Regulatory Overhaul and Review Act (Debating)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 19, 2024, 04:19:46 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government (Moderators: Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee, Lumine)
  Regulatory Overhaul and Review Act (Debating)
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 4
Author Topic: Regulatory Overhaul and Review Act (Debating)  (Read 3185 times)
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: September 08, 2014, 12:49:34 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Sponsor: Senator Deus



Senator, you have 24 hours to begin advocacy here.
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: September 08, 2014, 02:52:48 PM »

This should be simple enough. Only democratically-elected Senators should be able to enact regulations. I'm sure there will be disagreements regarding which ones we should keep or get rid of, but for now we may as well reassert representative democracy over autocratic bureaucracy so that we can even have those debates in the first place.
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,274
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: September 08, 2014, 02:53:15 PM »
« Edited: September 08, 2014, 02:54:58 PM by Senator bore »

This is an awful bill, for reasons I posted here when deus originally posted it:
So, as promised, I'm going to say a few words on my opponents platform. If you want to read all of Deus's platform you can do so here, but I simply don't have the time to comment on all of it. The one thing that did leap to my attention and is IMO, utterly crazy, and I don't think that's to strong a word, was the proposed Regulatory Overhaul and Review Act that Deus would introduce:
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Now my immediate thought on reading this, was, this seems like a perfect example of Chesterton's fence. There is almost always a good reason for regulations, as we've found after almost mining accident, every instance of commercial food poisoning, every instance of misleading advertising. To want to repeal all regulations but the very few mentioned in a thread in the senate is insanity.

Even if you cleave to a worldview that places freedom as it's highest goal, you should still support most regulations because the freedom not to be sold a product that doesn't do what it says it would, the freedom not to worry about the food you bought being poisoned, the freedom not to die in the workplace are far more important than a companies (and in most cases, it will be companies) freedom to act in a crappy manner.

I, like any sensible individual, would support repealing regulations that are unnecessary, but this is patently the wrong way to do that.

As well, this bill makes section 3 unnecessary.

The problem with this bill is that, as deus and other libertarians make clear, there are so many regulations that even if every atlasian citizen spent all day looking for ones to keep, we'd still miss out a huge chunk.
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: September 08, 2014, 02:58:18 PM »

If someone were to build a fence in the middle of my yard, and refuse to justify its construction/existence, I would be justified in tearing it down.
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: September 08, 2014, 06:44:53 PM »

Nix is right in that most of this comes from delegated authority through legislation passed by the legislative branch. Its called fill in the blank legislation. Banks love it especially because they can go door to door with briefcases of money buying off the process and out of front view of the public.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: September 08, 2014, 06:59:34 PM »

Nix is correct, regulations are formed both as a consequence of Act of the Legislature, to better specify the operation/management/structure of the Act. The other is delegated legislation that does not require, due to its scale/scope, the consent of the legislature. Regulation is also usually written and managed by people who actually understand the issue the regulation deals with.

The regulatory system itself works and there's no way I'm supporting this Bill.
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 08, 2014, 08:15:46 PM »

Nix is correct, regulations are formed both as a consequence of Act of the Legislature, to better specify the operation/management/structure of the Act. The other is delegated legislation that does not require, due to its scale/scope, the consent of the legislature.
I don't think the legislature should write a blank check to bureaucrats to impose regulations that the Senate has no approval over. The People democratically elect Senators to deal with issues, not to delegate that responsibility to unelected bureaucrats that the People have not entrusted with any power via democratic consent.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
I'm not saying experts shouldn't write regulations. I simply believe the Senate should review those regulations before they can be enacted.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
That's a positive assertion. Please justify why the current regulatory system would be superior to the reforms specified in this bill.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: September 08, 2014, 08:48:49 PM »

You have ANY idea how many specific regulations there are? The work of the Senate would grind to a halt if they were expected to sign off every-single-piece of regulation. This is exactly the reason why delegated legislation exists. To give clear instructions to public servants to enable them to execute our policy prescriptions and legislation. Without needing to return to the Senate.

