Has big brother gone too far?
In some US states, laws are being considered (or passed) to make trans fat illegal. Restaurants & Bakeries are not allowed to use trans fat in any of the food made or sold. In other states laws are being considered (or passed) on what type of light bulb can be sold within that state. There are many other examples of government looking out for the “greater good” of the people. Are we moving away from the original ideals of capitalism and moving closer to socialism?? Is this good, bad, somewhere in between? Are other important freedoms at risk? What do you think?
FYI – my opinion is that I’m concerned. I think we are moving in the wrong direction.
Kathy Burzynski, CPC
Bur@BurzynskiES.com
www.BurzynskiES.com
Good Answers (1)
William D
Contract/Relationship Management and Regulatory Compliance International Business
Best Answers in: Regulation and Compliance (7), Government Policy (7), Employment and Labor Law (4), International Law (2), Manufacturing (2), Air Travel (1), Business Dining and Entertainment (1), Travel Tools (1), Job Search (1), Financial Regulation (1), Risk Management (1), Staffing and Recruiting (1), Exporting/Importing (1), Corporate Law (1), Advertising (1), Non-profit Management (1), Project Management (1), Supply Chain Management (1), Starting Up (1), Energy and Development (1), Green Products (1), Information Security (1)
As I sit here at my desk contentedly munching on my Roast Beef & Cheddar, with Curly Fries, I would say that government has gone too far in many instances. I think it was Jefferson who said that the government that governs least is the government that governs best.
Part of the problem with some of these initiatives on all levels of government is that they not only encroach on individuals responsibilities and rights. Why? Simply we as a citizenry have abandoned the basic principal of personal responsibility to teachers, legislators and courts.
It is past time for us to wake up and exercise our responsibilities and rights and stop the government agencies and legislators from this type of interference, and concentrate on real issues, energy, transportation and Social Security.
More Answers (20)
Kevin H
Founder at Total Success Teams (launching 2009)
Best Answers in: Ethics (82), Web Development (11), Career Management (6), Using LinkedIn (6), Mentoring (5), Government Policy (4), Philanthropy (4), Professional Networking (4), Starting Up (4), Education and Schools (3), Internationalization and Localization (3), Staffing and Recruiting (2), Criminal Law (2), Property Law (2), Sales Techniques (2), Corporate Governance (2), Organizational Development (2), Small Business (2), Certification and Licenses (1), Financial Regulation (1), Employment and Labor Law (1), Internet Marketing (1), Viral Marketing (1), Business Development (1), Lead Generation (1), Writing and Editing (1), Business Analytics (1), Change Management (1), Planning (1), Non-profit Fundraising (1), Professional Books and Resources (1), Communication and Public Speaking (1), Business Plans (1), E-Commerce (1)
I consider we have several big brothers. Primarily corporations, that treat us as pawns for profit, and did so when regulation was not present. We have definitely gone to far, but we have to realize that regulation is a reaction. It is a reaction to the pendulum swinging too far at the expense of the consumer. Remember, corporations by definition are to make a profit while protecting ownership from liability, and I am sure there are catalogs of thousands of serious offenses where corporations knew they were hurting people for profit. This protection from liability comes at a fair cost: regulation.
The light bulbs affect the greater good--energy use in general--so I would concur it has an effect on us all.
Trans fat is a bit more grey. But I think it is simply doing the greater good because without incentive people will not change. And we simply cannot research every restaurant we are to eat at. One fallacious argument is the "buyer beware" argument. But this is unrealistic as nobody has time to research every purchase for safety, and is unfair in that it absolves corporations of responsibilty for firsthand knowledge they should have and present.
Why do we accept behavior from corporations we would not accept from our neighbors.
Motorcycle helmets and seatbelts? We will have to pay the medical bills.
Cell phones must be hands-free? I've seen the way others drive and teh way I drive!
