I should have specified that “preventative” regulation is a form of socialism. I accidentally dropped “preventative” in the edit, for which I apologize. Punitive regulation is simply law specifically targeted at irresponsible individuals who cause harm to others. That I have no problem with, my problem is with preventative laws. And I consider all preventative laws to be ultimately futile and cost-inefficient, regardless of who practiced them.

Punitive regulation targets trucking companies that act irresponsibly and removes the benefits of doing so. Preventative laws create an incentive to act irresponsibly by imposing a cost on companies for often unnecessary regulation which raises their overhead and shrinks their profit margin…thereby creating an incentive to skirt safety regulations where they think the government won’t notice and where they think it will do the least harm. I am not advocating the removal of punitive regulation. I believe companies should be held accountable when they do irresponsible things. How many times do I have to repeat this before you get it? I just don’t believe in punishing people before they’ve done irresponsible things, or in futilely attempting to make a perfect world by the creation of utopian preventative laws, many of which are unenforceable and cause many of the problems you hope to avoid.

I believe that allowing drivers with poor eyesight to drive allows them to do things like go to the store to buy food, hold a job, travel where they need to when they need to. And I believe that punishing them when they cause an accident creates a financial incentive for them to act responsibly and limit the risks they generate without cutting off a key means of survival. Is it your position that all people with bad eyesight should barred from an essential means of travel…especially, say, those who live in rural areas where public transportation or a friendly neighbor aren’t available? Because frankly, telling people they have to sit in their home in poverty and starve to death because they have a disability seems rather cold of you.

Actually, I’m against bankruptcy laws too…I don’t believe the law should be used to protect people from their debts anymore than I believe the law should be used to punish people who haven’t done anything irresponsible. Hell, I could probably be convinced to support bringing back debtor’s prisons for people who don’t like paying their bills. And yes, I believe the overwhelming majority of companies will take all the necessary safety precautions to insure that they operate safely and responsibly. Especially if there is punishment in place for people who do things that cause death, injury, or damage. Like I said, punitive laws are designed to punish only the guilty. Preventative laws punish everyone. And the long history of industrial accidents you refer to (again, without substantiation) basically proves they don’t do a great job of stopping accidents either.

And this tired little gem:

“Finally, you insist that safety regulations are indistinguishable from economic regulations because they have an economic effect. Yes, and laws against murder also have an economic effect. Does this mean that laws against murder are just another form of socialism?”

Laws against murder are punitive laws, not preventative ones, because they punish someone who has committed a crime against another person, depriving him of life. The sentence the criminal receives (and the civil judgments that sometimes follow) are a means of reparation. AGAIN, I’m okay with this because I don’t have a problem with punitive action. And if this is the best example that you can come up with to dispute my point it’s probably a good thing that you’re giving me the last word, because basically you’ve just demonstrated that on this topic you have nothing left in your repertoire but straw man fallacies, and therefore nothing valid left to say.

Your logic on the value of safety regulations for trucking corporations overlooks the costs imposed upon the public by trucking accidents. If a trucking company considers only its own costs, then there is a tradeoff between the benefits of faster delivery and the costs of accidents, and since many of the costs of accidents are borne by others, the trucking company has an economic incentive to find a tradeoff that favors its own economic interests at the expense of others.

You claim that regulation does little or nothing to prevent accidents. This is patently absurd. Do you seriously believe that denying drivers licenses to people with poor eyesight (to give just one example) fails to prevent accidents?

Again, your confidence that companies will take all necessary safety measures in their own self-interest fails to take into account the factors that make their self-interest diverge from the interests of the public at large. As I pointed out, the bankruptcy laws provide shelter from the consequences of a major accident. I should think that historical experience would by itself be sufficient to convince you otherwise. The long and tragic record of industrial accidents clearly demonstrates that companies do NOT take adequate safety measures, especially when they do not bear the cost of the risks they impose upon the public.

