NationStates Jolt Archive

As a student of law, I am already a member of a profession that is fiercely self-regulating. There are many others...including probably at the far end of the spectrum in regards to controversy, the armed forces and many police forces. However, you also have professions such as engineering and so on that have high levels of self-regulation, yet are much less controversial.

There are a lot of arguments advanced as to why the self-regulating professions should remain so, as well as arguments as to why there should be more 'outside' regulation in place. Fundamentally, I am opposed to self-regulation as anything other than a very minor part of the oversight in place in regards to ANY profession...legal, scientific or otherwise.

What's your stance, and why?

Well, I think it works quite well but needs some outside oversight to make sure the self-regulation works as well as it possibly can. In accounting, which is a self-regulated profession in the truest sense of the term (considering that GAAP itself is ultimately something developed by a private entity), we've done a pretty good job of keeping things transparent and honest. Mistakes like Arthur Andersen or the various corporate abusers of the financial accounting system are huge issues for us, but with the help of government regulation we've done a heck of a job improving the system and closing those gaps.

The externally regulated side of the accounting profession is the tax code, and given the sheer complexity and duplicity in the tax code compared to the far cleaner and more elegant financial and managerial sides of accounting, I'd say it's not necessarily a good thing to put rulemaking in the hands of government.

Come on people...should the military be in charge of disciplining personnel who commit crimes, for example? Should lawyers be the ones to decide what happens to an attorney who was grossly incompetent? How effective are 'internal investigations', what sort of impact do these practices have on the way the public views these professions? To what extent are 'outsiders' simply not qualified to make these judgments?

Well, I think it works quite well but needs some outside oversight to make sure the self-regulation works as well as it possibly can. In accounting, which is a self-regulated profession in the truest sense of the term (considering that GAAP itself is ultimately something developed by a private entity), we've done a pretty good job of keeping things transparent and honest. Mistakes like Arthur Andersen or the various corporate abusers of the financial accounting system are huge issues for us, but with the help of government regulation we've done a heck of a job improving the system and closing those gaps.

The externally regulated side of the accounting profession is the tax code, and given the sheer complexity and duplicity in the tax code compared to the far cleaner and more elegant financial and managerial sides of accounting, I'd say it's not necessarily a good thing to put rulemaking in the hands of government.

I'm fairly certain that all professions are limited to a certain extent in their self-regulating abilities by some form of legislation (since most self-regulating bodies actually need legislative action in order to exist in the first place), so at the bare minimum there are still controls outside of the profession that are in place to regulate that profession.

But when discretion in terms of who may enter the profession, who may practice and what those members may do and not do become solely the purview of the profession itself, is this problematic in any way?

One could argue, for example, that not just anyone could become an account, and that there are necessary standards that MUST be put into place in order to ensure professional competence...but is the profession itself the only one who can ensure this?

As a student of law, I am already a member of a profession that is fiercely self-regulating. There are many others...including probably at the far end of the spectrum in regards to controversy, the armed forces and many police forces. However, you also have professions such as engineering and so on that have high levels of self-regulation, yet are much less controversial.

There are a lot of arguments advanced as to why the self-regulating professions should remain so, as well as arguments as to why there should be more 'outside' regulation in place. Fundamentally, I am opposed to self-regulation as anything other than a very minor part of the oversight in place in regards to ANY profession...legal, scientific or otherwise.

What's your stance, and why?

We rule, you drool.

http://www.ieee.org

that's my stance.

Like it has been said before, all professions self regulation is limited by legislation. But the problem arises when the profession consist in manipulating and sometimes change the legal system. The supreme courts are composed with lawyers that have to regulate the profession of lawyers...

Who defines the rules to make the rules that rule those who define the rules?

It needs to be regulated, just not by teh governments. I don't trust self-regulation. An outside source is needed, for the most part.

The concept of self-regulating is pretty complicated... Being regulated by people with the same name in their degree isn't necessarily much more of self-regulation than being regulated by people with another. Although generally it's better.

Say, you mention engineering - and indeed, I can tell that every regulatory body for engineers consists of other engineers, who usually used to do or continue to do the same work as those regulated. Even in our field.
But... An interesting thing, we usually think that only the government can impose safety codes and regulations, but it's blatantly false. In fact, the best working, and one of the strictest regulatory codes is the Lloyd's Register of Shipping. It issues volumes on how exactly merchant and passenger vessels should be designed and built (doesn't apply to naval ones, but they tend to far exceed these standards anyway).