The original ideals of capitalism? Capitalism is great, but there is one problem with it. That is that the rich and powerful, by definition of capitalism, become more rich and more powerful, which allows them to become more rich and powerful. At each point they get to write the laws that make them more rich and more powerful. This means that at some point the non-rich and non-powerful will finally have enough. It is much better that we have regulation, because if not the remaining 99% of the population would eventually rebel.
You think we have big brother with regulation? Just wait for big brother without. I am not exaggerating that without regulation we would be working 60 hours a week for peanuts with no retirement, no health and safety protection, no pollution standards, and nothing corporations did not absolutely have to do.
Regulation is simply a balance of power. Like unregulated capitalism, it goes too far. It is an endless tug of war.
Ultimately, any rule that we as a society agree upon and can honestly say is done for the greater is fair game. This is because any parties in an interaction are entitled to negotiate the terms of that transaction, and that includes society in general. When it goes too far, we simply need to change the rules so they balance better again.
The reason trans-fat is being regulated is because the businesses and corporations would not otherwise take action or inform us. Capitalism is great, but when unregulated is out of control.
But why are you worried about this? Why? You have a president who lies, spies, and tortures. Elections that are entirely questionable, if not fraudulent. Library purchases being analyzed. Phones being tapped. The military used to secure oilfields. A constitution's main provisions being shredded. Respectfully, your house is on fire and you are worried about your frozen turkey in the fridge.
We are way beyond moving in the wrong direction.
Bernard "Bud" M
CEO at Santa Barbara Mining
Best Answers in: Government Policy (3), Criminal Law (2), Employment and Labor Law (2), Personnel Policies (1), Staffing and Recruiting (1), Corporate Law (1), Property Law (1)
The Simple answer is the government the least, governs the best.
Dean E
Operations/Logistics Program Manager at Siemens Government Services
Best Answers in: Exporting/Importing (9), Treaties, Agreements and Organizations (7), Government Policy (6), Internationalization and Localization (3), Planning (3), Government Services (2), International Law (2), Social Enterpreneurship (2), Supply Chain Management (2), Biotech (2), Using LinkedIn (2), Commercial Real Estate (1), Purchasing (1), Regulation and Compliance (1), Education and Schools (1), Job Search (1), Mentoring (1), Auditing (1), Corporate Taxes (1), Government Contracts (1), Customs, Tariffs and Taxes (1), Packaging and Labeling (1), Personal Taxes (1), Wealth Management (1), Market Research and Definition (1), Communication and Public Speaking (1), Professional Networking (1), Small Business (1), Green Business (1), Energy and Development (1), Green Products (1), Software Development (1)
This should be something for me, my mediacl insurance and my employer to worry about.
Charge higher premiums (if necessary) to higher-risk medical insurance policy holders to offset medical costs, but keep government out of it.
Bill N
Information Technology and Services Professional
Best Answers in: Using LinkedIn (30), Ethics (8), Government Policy (7), Professional Networking (5), Education and Schools (4), Change Management (4), Mentoring (3), Internationalization and Localization (3), Treaties, Agreements and Organizations (3), Professional Books and Resources (3), Energy and Development (3), Business Insurance (2), Purchasing (2), Resume Writing (2), Event Marketing and Promotions (2), Project Management (2), Career Management (2), Blogging (2), Web Development (2), Customer Service (1), Air Travel (1), Business Dining and Entertainment (1), Job Search (1), Conference Planning (1), Economics (1), Personnel Policies (1), Staffing and Recruiting (1), International Law (1), Employment and Labor Law (1), Viral Marketing (1), Business Development (1), Public Relations (1), Customer Relationship Management (1), Writing and Editing (1), Organizational Development (1), Currency Markets (1), Derivatives Markets (1), Equity Markets (1), Option Markets (1), Non-profit Fundraising (1), Personal Debt Management (1), Wealth Management (1), Communication and Public Speaking (1), Professional Organizations (1), Starting Up (1), Green Business (1), Computer Networking (1), Information Storage (1), Wireless (1)
Kathy, the danger of Big Brother exists for sure, but the danger in my opinion should not be labelled "socialism", as socialism will never occur in the US. Or I should say, "do not equate current trends with a drift towards socialism".