Finally, you insist that safety regulations are indistinguishable from economic regulations because they have an economic effect. Yes, and laws against murder also have an economic effect. Does this mean that laws against murder are just another form of socialism?

1) Licensing and regulation are socialism creeping into the economy, your example was from a socialist country, so socialism vs. capitalism is central to the discussion. Regulations have a negative economic impact. They don’t offer sufficient utility to us for the cost. And Chernobyl happened while the government (who you think should be responsible for enforcing regulation) was at the switch. Seriously, what are you not getting about this?

2) No, I had questioned whether trucking regulations were of value to anyone, including truckers. My point was that trucking regulations have little, if any, positive impact on truckers or the number of trucking accidents. Companies already have a vested interest in hiring competent truckers because incompetent truckers don’t deliver their goods.

3) No, I declared that regulation does little to nothing to prevent accidents and cause a negative economic impact. You’ve never demonstrated or provided evidence that they work effectively…you’re just operating under the unquestioning assumption that they do. So yes, we’ll have to agree to disagree because I don’t accept arguments of faith when it comes to analyzing costs. Taking precautions does minimize risks…and the overwhelming majority of private companies would take precautions without regulation because there’s rarely (if ever) an significant benefit for them to operate in a manner that will inevitably kill several thousand people (who are potential customers). The use of punitive laws against those who act irresponsibly further reduces the benefit of doing so without punishing those who act in a responsible manner. This wasn’t done to the CEO of Union Carbide, who ordered the safety cutbacks, so he was able to get away with what he did. That’s the true travesty of Bhopal.

4) Safety regulation also affects monetary flows because it interferes with the ability of individuals/companies/private enterprise to act towards what they perceive to be their own best interests by allowing government to redirect the invisible hand of the free market. It doesn’t matter if regulation targets monetary flow directly, regulation is regulation (safety or otherwise), and preventative regulation has a negative economic impact.

Mr. UCrawford, your lengthy comments on the relative merits of socialism and capitalism are irrelevant to the issue before us — which concerns the merits of licensing regimes. The licensing regime under which Chernobyl was operated was considerably more lax than the licensing regime under which American nuclear plants operate. The stricter licensing regime that applies to American plants prevents accidents like the one at Chernobyl from happening here. I consider that a benefit.

True, the article on the Oakland accident doesn’t discuss trucking industry regulation. You had questioned whether trucking accidents were of any concern to people other than truckers. This accident provides my answer.

You declare that prevention of accidents does nothing to prevent accidents. I need not point out the absurdity of this claim. You compound the absurdity by maintaining that accidents are unavoidable, that there is nothing we can do to prevent accidents. I disagree; I believe that taking precautions reduces the likelihood of accidents. I fear, however, that we shall have to agree to disagree on this point.

Finally, you assert that there is no difference between economic regulation and safety regulation. I believe that regulation that is intended to reduce accidents is distinguishable from regulation that is intended to control monetary flows. Again, I suspect that we must agree to disagree on this point.

And there’s no difference between economic regulation and safety regulation, because all regulations, actions, or incentives are in one way or another economic in nature. “Safety” regulations don’t occur in a vacuum, there is always some economic impact as a result of them. Usually bad, when they’re preventative in nature.

