."

To that I have replied: "My mum told me not be an idiot. That's all the regulation I need."

[WhiteFeather]

You hit the nail right on the head here Ilie, Great thread. FDA = The Food and Drug Cartel - That's my name for them. They are regulating their own wealth and destruction of mankind. Its time for a full investigation on this cartel. Arrests are imminent here: Thanks for this thread.

[Maia Gabrial]

It took a lifetime to finally realize that the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY of my body and mind (and my children's while they're in my care) are MINE. All they can do is "recommend" or "suggest", but the decision is mine alone.
Give us the truthful facts, and we'll make informed decisions. Somewhere along the way they assumed that the few represented the many. Granted there are people who don't mind giving up their rights, responsibilities and sovereignties, but hopefully they're in the minority. We'll have to let these authorities know that they don't have the right to TELL us what to do. Just suggest and get the hell out of the way!

[Lord Sidious]

Sometimes in life, people need to fall off the bike a few times to figure out how to fine tune their balance.
Telling them they can't fall off or whatever won't help in the long run.
The problem is that most people have gotten used to being told how to live.

[DeDukshyn]

Well put Ilie - and it is the regulatory bodies that we are supposed to trust who are the worst offenders. FDA allows (or allowed - not sure the status now) a Pfizer subsidiary that made feed for big agra (big agra / big pharma - same thing) to put arsenic in the feed - while at the same time claiming its a carcinogen - which it is.

In other words, big pharma - supplies big agra with feed that can get into humans and cause cancer - then sells humans the "ongoing treatments" for cancer. The cycle is obvious - a 12 yr old can figure this out - and where's the FDA? Either fighting with the enemy against us or it is sold out.

So Ilie, what are we to do when the FDA is our enemy?

Responsible Anarchy is actually what I would like to see. ;)

[conk]

There is a much larger issue here. Regulations by a variety of agencies is fast becoming law. They have the force of law, but Congress never laid eyes on them. Some dweeb in a government agency issues the new "law" based on the needs of his future employer (some giant, mega-rich corporation). So, Executive Orders and regulations are taking everything from us. Who needs laws?

[christian]

The only genuine guiding principle is natural cosmic order discerned through letting it resonate within the heart.

Any imposed rules, laws and regulations will fall short, be circumvented or whatever.

'What we need' is being self-responsible and evolving spiritually genuinely.

[Eagle]

Ilie, you are right in that fact that we give our power away when we seek to have Government tell us what, whne, where, and how to do things. we need as Societies to get off our collective butt and take care of ourselves

[jorr lundstrom]

No, As there are no regulations anyway, obviously we dont need any. My

compound bow and my hunting arrows will hold every producer of wot I

eat or drink accountable for wots put into it.

[seko]

No, If we respect each other and each others property, there's no need for more regulations.

[Dennis Leahy]

I respectfully disagree with part of the original premise, my friend.

First let's start with what I DO agree with:
1.) The - CURRENT - FDA is a sham. You could almost do exactly the opposite of what they say and live a long healthy life. The collusion between corporations and the FDA is beyond astounding.

2.) We DO need to learn to read labels and make decisions for ourselves.

And now, for the "however..." clauses:
As you note by reading info about the cosmetics industry, an almost entirely unregulated industry, the monsters put poison in their products! They knowingly put poisons and carcinogenic substances in their products that make contact with our largest organ (our skin)! They probably do not do this to deliberately poison us (despite the fact that some of the individuals at the top of the pyramid are into eugenics); they use these chemicals because they are cheap.

I want this regulated!

I want it to be illegal to put any of a long list of substances into cosmetic products. These corporations have "limited liability", plus, it is impossible to say 20 years later why someone has liver cancer - maybe it was the toxins that were absorbed into the skin during shampooing. Most of the toxins allowed in products will not outright kill someone - it takes time. Think "Arsenic and Old Lace." And, most of the toxins probably will not add up to a lethal dose - but they do affect quality of life. Some of these same companies are owned by even bigger corporations that sell remedies for the skin conditions caused by the toxins.