Socialism is centralized ownership of the means of production by bureaucrats; in a country with huge corporations, and characterized by millions of small business owners, independent contractors and entrepreneurs, we are far away from that ever happening. I have had a couple of back-and-forths with Jamie Koenig about this, as he thinks Democrats have Socialist origins. Socialism in the classic sense has never existed, and will never exist in this country; if we didn't go over to it in the Depression, we will never go over to it. This country has millions of people who are sensitized to any steps in the direction of centralized ownership, and it will not happen. What is more likely is that in the event of a major crisis, God forbid, government imposes martial law, then subsequenly outsources major functions to corporations who have the resources to sufficiently staff that function.
The danger to us is and always has been the tendency of government to interfere, encroach and intervene. There are a lot of reasons why this is a natural tendency, so the issue is one of vigilance and constant pushback against the (I guess) well-meaning bureaucrats. Kathy, you rightly cite how local and state laws are more aggressive in areas of diet and environment. There is at least some good news in this localized tendency I would like to say, as the 50 states are serving their proper role as laboratories of new legislation; we'll see how the whole trans-fat thing works out; I think the more onerous laws will die out; at least it's not nationalized. A state that creates an environment that is too onerous will cause loss of population and revenue, as people and corporations 'vote with their feet' and move elsewhere. Sure this is not ideal, as it is disruptive and expensive to uproot yourself and move, and most people do not move, but there is at least a response available for state- and city-level overreach.
I am more inclined toward libertarianism than any other philosophy lately, so I favor maximum individual liberty, but I am a single actor over and against the huge resources of corporations, so I welcome a countervailing force to make big corporations play by sensible rules; this is where government has done its best work. Republican President Theodore Roosevelt is an example of government stepping in when things got ridiculously skewed toward corporate control over the country.
There are some things government SHOULD do, and regulations that protect our air, water and food supply seem like natural moves. Even there, the design and implementation of the rules are where things can go wrong, and the actual agencies charged with enforcing the rules can change their behavior based on which party is running the national government (there are a LOT of political appointees in the agencies, so enforcement of existing laws can change 180 degrees).
Regarding interference in personal affairs, the GOP was rightly seen to have lost its way when it had the government meddling with things that traditional Republicans would never have countenanced. The height of this madness was the Terry Schiavo affair. Good Lord. And I'm only picking on them because they've been in power. The Democrats have had their missteps too.
Regarding other freedoms being at risk, the notion of privacy is being radically transformed due to the collection of information by corporations and its eventual access by government. Surveillance is here to stay. THAT is where Big Brother is most prevalent. See "Enemy of the State" with Will Smith and Gene Hackman for a chilling scenario of what can go wrong, and I'm sure already has.
Clarification added 11 months ago:
I want to add my voice to the chorus on this:
"That government governs best, which governs least" or whatever the exact wording is.
You're stumbled upon the basic difference between the two major political parties. The question to ask is "Is this the Government's role to step in?"
In this situation, I believe it breaks down to whether or not the taxpayers are responsible for the repercussions of people consuming harmful chemicals like trans-fats.
Most people agree, at least I think they do, that if it isn't harming anyone else, it's ok. Personally I believe that as long as I'm not responsible for your high medical bills, I don't care what you do to your body providing it doesn't harm anyone.
So my answer to your question is no, the Government hasn't gone too far because if people consume incredibly unhealthy foods, I suffer because my insurance premiums go up. Therefore it is their role to protect me, from them.
Paul C
Business Analyst and Technical Writer
Best Answers in: Government Policy (19), Using LinkedIn (3), Communication and Public Speaking (2), Ethics (2), Education and Schools (1), Economics (1), Personnel Policies (1), Treaties, Agreements and Organizations (1), Corporate Law (1), Internet Marketing (1), Business Development (1), Sales Techniques (1), Change Management (1), Career Management (1), Computers and Software (1), Web Development (1)
Oh, we're moving WAY in the wrong direction. I think it began with smoking, at least here in the 'modern era' -- the unbelievably high taxes on cigarettes, the laws against smoking in PRIVATE businesses, and the like.