I’m not confusing the two…your Chernobyl comparison was not just ridiculous, it proved my point. You’re trying to claim that the reason we don’t have meltdowns like Chernobyl in the U.S. (although you’ve forgotten Three Mile Island apparently) is because we have regulation and the Soviets didn’t. But the reactors in the U.S. are privately-owned, and the reactors in the Soviet Union were government-owned. So additional regulation would have had no effect in the Soviet Union because the government was already overseeing the operation of the plant…BECAUSE THEY OWNED IT!!! A person who is trying to be diplomatic would say that your example can be simply dismissed as apples-to-oranges because you’re attempting to compare the track record of government-owned companies with the track record of privately-owned companies. A less diplomatic person would go further and point out the fact that by continuing to stick with this analogy you’re demonstrating that you don’t understand the difference between socialism and free enterprise, or why private ownership and profit motive create an incentive to improve efficiency and performance on their own, nor does it appear that you understand that Chernobyl is a textbook example of how preventative regulation (a socialist standard) is inherently flawed. If socialist countries aren’t capable of competently enforcing regulation on businesses that they own, why on earth would anyone with half a brain think that governments would do a better job of regulating privately-owned companies that have a vested interest in cutting corners wherever possible to maintain profit? Punitive measures work and they don’t punish people who act responsibly…preventative measures are a waste of money for a negligible payoff, and they punish the responsible more than the irresponsible (since the irresponsible would be more prone to ignore regulation and reap the financial benefits of doing so). Do I really have to explain the difference between capitalism and socialism, or are you simply one of those guys who never figured out that socialism an inherently flawed and impossible-to-implement economic ideology?

Your article on the Oakland truck accident didn’t say a thing about trucking industry regulation. It did however, discuss the problems with our nation’s roads…roads which are maintained and built by federal and state governments. Are you saying that the problem here is the government’s not doing a good enough job of holding itself accountable on road building? Because I’d agree…the government almost always does a shit job of holding itself accountable. So why would I think more regulation would mean better roads when the government was already the party responsible for insuring they were built and maintained correctly in the first place?

I don’t reject your proposals on preventative measures because they’re an imperfect solution. I reject them because they’re not a solution at all…they’re part of the problem. They’re expensive, they’re ineffective, they stifle innovation and inhibit the free market, and all they provide us with is the illusion of safety. Not worth the trade, thanks.

Sure, I would have preferred that Bhopal never happened. I’d prefer that car accidents never happen either, or that murders never happen, or that people never screw up and do stupid things. But they do, and they will, no matter how much you regulate, just like things like Bhopal will occasionally happen no matter how much you regulate. And this is because a) people and nature are often irrational and unpredictable so it is impossible to create a perfect world in which unexpected or tragic events do not occur, and b) people will ignore regulations when they think they can get away with it (which some always will) if there’s an incentive for them to do so. Neither of those problems can be eliminated by more regulation…all that will achieve is to punish the innocent along with the guilty in the hopes of achieving the impossible. The only way the government can hope to minimize the risks that bad event occur without screwing over those who don’t deserve it is by holding individuals accountable after they do intentionally irresponsible things that get people killed or cause damage. Like exporting the CEO of Union Carbide for trial in India (which the government still hasn’t done). And no, the reparations for Bhopal probably weren’t enough to make up for what happens. But then again, they never are for tragedies like that. And that wouldn’t change with more preventative regulation either.

It’s probably a technical thing; you’ve probably been picked up by our spam filter. Sometimes this happens– its even happened to me and I’m a contributer.

I’m sure Doug will look into this once he reads your comment. We only block people if commenters are being abusive towards other commenters. Even then we usually don’t block that person. It’s pretty much up to the post’s author’s discretion.

Sorry I didn’t provide a link to the Oakland accident — I considered it common knowledge because it was on the front pages of newspapers all over the country. The accident occurred on April 29th. Here’s a link.

“Are you actually claiming that with regulation traffic accidents won’t ever happen?”
Here you repeat (for the fourth time, I believe) the logical error of rejecting a solution because it does not achieve perfection.

“Are you claiming that without regulation truck drivers will intentionally cause more accidents?”
No, I am claiming that, without regulation, truck drivers will take greater risks that will result in a higher frequency of accidents.

“Aside from fixing the road, what were the costs that the state was eating?”
I don’t know. If you examine the photograph in the link I provided, you can see that the cost had to be substantial. Moreover, nobody ever toted up the costs to all the people who were unable to do their business because of the snarled up traffic that ensued for the weeks following the accident.