I'd prefer you give our public servants a little more credit and respect. They operate within clear limits and bounds, they do not have the right to interpret regulations themselves, they operate within them. They are not bound up in daily petty-politics as we are, their role is to do as they are instructed, regardless of political interests or views.

The current regulatory arrangements do work, there is no evidence that they do not work in doing what they are intended to do. Unless you have some generalised issues with 'regulation' as a thing. I believe I justified my position to support existing arrangements in this response.
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: September 08, 2014, 09:04:05 PM »
« Edited: September 08, 2014, 09:15:00 PM by Deus Naturae »

You have ANY idea how many specific regulations there are?  The work of the Senate would grind to a halt if they were expected to sign off every-single-piece of regulation.
Since you bring it up, I'm curious, how many new regulations are enacted each day? I suspect the figure you'll give me may be suggestive of a problem with the current process...

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
I don't doubt that most regulators have a firm understanding of the issues they're meant to deal with. But, just because they understand the issue doesn't mean they'll regulate in the public interest. To use an analogy, let's say I work at a store for many years. I know everything about that store and all its exits, entrances, security systems, etc. I could use my deep understanding to prevent an attempted robbery of that store. On the other hand, I could also use it rob the store myself. So, understanding is only half of the equation, and knowledge of any subject can be used for good or bad purposes. In the field of government regulation, that "bad" manifests itself in the form of regulatory capture. This bill wouldn't prevent people who understand the issues from writing regulation, but it would act as a check to ensure that they're using their understanding for good purposes.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Why would they need to "interpret" them...they write them!

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
I have a generalized issue with having no idea what regulations affecting my life are, no way to find out what they are, and no way to vote out those who enact them.
Logged
Cranberry
TheCranberry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,501
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: September 09, 2014, 02:06:38 AM »

Reading your responses here, one could assume you have a very bad opinion of civil servants. According to you, they would exist just for the sole purpose of robbing good corporations of their hard-earned money, make life as hard as possible for everyone, and then rob everyone of their money. This couldn't be further from the truth.

You do realize that the people that write regulations are not the ones that enforce them? So practically said, the ones writing the regulations can't do anything with them once they are finished with their work, and they cannot do much before, because they have strict rules on how to write regulations. On the other hand, the ones enforcing the regulations/laws have no possibilty to in any way alter them for their personal gain. It is just silly to think so, I am sorry, but that is the truth.

Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: September 09, 2014, 09:19:33 AM »

If we want to make the regulatory process more, rather than less, accountable to the public, I certainly wouldn't suggest turning it over to elected lawmakers, who often have special interest backers and are for all intents and purposes, probably less partial than the bureaucrats themselves. A better way of doing this would be, in my opinion, to gut the undemocratic character of the bureaucracies that exist as is. Instead of hiring people from x industry to specifically regulate this or that job, transform bureaucratic regulation and management into a kind of jury duty that incorporates experts (and selects those experts randomly from among professional organization or labor unions representing the field in question) and a small sampling of the population at large.

This would cut down on the growth of an unaccountable bureaucratic apparatus that continually assumes more power for itself at the expense of both the public at-large and democratic decision-making. We can definitely adopt a more transparent process of regulation and rule-writing, but we cannot do so without more directly involving those who work in the industries regulated and the general public, plus making sure that all regulations are in plain English, rather than lawyer-ese. That, and I wouldn't necessarily be averse to allowing the regulated sectors of the workforce (not the owners of the industry, but the people who work in it) confirm or deny regulatory suggestions by means of a democratic vote. Let the workers contribute their ideas for safety regulations and other regulatory aims; they know the workplace better than anyone else, and as such they should be a vital component in the drafting of regulations that keep them and their coworkers safe. The owners of industry should not be consulted, given that they have a clear interest in designing regulatory structures that increase their power and influence and allow them to sell shoddy products or work their employees to death.
Logged
Lumine
LumineVonReuental
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,596
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: September 09, 2014, 11:45:26 AM »

I know the objective of such a proposal would be to simplify the process, but as inefficient as bureaucracy can be somethings I don't believe that would truly solve the issue. I'm certainly not confident that random selections could bring positive results, and using "plain english", as much as it makes it easier to understand, probably opens a massive problem regarding ambiguity, perhaps worse than what we see in the Constitution right now.