Whatever happened to having the right to go to Hell in our own handbasket?
The basic thing that's gone wrong, the precursor to ALL of this nanny-state, Big Brother nonsense, has been the concept that government OWNS our bodies. Once you have lost control of your property, you lose the right to decide what to do with it. Sounds simple, right? The trouble is that our bodies are supposed to be our property, inviolate, and they are NOT. I can prove it, too.
If I harm your body, through means purposeful or accidental, the government will prosecute me (depending upon the level of damage I caused, of course, but bear with me). Whether I am charged with murder, or assault, or battery, or rape -- the government will step in to try to protect you from me, and punish me for acting in a manner harmful to your body. That's fair, and right, and is one of the essential functions of government.
However, when I do harm to mySELF, government will also step in -- in exactly the same way, though the charges will be different. They tell me that I may not use 'illicit' drugs, because they are 'harmful'; they tell me that I may not (to use your example) ingest trans-fats, because they are harmful; they tax the heck out of cigarettes and liquor, because they are harmful. And the list goes on... and the list will continue to grow, because we don't OWN our bodies. The same principle applies to property of other types, like land -- we must ask permission from the government to make changes to the land we have purchased! So I guess we don't OWN it, because ownership implies freedom.
All sorts of arguments are made regarding the harm we do to our bodies, and how the rest of the population must pay for the healthcare we need to repair the damage we have done; but again, that's because the government owns healthcare, to one extent or another. That was the first domino; all of the others have fallen, one by one, after that one.
It's our fault. We keep letting it happen.
Tom F
Editorial Director at BankInfoSecurity.com
Best Answers in: Using LinkedIn (14), Career Management (8), Staffing and Recruiting (7), Writing and Editing (6), Organizational Development (5), Compensation and Benefits (4), Personnel Policies (3), Offshoring and Outsourcing (3), Mentoring (2), Criminal Law (2), Business Development (2), Corporate Governance (2), Change Management (2), Planning (2), Ethics (2), Computers and Software (2), Facilities Management (1), Travel Tools (1), Job Search (1), Accounting (1), Property Law (1), Advertising (1), Events Marketing (1), Public Relations (1), Lead Generation (1), Business Analytics (1), Non-profit Management (1), Supply Chain Management (1), Professional Organizations (1), Small Business (1), Blogging (1), Information Security (1), Software Development (1)
I guess I tend to be kind of Libertarian about this stuff -- "The government that governs best, governs least." I understand the commitment to health and public good, but believe we need to think twice or more before legislating some of these issues. I mean, does Maine really need a law mandating that motorists turn on their car lights if they're running their windshield wipers?
best,
Tom
Doug H
Owner at Charter School Management Services, LLC
Best Answers in: Education and Schools (2), Labor Relations (2), Career Management (2), Ethics (2), Professional Networking (2), Customer Service (1), Mentoring (1), Occupational Training (1), Accounting (1), Foreign Investment (1), Venture Capital and Private Equity (1), Staffing and Recruiting (1), Advertising (1), Events Marketing (1), Viral Marketing (1), Public Relations (1), Sales Techniques (1), Business Analytics (1), Change Management (1), Organizational Development (1), Planning (1), Non-profit Management (1), Quality Management and Standards (1), Using LinkedIn (1)
Yes, way in the wrong direction. What a joke. I try to eat healthy foods, but we've gone beyond rediculous.
Everyone needs to read Erewhon by Samuel Butler before it's too late.
Henry M
Big 4 Business Solutions Manager
Best Answers in: Mergers and Acquisitions (1), Personnel Policies (1), Organizational Development (1)
Though it seems that we are getting too many specific regulations, I think in the financial arena, there is not enough government regulation. If there were more stringent laws, then maybe the credit crunch would not have happened.
In other areas, like food, you are probably correct. There needs to be a balance.