It would be impossible for even a well-educated person to remember tens of thousands of additives (http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodIngredientsPackaging/FoodAdditives/FoodAdditiveListings/ucm091048.htm), what they do, what they cross-react with, etc. We either ban ALL man-made additives (how's that for regulation) or we need an agency with integrity to help us sort out this overwhelming mountain of information.

A good example of an unregulated corporation is Monsanto. Corporations are, by charter, by definition, sociopathic. Corporations need regulations.

Next, in order to make informed decisions, we need ingredient labels that actually list EVERY ingredient. To hell with secret formulas! (The process and the amounts of specific ingredients can remain a "trade secret", but I want to know exactly what the hell is "fragrance" - or, in the food industry, "spices" or "natural flavors.") Labels should have mandated guidelines on font size and degree of contrast that the average adult can actually read without having to remember to bring magnifying glasses. Fonts are allowed to be as small as 1/16" (1.6mm) high - how many over the age of 40 can read that? What good is a label if it cannot be read without strong magnifying glasses, and how am I supposed to read yellow text on a white background?

Ingredients with less than 1% by volume do not need to be listed, yet many toxins are deadly in "parts-per-million" and easily sneak-in under that weak restriction. 0.9% Fluoride compounds, anyone?

Teen and even pre-teen children now buy cosmetics, and are given gifts by adults that are not paying attention to ingredients, just to the smells or packaging, or popularity.

Words and phrases such as "natural" and even "organic" mean absolutely NOTHING in the cosmetics industry!

Cosmetics labeling: http://www.makingcosmetics.com/Labeling-of-Cosmetics-147.html
==========================================
Enjoy a relaxing shower with our new, ALL-NATURAL shower gel soap:
Mother Nature's Love
All Natural Ingredients:
Hexakis (2-methyl-2-phenylpropyl) distannoxane, 2,4,5-Trihydroxybutyrophenone (THBP), Potassium trichloroisocyanurate, Acrylic Acid 12-acrylamido-2,2-propionic sulfonic acid copolymer, N-(Mercaptomethyl) phthalimide S-(O,O-dimethylphos-phorodithioate), Octafluorocyclobutane , N-Trichloromethyl mercapto-4-cyclohexene-1,2-dicar-boximide, Paraformaldehyde, Chloropentafluoroethane, Glycerol ester of partially hydrogenated gum or wood rosin, Sodium p-toluenesulfonchloramide
==========================================


Still working on having US citizens take over the US government (and hope everyone in every country is doing the same thing.) We will NEVER have regulatory agencies that protect the public good as long as corporatist collusion remains.

Dennis

[Corncrake]

Sorry if the op was just meant to apply to the Cosmetics Industry but here is a 'control' that mattered. In short the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933 was introduced to stop High Street Banks speculating like the merchant or investment banks with their client's money. It was then repealed during the Reagan/Thatcher years which contributed greatly to the present day financial crisis.

[buckminster fuller]

I really can't see how to avoid rules and regulations in a monetary system... without money, everything becomes possible.

[Laura Elina]

I'd recommend an emergency broadcast stating that immediate turning on of one's own reasoning, motivation for doing research and using one's own skills of discernment (or at least trying to use your own judgement on making decisions) should be implemented.

But then again.

If those things were actually something they were teaching kids in school, looking at things and learning how to make a decision based on what is observed and learned from the process of research, and then actually basing those decisions on argumentation explaining how they got to their conclusions, we'd have a bunch of geniuses walking around and that can't possibly happen. Companies might actually get in trouble. And we might actually focus on something else besides just at times literally pepper spraying each other over a discount laptop.

But no.

That is an unfathomable concept to wrap one's mind around.