Are there unnecessary regulations? Of course, there's a great amount of them and Atlasia has passed some unnecessary ones over the past few years as well that probably need to be revised and some eliminated outright, but I do fear this particular process would be something far beyond our capabilities, even I understand that Deus is trying to make the process go faster. Perhaps a Senate committee in charge of reviewing some regulations would be more feasible... (Although committees haven't been used on the Senate in quite a while)
Logged
Dr. Cynic
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,417
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.11, S: -6.09

WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: September 09, 2014, 12:23:54 PM »

Look, I understand that maybe Atlasia has a few too many regulations, or more than necessary. I understand it's an important issue for some people, but let me be frank. I have no interest in being a Senator if all I was to do for the remainder of the term is be a member of a committee deciding what regulations are necessary and picking through that with a fine-toothed comb. Quite frankly, I don't want to spend a whole term voting on whether or not regulation is excessive.
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: September 09, 2014, 04:22:06 PM »

Reading your responses here, one could assume you have a very bad opinion of civil servants. According to you, they would exist just for the sole purpose of robbing good corporations of their hard-earned money, make life as hard as possible for everyone, and then rob everyone of their money. This couldn't be further from the truth.
That's a strawman.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Another strawman. I haven't said anything about personal gain in this thread. The problem I've brought up is regulatory capture.

Logged
Cranberry
TheCranberry
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,501
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: September 10, 2014, 06:52:58 AM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Another strawman. I haven't said anything about personal gain in this thread. The problem I've brought up is regulatory capture.
Given, you didn't use the words "personal gain" but in any way, you have not showed the highest opinion of civil servants. I guess I took this a bit too personal; but anyway, I am not convinced of supporting your bill. There is a reason we have the system in place we have now, and to let the Senate vote on every regulation would be the overkill for the current system, there is no way we could do all of this.
But, I could support a Senate committee, that would debate and possibly eliminate unnecessary regulations, in combination with some office or place where citizens can propose any regulation they would want to see repealed? 
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,274
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: September 10, 2014, 07:02:18 AM »
« Edited: September 10, 2014, 07:08:23 AM by Senator bore »

Proposing an amendment:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 10, 2014, 10:22:46 AM »

Senator Deus, is the amendment proposed by Senator bore friendly or hostile?
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,274
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 10, 2014, 10:29:24 AM »

I can make a good guess Tongue
Logged
Deus Naturae
Deus naturae
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,637
Croatia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 10, 2014, 04:52:59 PM »

Eh, I'll say friendly. No point in wasting time on a vote I'm guaranteed to lose.
Logged
TNF
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,440


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 10, 2014, 06:27:57 PM »

The sponsor has declared the amendment friendly. Senators have 24 hours to object.
Logged
Fmr President & Senator Polnut
polnut
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 19,489
Australia


Political Matrix
E: -2.71, S: -5.22

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 11, 2014, 12:44:57 AM »

It takes the worst parts out of it I guess. No objections.
Logged
Lumine
LumineVonReuental
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,596
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 14, 2014, 06:39:54 PM »

The amendment has been adopted.

What should be next here?
Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,274
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 14, 2014, 06:51:00 PM »

Why not make it so there is a general way of quickly repealing all useless laws and not just regulations?
Logged
Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee
North Carolina Yankee
Moderator
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 54,123
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 15, 2014, 06:04:21 PM »

Why not make it so there is a general way of quickly repealing all useless laws and not just regulations?

What would you have in mind? Changing statute requires an act of the legislative branch.

Logged
bore
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,274
United Kingdom


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: September 16, 2014, 07:13:40 AM »

Why not make it so there is a general way of quickly repealing all useless laws and not just regulations?

What would you have in mind? Changing statute requires an act of the legislative branch.



I was thinking that people could propose any legislation passed by the senate for repeal in the same way as outlined for regulations. Although I'm to sure whether that would be legal. It would also have to be clear to senators that this was for repealing useless laws, not laws which are still in effect but have consequences people disagree with, though I think that's doable.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.053 seconds with 11 queries.