Todd L
Director of Internal Audit at Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole
Best Answers in: Certification and Licenses (1), Government Services (1), Compensation and Benefits (1), Offshoring and Outsourcing (1), Personal Debt Management (1), Ethics (1), Enterprise Software (1)
Every generation has probably asked a similar question. Looking back, today’s society believes it knows the “right” answer.
Many states banned interracial marriage. Today, that is no longer as acceptable as it once was.
Many states had sodomy and other sexual practice laws. Today, many of those things are more acceptable than they once were.
Many states condoned child labor. Today, that is no longer as acceptable as it once was.
Many states banned manufacture and consumption of alcohol. Today, that is no longer as acceptable as it once was.
I believe we’re keeping up with the times. Legislation that is deemed incorrect usually corrects itself. Sometimes, that correction takes longer than many in society would like.
Everyone has their own issues and their own perspective. I am less worried about the freedom to eat certain products that appear to be harmful than I am about having my personal items scanned at an airport. I wonder if insurance products would be considered “socialism?”
As society continues to change, I hope our concept of capitalism will also change. The primary object of corporations might be to serve the interests of the owners. That may include protection of the environment for that generation, in addition to making a “profit.”
There is no “right” answer – only an answer that is right at a particular point in time for a particular situation.
Kathy, try living within the EU...they regulate size and shape of bananas.....!
Bill M
Direct Marketing Expert, Award-Winning Copywriter, Uncanny Strategist, Brand Consultant, and All-'Round Fun Guy
Best Answers in: Business Development (3), Job Search (1), Writing and Editing (1)
Answer: Yes.
And, with all due respect to Bill Nigh, he's either kidding all of us or he's incredibly naive when he writes, "Socialism in the classic sense has never existed, and will never exist in this country; if we didn't go over to it in the Depression, we will never go over to it."
This country lurches toward socialism more every single day. And Obama promises more in the form of Government-run health care.
Socialism is the natural progression of a nation when its people give up the will to fight against its government. Our government -- via the media in its hip pocket -- has been wearing down the populace of the U.S. for decades. So much so that we have people groups who think the government exists to give them things -- money, food, health care, jobs, bailouts, subsidies...you name it. The fact that Obama exists as a candidate is proof enough that socialism can and WILL happen in the U.S. It's a matter of incremental steps. Government controlling what we eat, what we see, and what we do are incredibly big steps toward the U.S. becoming a country much like the socialist countries in Europe. I have friends over there, in many countries. They're not happy people. They're taxed to death (up to 60% - 75% of their income!). They're forced to wait in long lines for health care (because it's provided "free"). They feel stifled intellectually, creatively, and socially.
If you want to know how far our government is off the mark, read Ron Paul's new book, The Revolution: A Manifesto.
But I'm with Kathy. I think government is way yonder (as Andy Griffith would say) out of control. I don't want our elected officials telling me what I can and cannot do. I want them looking at the Constitution and discovering what THEY can and cannot do.
'nuff said.
Bill
Jay S
Technical Trainer and Documentation Specialist
Best Answers in: Using LinkedIn (11), Career Management (6), Personnel Policies (2), Staffing and Recruiting (2), Facilities Management (1), Education and Schools (1), Mentoring (1), Occupational Training (1), Government Policy (1), Compensation and Benefits (1), Exporting/Importing (1), Internationalization and Localization (1), Treaties, Agreements and Organizations (1), Finance and Securities Law (1), Events Marketing (1), Viral Marketing (1), Business Development (1), Sales Techniques (1), Organizational Development (1), Project Management (1), Personal Debt Management (1), Professional Books and Resources (1), Professional Networking (1), Small Business (1), Biotech (1), Blogging (1), Telecommunications (1)
Hi, Kathy -
You may not know this about me, but I'm not one to run from controversy! In fact, if nothing more than to stimulate good and responsible conversation, I offer the following with sincere seriousness:
We aren't being governed with nearly a firm enough hand!
We have become a Country (US) of obese, nicotine-addicted, fast-food addicted do nothings! Parents worry about being their children's "BFF", so are reluctant to curb aberrant behavior early in the game, when it's more likely to be stopped!