[Lord Sidious]

There is a much larger issue here. Regulations by a variety of agencies is fast becoming law. They have the force of law, but Congress never laid eyes on them. Some dweeb in a government agency issues the new "law" based on the needs of his future employer (some giant, mega-rich corporation). So, Executive Orders and regulations are taking everything from us. Who needs laws?

Sounds like you are describing public policy.


Ilie, you are right in that fact that we give our power away when we seek to have Government tell us what, whne, where, and how to do things. we need as Societies to get off our collective butt and take care of ourselves

And this is what I am trying to agitate people to do.
It may even be the mission I came here to do.


I really can't see how to avoid rules and regulations in a monetary system... without money, everything becomes possible.

And that is the entire problem with society as it is right now.
Let go of this monetary system and we can move on.
It is almost like a man or woman who won't let go of some thing in their life and so they are stuck too, except this is a whole planet.

[modwiz]

And that is the entire problem with society as it is right now.
Let go of this monetary system and we can move on.
It is almost like a man or woman who won't let go of some thing in their life and so they are stuck too, except this is a whole planet.

Bingo! Give the man a cigar. This is it! We as a society are the monkey who has reached into a jar and has hold of something we will not release. Consequently, we have our hand stuck in the jar and are 'imprisoned' by it. Some of the things we hold onto have no outward form. Things like anger or insecurities. These are the real challenges and shackles. These are the things you have to meditate upon or ponder to recognize and release. I guess this work could theoretically be done as a group in a forum setting but the conversations would have to change..... drastically.

Reading the posts by Carmody would necessary. One would also be at pains to understand them as well. No easy feat and would require some real effort on the part of the reader.

Great point here, M'lord.

[Ilie Pandia]

Yes Dennis,

If you take corruption and corporate collusion out of the equation then we indeed we have a new story on our hands, and regulations would actually help. But it seems to me you are describing the "mandatory format" of those informative bulletins I wrote about :). For example make it mandatory to write about your products: "this is known to cause cancer, in bit letters red on white" where BIG is clearly defined with a minimum size. You don't have the proper bulletin, you don't sell your stuff. I think for genuine healing products, a mandatory bulletin will not hurt...

[Eagle]

At what point however do you "decide" whats right and by who's definition. healing or otherwise I can sell you motor oil to drink and tell you it is for healing. when you make things mandatory you "Control" the issue

[DeDukshyn]

At what point however do you "decide" whats right and by who's definition. healing or otherwise I can sell you motor oil to drink and tell you it is for healing. when you make things mandatory you "Control" the issue

Absolutely nailed it.
And slowly, day by day, regulation by regulation, the choices and the ability to make those choices are taken away in place of mandates. They don't want you to even have the ability to make sound choices.

[Davidallany]

The only genuine guiding principle is natural cosmic order discerned through letting it resonate within the heart.

Any imposed rules, laws and regulations will fall short, be circumvented or whatever.

'What we need' is being self-responsible and evolving spiritually genuinely.
Great Chris. The truth shines with its own light.

[buckminster fuller]

Neo-liberalism is the model today. Its hopes are all based on removing regulations that doesn't allow it to have full control over the economy. It means imposing regulations over people to prevent them from acting upon the system.
It is not more or less regulations that is needed. We need regulations that protect the people, not the corporations. That promote social peace and prosperity, not fear and xenophobia. "Economic growth", consumerism, wars... all that is mandatory BS we have to accept because we are born in this paradigm where humans largely pretend to be evolved, but act like barbarians, in suits, with a laptop and a smile on their minions faces. This lack of intelligence, of self-respect really, is also regulated. Our environment, that is ecological, social, professional, you name it, is regulated in such a way that we are not in charge of it anymore. And we get processed from day one by this environment. "Genocidal" is the word coming to my mind.
To put it shortly, our future actually depends on which regulations will be used.

As I said earlier, we can't avoid regulations as long as we agree to this monetary game. It will take some time I guess before we get rid of it, shifting paradigms is not that easy seeing the complexity of the world today and the rate of changes we're witnessing.

