According to Time, the German government is going nuts because they found approximately 0.13 micrograms of cocaine per can of Red Bull Cola. The German government has become so upset with the situation, Red Bull Cola has been banned in six states and the government could enforce the ban nation wide.
According to the Time article, a person would need to drink 12,000L of Red Bull Cola in order to feel any negative affects from that much cocaine. Thankfully, the German government is making sure that will never happen.
Now, I only drink 10,000L of Red Bull Cola a day, so I'm sure I'm pretty safe. Though, I think Canada needs to follow the steps of the righteous German government. I might wake up tomorrow and decide to drink that extra 2,000L of Red Bull Cola and then I might be inadvertently affected by the cocaine levels in the drink, which would be a whopping .004g of cocaine.
Now, some people might lose their jobs because of the ban, and others who would still be willing to buy their drink will be told its not in their best interest (what do they know?) and will be forced away from buying it, but its in the best interest of society as whole for me to be prevented from inadvertently consuming .004g of cocaine if I happen to consumer 12,000L of Red Bull Cola while getting my fix of the 1,048,235 grams of sugar my body needs, and would otherwise be allowed to consume had there not been a strain of cocaine in my most favourite drink.
Thank you German government for continuing to prove the usefulness of government regulation and thank you for your ability to continually show the whole world how un-absurd the efforts of government regulation to keep us safe from ourselves truly are. Unrestrained democracies are grand!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
15 comments:
Retards on the right always pick out ridiculous or politically charged examples to discredit regulation, but ignore all the successful examples, which means they are DISHONEST.
Because every time you show me an example of "successful" regulation, I can show you an innocent victim. As well, I choose not to ignore the fact that simply because something bad happened, it does not mean it was due to regulation.
You know I bought a rock for $10 a few years back that prevents earthquakes? It has worked beautifully so far. . .
"Because every time you show me an example of "successful" regulation, I can show you an innocent victim. As well, I choose not to ignore the fact that simply because something bad happened, it does not mean it was due to regulation.
You know I bought a rock for $10 a few years back that prevents earthquakes? It has worked beautifully so far. . "
No, the successful examples far outweigh the failures, unless, of course, you have evidence to back up your assertion?
You're the one that has asserted there are successful examples.
You are the one who is counter-asserting there are none. I think that is obviously not the case.
False advertising is a great example. Car safety standards are another. Both provide thousands of examples of successful regulation.
Yes, the american auto industry is in beautiful shape.
Double whammy.
Double whammy.
You see, you are illogical. I bring in a perfect example of regulation, and you respond with an off-topic rejoinder. You are illogical.
Auto regulation has prevented from otherwise successful competitors out of the market and provided the big three with essentially a monopoly over the market. The fact that more people buy Toyota and Honda supports that people will a more reliable car regardless of regulations. If a company built an unsafe vehicle and attempted to sell it, people wouldn't buy it, but we would have a much more competitive auto industry.
Again, nope. If making a safe car is the only car that sells because people won't buy them if they are not safe, then it follows that any sane business person trying to enter the car industry would build a safe vehicle. They don't, because the auto companies have systematically bought out small competitors, own thousands of patents, and are just really big BECAUSE they were so successful early in the genesis of the car market. Small competitors can't really compete against such giants and since the capital needed to start such a venture is naturally steep, they don't. Microsoft is the same way. No one tries to make another operating system BECAUSE Microsoft is so big. Regulation is one of those layers, but not the layers that discourages... many layers before already did..
"If making a safe car is the only car that sells because people won't buy them if they are not safe, then it follows that any sane business person trying to enter the car industry would build a safe vehicle"
I don't disagree, but you assume the government can define "safe" and then use force to prevent car companies from forming that would not build a car to the government's definition of "safe". But of course, with the conclusion you just made, we do not need government regulation.
"own thousands of patents"
Patents are another form of government intervention.
"Small competitors can't really compete against such giants and since the capital needed to start such a venture is naturally steep, they don't"
You're right, small competitors can't compete because the government enforces patent laws and over regulation which causes a need for more capital than which would otherwise be necessary.
"Microsoft is the same way."
Unjust IP laws allow MS to have a "monopoly"(its not really a monopoly).
"No one tries to make another operating system BECAUSE Microsoft is so big"
Others do build other operating systems and they are used (Mac is the best example).
"I don't disagree, but you assume the government can define "safe" and then use force to prevent car companies from forming that would not build a car to the government's definition of "safe". But of course, with the conclusion you just made, we do not need government regulation."
Unfortunately, and this is why the car companies fought tooth and nail to stop safety regulations, cars are cheaper to produce without safety devices.
And, yes, individual politicians, bureaucrats, and activists are perfectly able to come to some approximation of what safe means.
"Patents are another form of government intervention."
I'm not going to disagree on this point too strenuously, because I think a patentless world would be a better form of capitalism, idealistically speaking. However, the truth of the matter is that patents, just like the federal reserve, were set up by, funded by, and continue to be supported by capitalists. That is a fact. Therefore, they are the result of capitalism and should be treated as such. There is no "The Government".
"You're right, small competitors can't compete because the government enforces patent laws and over regulation which causes a need for more capital than which would otherwise be necessary."
Even if patents were abolished the first company to introduce a new product would have a natural advantage, which would lead to them getting big fast. Moreover, I see no reason to believe that without patent laws that companies wouldn't be able to hide their secrets long enough to become monopolistic.
"Unjust IP laws allow MS to have a "monopoly"(its not really a monopoly)."
Pretty damn close. Or at least it was.
"Others do build other operating systems and they are used (Mac is the best example)."
Mac doesn't count. It had an operating system from the beginning. I meant that new competitors have not entered the market since Microsoft took the dominant share. And if they have, they have only been volunteeristic.
Its funny how our conversations always end up connected with my current reading. I just finished Greenspan's "Antitrust" essay, which essentially explains how monopolies form, how they would not be able to exist in an open market without continual improvements in efficiency (lowering cost and lowing prices), and even then they would not exist indefinitely.
"It takes extraordinary skill to hold more than fifty percent of a large industry's market in a free economy. It requires unusual productive ability, unfailing business judgment, unrelenting effort at the continuous improvement of one's product and technique. The rare company which is able to retain its share of the market year after year and decade after decade does so by means of productive efficiency - and deserves praise, not condemnation."
Post a Comment