The point I'm making is: we have to make choices, or choices will be made for us. If Government has to step in to attempt to lower our intake of Fat, or sell us CFL lightbulbs, I say: GOOD! If we're making consistently poor choices, someone with authority has to "step up" and set us straight!
This is, of course, my not so humble opinion ...
Jay
I identify myself as a Libertarian and this provides me with a perspective that wishes for complete liberty.
In this case, is big brother to big, I have to admit I'm discouraged to find the body of your question based off of trans fats.
There will be, for the conceivable future, a large amount of laws that will try to herd the path of the citizen. Perhaps we should inquire about the larger laws that big brother is passing.
For example the FISA issue where Obama lost many wide eyed supporters from. Warrentless wiretapping is a much more important example of excessive and pervasive actions by the government into the private rights of citizens.
Andrew S
Financial, IT, and Project Administration - Make the organization better every day.
Best Answers in: Government Policy (2), Financial Regulation (1), Writing and Editing (1)
I'm in with Bill Nigh on this one. There are certain things like air and water pollution, safe foods/chemicals/pharmaceuticals, where I appreciate a little public regulation - just enough - and the devil's in the details.
On the trans fats - well, we tax tobacco and alcohol, if the government wants to 'regulate' our health in this way, why not tax the trans fats, too?
Seriously, we get all the government we pay for (R. Rogers) and we shouldn't be feeding the hand that bites us anymore!
A.
Our Founding Fathers are weeping just by the very fact that this is a question in our society.
If the fatties cant control themselves and cannot eat fries in moderation then let them pay higher insurance, but why should I have to eat fries that don't taste as good? Why is that choice being taken away from me?
The Government is not supposed to be a nanny.
I weep for our nation, we have become like sheep, giving away our basic freedoms in the interest of "The Greater Good".
F the "Greater Good" if people can't help stuffing themselves then so be it. Make them pay more for insurance, but leave my fries, my guns and my car alone.
If people want to be tofu eating sandal wearing tree hugging whiners who want to sing Kumbayah then let them, I have no problem with tit at all, just leave my damned French Fries alone!
I don't stuff my face, so why should I have to give up what I like because some people can't exercise moderation?
Our Founding Fathers intended a government that was "hands off", instead we now have a government that is not only NOT "hands off" but a government that sticks its hands down our pants and molests us daily.
Why do we have this?
Because too many sheep cannot take care of their own house. Too many people readily surrender their rights sot hat they won't have responsibilities.
Why is it the Govs duty to regulate any of this stuff?
It isn't! But the sheep need a nanny.
Our Founding Fathers are weeping at the sheep we have become and so am I.
(extra note: Men: please refrain from going to Arlington National Cemetery or any other place of honor while wearing Birkenstock sandals, you not only shame yourself but you also dishonor our Nations hallowed grounds. I say this because I saw some idiot wearing these ridiculous shoes last time I visited Arlington Nat'l Cemetery.)
Clarification added 11 months ago:
Bill Murphy is correct entirely, Bill Nigh doesn't fully recognize Socialism for what it is, respectfully, it is here and continues to grow.
Also on wire tapping which he (B. Nigh) inserts almost every time.... no American citizens are tapped without a warrant... tapping of calls generated from overseas calls do not require warrants, please cite one example of a wire tap done illegally and the name of the person who filed a grievance. It hasn't happened and if you are worried about wire tapping.. I have to question who one is calling.
Socialism is what is burning our house down.... and many do not recognize it for what it is.
Bill Murphy has hit the nail on the head.
Clarification added 11 months ago:
Edit to add: This type of regulation of what we eat etc comes from Democrats who love big government and love to create policies to intrude on and regulate every aspect of our lives.
Is it just me or is there some hypocrisy from the Left? Aren't they all about "CHOICE" ?
Aren't they the ones who demand "CHOICE" when it comes to aborting children?
So if I understand the Left correctly, they are all for "CHOICE" when it comes to killing babies but I can't have "CHOICE" when it comes to my French Fries?