[Dennis Leahy]

... it seems to me you are describing the "mandatory format" of those informative bulletins I wrote about :). For example make it mandatory to write about your products: "this is known to cause cancer, in bit letters red on white" where BIG is clearly defined with a minimum size. You don't have the proper bulletin, you don't sell your stuff. I think for genuine healing products, a mandatory bulletin will not hurt...
Agreed. I wrote something like this into The Reset Button document.

I still want known (man-made) carcinogens and toxins banned from cosmetics and food.

For something like raw milk, the FDA could simply require a label pointing to a bulletin. A current FDA bulletin on milk might say that there is a risk of live pathogens in "raw" (unpasteurized) milk. Buyer beware. But then maybe the bulletin could also say, "Pasteurized milk and milk products have been shown to cause numerous diseases and is more likely to cause allergic reactions than raw milk." If they really wanted to be nannies and wag fingers, they could say, "Non-human milk consumption by humans beyond infancy is not a dietary recommendation of the FDA." In any case, the consumer would make the decision to purchase or not.

The FDA has also been cracking down on herbal and homeopathic remedies. For remedies, I would want my brand new FDA staffed with a bunch of scientists of very high integrity, and have them test the claims of remedies. (For example: Does ginger really cure an upset stomach? How much is enough? How much is too much?) Then, this benevolent agency could publish scientific testing data for natural products that the pharmaceutical companies will NEVER test. So my vision of an FDA "for the people, by the people, and of the people" would be more than just a regulatory agency - they would be the public's advocate and provide scientific data so we would not have to rely strictly on anecdotal accounts for remedies.

If the product has never been tested by the FDA to support remedy claims, then the label would say "Not verified by FDA testing" or "Has not yet been tested by the FDA."

If tested, and the claim is bogus, the label could say, "FDA testing shows this product does not meet its claim." - but still allow it to be sold!

And, when they test and find things to be true, the label could say "This claim Verified by FDA testing." (Can't wait to see that on vials of cannabis oil sold as "anti-tumor" or "anti-cancer" medicine.)

So I say, label 'em, and point to a bulletin is a good way to go.


...It is not more or less regulations that is needed. We need regulations that protect the people, not the corporations. Yes, this is absolutely correct. Regulations can be deliberately punitive and crippling - and unfairly so - or they can be used to protect one player in an industry or the whole industry. Rarely do they ever actually protect consumers/citizens. Quite likely, nearly every regulation currently in force in the US (I don't know about other countries' regulations) is Orwellian double-speak and does the opposite of what it says - and or protects the unethical, amoral, and/or ecocidal actions of an industry. I think this is really going to hit home WHEN we citizens take control of our governments, and go about the task of prosecuting the monsters. We're going to find them well-protected by regulations and laws that prevent them from being easily convicted.

Dennis

[T Smith]

I respectfully disagree with part of the original premise, my friend.

First let's start with what I DO agree with:
1.) The - CURRENT - FDA is a sham. You could almost do exactly the opposite of what they say and live a long healthy life. The collusion between corporations and the FDA is beyond astounding.

2.) We DO need to learn to read labels and make decisions for ourselves.

And now, for the "however..." clauses:
As you note by reading info about the cosmetics industry, an almost entirely unregulated industry, the monsters put poison in their products! They knowingly put poisons and carcinogenic substances in their products that make contact with our largest organ (our skin)! They probably do not do this to deliberately poison us (despite the fact that some of the individuals at the top of the pyramid are into eugenics); they use these chemicals because they are cheap.

I want this regulated!

I want it to be illegal to put any of a long list of substances into cosmetic products. These corporations have "limited liability", plus, it is impossible to say 20 years later why someone has liver cancer - maybe it was the toxins that were absorbed into the skin during shampooing. Most of the toxins allowed in products will not outright kill someone - it takes time. Think "Arsenic and Old Lace." And, most of the toxins probably will not add up to a lethal dose - but they do affect quality of life. Some of these same companies are owned by even bigger corporations that sell remedies for the skin conditions caused by the toxins.