On Union Carbide, you seem to be suggesting that the compensation paid has righted all wrongs and that all is well now. I don’t agree. I think that the people of Bhopal (who are STILL dying at the rate of about 1 per day from this accident) are worse off now than they were before the accident. I would have preferred that the accident never happened. Wouldn’t you?

You suggest that perhaps a private approach to this problem would produce better results than a government approach. There are in fact a number of private condominia such as you describe (various “green tags” attesting to the environmental benignity of the product are examples). However, such approaches work only when the customer’s relationship with the private concern is strictly voluntary, and when the existence of such vetting condominia is widely known. If I walk into a tax preparer’s office and 1) see a certificate on the wall attesting to the tax preparer’s competence and 2) recognize the source of the certificate as a reliable organization, then and only then does such an arrangement work. But such conditions are rare. First, few people will be aware of private certification organizations and will not be able to assess their reliability. Second, and much more important, many safety relationships are involuntary. I don’t have a voluntary contractual relationship with the trucking company whose truck is in the lane next to mine on the freeway. If that truck or its driver malfunction, I can be killed and the existence of a private certification company has no relevance to that fact.

The entire Soviet economy and industrial sector (to include their nuclear power plants) was more heavily regulated than the U.S. because THEY WERE A FUCKING SOCIALIST COUNTRY AND IT WAS A GOVERNMENT-OWNED REACTOR!!! Here’s a link disproving everything in your Chernobyl argument ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster ). If you want to make credible attacks against our arguments, do some actual research (finding this link took me about 30 seconds and five minutes to read) and quit making things up…because the deeper you go into this the more apparent it is you have no idea what you’re talking about.

So your truck example, when did it happen? I have no idea because you haven’t bothered to include a link or any actual details, which makes this smell like another of your misinterpreted anecdotes. Did it happen recently, while the trucking industry was already regulated? In which case your example proves my point that regulation doesn’t prevent accidents from happening. Or did it occur before regulation? Are you actually claiming that with regulation traffic accidents won’t ever happen? Are you claiming that without regulation truck drivers will intentionally cause more accidents? And what were the punitive measures in place that were exercised after the accident occured? Was the driver uninsured? Aside from fixing the road, what were the costs that the state was eating? Citing obscure and unsubstantiated examples off the top of your head is not the same as providing empirical evidence to counter someone else’s position in a debate.

And Union Carbide again? The company had an accident, they were found liable and they paid a settlement large enough to put them out of business. What more do you think should have been done? Putting the CEO in jail? That hasn’t happened only because the U.S. government apparently won’t extradite him…so that’s not on the Indian government. What else do you think should have been done?

People are trying to have an intelligent conversation about a real issue, don’t be a moron.

“And what precisely are the benefits of regulating the trucking industry to me?”
Perhaps you are unaware of the fact that truck accidents often lead to injury or to people other than the truckers. To give one example, I would suggest that you consult the matter of the truck accident in Oakland that destroyed part of the freeway exchange leading to the Bay Bridge, leading to losses in the millions of dollars. This was just one truck accident. The costs of that accident are borne by taxpayers like you and me. Preventing more accidents like this is the benefit of trucking regulations.

Both you and Mr. Molby fail to understand the meaning of the statistics offered in the link I provided. What’s important is that the number of alcohol-related fatalities RELATIVE TO the overall number of fatalities has fallen. This allows us to identify specific measures against drunken driving as the source of the benefit.

Mr. Molby asks me to “Cite counterexamples where a lack of inspections led to a corresponding decrease in safety and that paragraph might mean something.” Easily done: take, for example, the Soviet nuclear industry, which was not as closely regulated as the American nuclear industry. They had an accident at Chernobyl some years back, the costs of which are estimated to run into the hundreds of billions of dollars. Or consider the regulatory regime for chemical plants in India, which again is not as strict as that in the USA. They had an accident at Bhopal that killed many thousands of people. In places where the regulatory regime is weak, more and deadlier accidents happen than in places where the regulatory regime is strong.