Just something to ponder.......
John ジョン S. R
APAC Business Development / Marketing Professional | Guest Lecturer | Photographer | Global Citizen
Best Answers in: Job Search (11), Starting Up (7), Business Plans (6), Green Business (6), Venture Capital and Private Equity (5), Business Development (5), Career Management (4), Green Products (4), Certification and Licenses (2), Freelancing and Contracting (2), Mentoring (2), Resume Writing (2), Staffing and Recruiting (2), Organizational Development (2), Franchising (2), Purchasing (1), Travel Tools (1), Accounting (1), Corporate Taxes (1), Government Policy (1), Internationalization and Localization (1), Antitrust Law (1), Tax Law (1), Events Marketing (1), Internet Marketing (1), Public Relations (1), Writing and Editing (1), Corporate Governance (1), Equity Markets (1), Non-profit Management (1), Manufacturing (1), Quality Management and Standards (1), Supply Chain Management (1), Product Design (1), Positioning (1), Professional Networking (1), Incorporation (1), Blogging (1), Enterprise Software (1), Web Development (1), Wireless (1), Using LinkedIn (1)
Good day Kathy,
If the last 8 years under the Bush Administration are not an indication – the point regarding whether the US is moving in the wrong direction or not is moot.
What I find interesting about the difference between Democrats and Republicans is that the latter is brilliant at making the former look like they’re the party that’s pro-big government; when the reality is that under the last several Republican Administrations the size of the US government (and the subsequent debt) has mushroomed exponentially.
Look no further than the US moving from a creditor to debtor nation under Ronald Reagan and/or ‘Dubya’ (and 6 years of a Republican controlled government) for the current state of the US fiscal order (or lack thereof) as examples.
Regards,
John S. Rajeski
Links:
There's a law against pumping your own petrol in Oregon.
The government went too far long before any of us were born, my children.
-- Ainandil
P.S. Costa Rica is nice this time of year.
David O
Board of Directors Member at Federal Executive Institute Alumni Association
Best Answers in: Government Services (1)
The town of Takoma Park, Maryland, a suburb of Washington DC; has just passed a resolution banning foie gras. I think it is absurd.
Subhas C B
Management Consultant
Best Answers in: Using LinkedIn (22), Staffing and Recruiting (12), Career Management (10), Change Management (4), Organizational Development (3), Education and Schools (2), Job Search (2), Mentoring (2), Offshoring and Outsourcing (2), Guerrilla Marketing (2), Public Relations (2), Writing and Editing (2), Professional Books and Resources (2), Ethics (2), Professional Networking (2), Purchasing (1), Business Dining and Entertainment (1), Certification and Licenses (1), Freelancing and Contracting (1), Occupational Training (1), Conference Venues (1), Accounting (1), Budgeting (1), IPO (1), Venture Capital and Private Equity (1), Economics (1), Risk Management (1), Personnel Policies (1), Internationalization and Localization (1), Internet Marketing (1), Business Development (1), Labor Relations (1), Planning (1), Option Markets (1), Non-profit Management (1), Quality Management and Standards (1), Supply Chain Management (1), Personal Investing (1), Personal Real Estate (1), Market Research and Definition (1), Pricing (1), Business Plans (1), Small Business (1), Green Business (1), E-Commerce (1), Computers and Software (1), Telecommunications (1), Web Development (1)
Big brother and his team need to do something during this recession.
In this fast world, it is easy to set the standards of every thing like size of banana or mango in EU to the size of paper in business correspondence.
Problem arises when voices are raised on these changes, debates and protests are organized.
Big brother and their team then starts evaluating the options, find a compromise solution and include it in the policy, election mandate,etc,etc...
Unfortunately we have become too interdependent and knowledgeable in recent times to know the effects of everything on us, our jobs and life. This awareness is good, but our tolerance must increase to accommodate others and to change our habits.
Very soon, whale meat, light bulb, CRT monitors, etc will be under regulation like CFC refrigeration gas. Let us not complain on such mandates issued in larger perspective to save the world.