It would be impossible for even a well-educated person to remember tens of thousands of additives (http://www.fda.gov/Food/FoodIngredientsPackaging/FoodAdditives/FoodAdditiveListings/ucm091048.htm), what they do, what they cross-react with, etc. We either ban ALL man-made additives (how's that for regulation) or we need an agency with integrity to help us sort out this overwhelming mountain of information.

A good example of an unregulated corporation is Monsanto. Corporations are, by charter, by definition, sociopathic. Corporations need regulations.

Next, in order to make informed decisions, we need ingredient labels that actually list EVERY ingredient. To hell with secret formulas! (The process and the amounts of specific ingredients can remain a "trade secret", but I want to know exactly what the hell is "fragrance" - or, in the food industry, "spices" or "natural flavors.") Labels should have mandated guidelines on font size and degree of contrast that the average adult can actually read without having to remember to bring magnifying glasses. Fonts are allowed to be as small as 1/16" (1.6mm) high - how many over the age of 40 can read that? What good is a label if it cannot be read without strong magnifying glasses, and how am I supposed to read yellow text on a white background?

Ingredients with less than 1% by volume do not need to be listed, yet many toxins are deadly in "parts-per-million" and easily sneak-in under that weak restriction. 0.9% Fluoride compounds, anyone?

Teen and even pre-teen children now buy cosmetics, and are given gifts by adults that are not paying attention to ingredients, just to the smells or packaging, or popularity.

Words and phrases such as "natural" and even "organic" mean absolutely NOTHING in the cosmetics industry!

Cosmetics labeling: http://www.makingcosmetics.com/Labeling-of-Cosmetics-147.html
==========================================
Enjoy a relaxing shower with our new, ALL-NATURAL shower gel soap:
Mother Nature's Love
All Natural Ingredients:
Hexakis (2-methyl-2-phenylpropyl) distannoxane, 2,4,5-Trihydroxybutyrophenone (THBP), Potassium trichloroisocyanurate, Acrylic Acid 12-acrylamido-2,2-propionic sulfonic acid copolymer, N-(Mercaptomethyl) phthalimide S-(O,O-dimethylphos-phorodithioate), Octafluorocyclobutane , N-Trichloromethyl mercapto-4-cyclohexene-1,2-dicar-boximide, Paraformaldehyde, Chloropentafluoroethane, Glycerol ester of partially hydrogenated gum or wood rosin, Sodium p-toluenesulfonchloramide
==========================================


Still working on having US citizens take over the US government (and hope everyone in every country is doing the same thing.) We will NEVER have regulatory agencies that protect the public good as long as corporatist collusion remains.

Dennis

If the cosmetic industry is poisoning us, how about not wearing make-up?

The points you raise are valid, but attempting to regulate these corporations and industries is like throwing water on your clothes to dry them faster on the clothes line. Regulating these companies do little but foster a false sense of safety and security among consumers, which ultimately puts consumers at even greater risk. I respectfully disagree with the notion of creating order by force. It rarely, if ever works, especially when the controlling power is that which you are attempting to control or order.

I believe the points you raise are very serious issues... but I also think we need to begin thinking about them and solving them in ways other than regulation.

[Dennis Leahy]

If the cosmetic industry is poisoning us, how about not wearing make-up?

The points you raise are valid, but attempting to regulate these corporations and industries is like throwing water on your clothes to dry them faster on the clothes line. Regulating these companies do little but foster a false sense of safety and security among consumers, which ultimately puts consumers at even greater risk. I respectfully disagree with the notion of creating order by force. It rarely, if ever works, especially when the controlling power is that which you are attempting to control or order.

I believe the points you raise are very serious issues... but I also think we need to begin thinking about them and solving them in ways other than regulation.
I have a daughter, and if I sound a bit paternal, well, I probably am. I am trying to teach her, as best I can, but the marketers and advertisers are very very good at what they do.

I am looking at this more in practical terms than philosophical terms. I personally have educated myself enough where I don't really need most of the regulations I would like to see in place. It is sort of the Mahayana Buddhist approach that decides to assist others that may not have attained this level of self-education.

Lately, I have been in contact with some homeless people, as well as some people that appear to me to also be mentally ill. I have fed them with bowls of veggie soup from my organic garden. They would have eaten anything I offered them, because they were hungry.

Today, virtually every single child in a public school in the US, every senior citizen in a facility for the elderly, every imprisoned inmate, every hospital patient ate genetically modified food, laced with numerous toxins. Tomorrow, the same fate awaits them, and the following day... Yes, community based agriculture is "booming", growing, more farmers markets popping up - and the people who have educated themselves are regulating their own food intake. The other 300 million either haven't caught-up in education yet, or are stuck eating whatever is served.

I have a vision of regulating the end of "conventional" toxic farming and replacing it with all organic farming from coast to coast, and from the Canadian to the Mexican border. This will either happen because of new regulations, or it will not happen. In fact, the opposite of my vision is the continued march of GMO crops, "suicide seeds", more and more and more chemicals dumped on the land destroying more and more soil viability... (I hate to even type-out that alternative future.)

Yes, I want to regulate the pesticide, herbicide, fungicide, inorganic fertilizer, and genetically modified seed markets to death. Literally. They will never go peacefully into the night, they will either be regulated out of business, or they will stay in business and keep trying to expand their market share. They are sociopathic.

Maybe someday far in the future, once mass media no longer is pure lies and propaganda, then maybe society would reject toxic food, but for right now, I think we need to watch out for the huge majority of people stuck eating food with whatever toxins happen to be in the food they are served.

Dennis

[Maia Gabrial]

Yes Dennis,

If you take corruption and corporate collusion out of the equation then we indeed we have a new story on our hands, and regulations would actually help. But it seems to me you are describing the "mandatory format" of those informative bulletins I wrote about . For example make it mandatory to write about your products: "this is known to cause cancer, in bit letters red on white" where BIG is clearly defined with a minimum size. You don't have the proper bulletin, you don't sell your stuff. I think for genuine healing products, a mandatory bulletin will not hurt...

In the case of meds, there should be ONE strict regulation: if it doesn't effectively cure an ailment or cause much worse side effects, then it should not be manufactured in any way, shape or form. I still believe that natural remedies should be stressed....

How many people have watched commercials for some medication (like Cymbalta or Astra Zenica) and heard the list of side effects given as a warning? Makes you wonder why anyone would want to cure one thing, only to have something much worse happen to them....?


At what point however do you "decide" whats right and by who's definition. healing or otherwise I can sell you motor oil to drink and tell you it is for healing. when you make things mandatory you "Control" the issue

Great point, Dig. I think it should ALWAYS be YOU who decides anything that's right or wrong for you. They should give you the truthful facts and then you decide if that's what you want. Most people would reject anything that is even slightly harmful for them....The whole point is that agencies like the FDA want to take that sovereign right from us.

[13th Warrior]

I just have to post about the irony of an Administrator/Moderator starting a tread "Do we really need regulations?"

[Ilie Pandia]

I just have to post about the irony of an Administrator/Moderator starting a tread "Do we really need regulations?"

That's a good point, but participation in the Avalon Forum is not mandatory and you will not go to jail or pay a huge fine if you do not respect the community guidelines. You will simply have to find another community more to your liking.

The same thing cannot be said about FDA regulations, that have the power of law.

Also, as far as can see, the mission of the moderation team to keep this a positive and informative forum is actually reflected in reality. Again, that cannot be said about FDA :)

And, if you recall, I've posted a while a back that my hope is the moderation will become obsolete in the near future and members will "self-moderate".

[Dennis Leahy]

I just have to post about the irony of an Administrator/Moderator starting a tread "Do we really need regulations?"

hahahaaha someone must have hijacked Ilie's account!


I do think there is a "theoretical" wise position and a "practical" wise position to take on this issue. It seems to me that most folks here are looking at a theoretical position. And, theoretically, I agree. If we formed a commune or a colony or a big Earthship that was filled with primarily awake and aware people, we might actually be able to set up a society that is even looser than anarchy.

But for practical purposes, in a world primarily filled with people who are not yet awake and aware, plus (and it is a BIG plus), the world we live in has a percentage of sneaky, nefarious, malevolent, greedy people - and they currently cluster in the "owner/controller" positions in society. That is the primary reason that we cannot simply drop regulations. These nefarious people count on us allowing them to self-regulate, and to them, "self-regulate" means not to regulate their activities at all - and to hell with anyone that gets in their way!

No regulations means lead in paint on toys from China, and diethylene glycol in toothpaste.

No regulations means more likely and more severe nuclear accidents.

No regulations means banks can gamble away trillions of dollars.

No regulations means coal-fired electrical generation plants with no air scrubbers.

No regulations means feces in packaged meat products.

No regulations means the end of natural plant/seed genetics.

No regulations means the mining industry no longer even has to try half-assed to keep toxins out of our water.

I could go on with the list.

No regulations means sociopaths are free to destroy the environment, destroy entire ecosystems, extinct species - for their profit.

No regulations means sociopaths are free to use us however they want, and even to kill us. Again, other than a small society of individuals of extremely high integrity, a "no regulations" position is offering carte blanche to the nefarious ones. Once they destroy the air, water, and soil, how can even an enlightened person avoid being severely negatively affected?

"Rules", "regulations", "laws": how do you define the difference in those words/concepts? (I'm not talking about laws of physics, for example, but man-made rules, regulations, laws.)

I see this as a spectrum:

Rule by Rulers<-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|-----|----->Rule by Rules

---------------------------^ (we are here now)

-------------------------------------------------------------------^ (I'd like to be here)

I realize that the rulers could theoretically be anywhere from "benevolent" to "malevolent", and that the rules could be anything from "most compassionate" to "least compassionate", but trying to get back to the honest analysis of where we are on Earth right now, I see the rulers as moderately to extremely malevolent, and see a chance for society to democratically create rules/laws to live by that are compassionate (protect our health, our lives, and our environment - in the least restrictive ways.) So, I am promoting the "rule by rules" end of the spectrum, but not naively dropping our shields against the nefarious ones. Only rules/laws/regulations will stop the nefarious ones from performing nefarious deeds that affect all of society.

Dennis

[Ilie Pandia]

Hm... excellent point about "practice" and "theory", Dennis....

I need to check my GPS... it seems I'm on the wrong planet and timeline :biggrin:

[Dennis Leahy]

Hm... excellent point about "practice" and "theory", Dennis....

I need to check my GPS... it seems I'm on the wrong planet and timeline :biggrin:

You are on the right planet at the right time, and I am so thankful that you are here!

This giant (positive) paradigm change that we want has already begun. I'm not sure if there will be a huge phenomenal event that will mark the apex of the transition (in my gut, I still feel this coming, but I may be deluded), or if it will be more subtle series of smaller changes that only shows its true scope in retrospect. But, whichever way the transition progresses, I suspect that the rest of my life will be spent helping people move through the transition. There is a vast amount of fear, distrust, and a competitive meme stamped on peoples psyches, a tremendous environmental mess, and environmentally-induced illness. That's probably the "big reason" we are on Earth right now - we are the clean-up crew, cleaning everything from psyches to the physical environment - and I'll be proud to be working beside you, Ilie.

Dennis