And, interestingly, governments have absolutely nothing to do with it. Shipbuilding codes have been created long before any government was big enough to bother with regulations. The driving force for these rules has rather been insurance companies. They didn't want their clients to build poor quality ships and just collect the insurance when they sink, so they hired some shipwrights (this profession existed already) to develop a set of rules describing the basic standards of building ships safely. Minimum freeboard, maximum distance between frames, bulkheads, mast reinforcement (it was the age of sail), sail area, joints. Then these companies would only insure ships that matched these standards. And since everyone needed insurance, and they offered better deals (knowing the ships were well built), so it went, all driven by the free market and insurance companies.

Today, governments do meddle with other regulations, but so far Lloyd's Register ones remain most extensive, but at the same time least troublesome, because they have been developed by naval architects, not governmental clerks with no real-life experience like most other codes. By the way, Lloyd's Register rules aren't enforced by any legislation, they work entirely through market mechanisms, i.e. companies not willing to take risks with poorly built vessels.

It needs to be regulated, just not by teh governments. I don't trust self-regulation. An outside source is needed, for the most part.

so...it shouldn't be regulated internally, by the organization that has the power to set its own membership, nor by the government, which has the power to actually enforce law....

This...doesn't seem like it'll work well. Let's have the teachers union regulated by the NBA, why the hell not?

so...it shouldn't be regulated internally, by the organization that has the power to set its own membership, nor by the government, which has the power to actually enforce law....

This...doesn't seem like it'll work well. Let's have the teachers union regulated by the NBA, why the hell not?

3 points to throw Timmy in the waste paper bin from the back of the class

it depends on the industry really but as a rule as long as the company is not actively ripping people off the govenrment should maintain the position of observer

Come on people...should the military be in charge of disciplining personnel who commit crimes, for example?

please yes

Military law is entirely different to civilian law especially in its politics (after all how would the military hold together without the fear of the glass tower?)

I encourage self-regulation, mostly because I hope it will lead to cool medieval-style guilds where each professional organization gets its own patron saint, feast days, etc.

Aren't all professions self-regulated. I'm struggling to think of one that isn't.

Today, governments do meddle with other regulations, but so far Lloyd's Register ones remain most extensive, but at the same time least troublesome, because they have been developed by naval architects, not governmental clerks with no real-life experience like most other codes. By the way, Lloyd's Register rules aren't enforced by any legislation, they work entirely through market mechanisms, i.e. companies not willing to take risks with poorly built vessels.Wait, what? How is a government clerk any different to an insurance clerk? And if the insurance clerk is just subcontracting out to a professional to come up with some regulations then what's to stop the government clerk from doing that?

so...it shouldn't be regulated internally, by the organization that has the power to set its own membership, nor by the government, which has the power to actually enforce law....

This...doesn't seem like it'll work well. Let's have the teachers union regulated by the NBA, why the hell not?
Well, I have been bested. Thank you for pointing that out. *Rethinks position*

Wait, what? How is a government clerk any different to an insurance clerk? And if the insurance clerk is just subcontracting out to a professional to come up with some regulations then what's to stop the government clerk from doing that?
The insurance company's income is very directly and strongly influenced by how well these rules are written. If they're written too strictly, making ships too expensive for no reason, merchants will go for a competing company with more lax rules (in practice, this is implemented by going for an alternate register and flying another flag). If they're too lax, the company can lose too many insured ships, cutting into your salaries.
And in the insurance company, it's not a clerk who subcontracts the engineers, it's the company's top management, co-owners. Their income depends on company's profit in stronger than direct proportion.

Government clerk's income isn't. He'll get his pay in any case, and the government has so many income sources that even losing the entire shipping industry (like US did, due to excessive governmental meddling) won't affect its budget much if at all - so he can write the rules whatever way he wants. And there's no feedback, he doesn't even know if he did it right or wrong.


I repeat, this is not just theory, this is practice. The codes developed by Lloyd's Register are at the same time the most extensive and the most effective in preventing loss of life, yet cause less problems than some governmental regulations.

I encourage self-regulation, mostly because I hope it will lead to cool medieval-style guilds where each professional organization gets its own patron saint, feast days, etc.

Feast Days FTW

As a student of law, I am already a member of a profession that is fiercely self-regulating. There are many others...including probably at the far end of the spectrum in regards to controversy, the armed forces and many police forces. However, you also have professions such as engineering and so on that have high levels of self-regulation, yet are much less controversial.

There are a lot of arguments advanced as to why the self-regulating professions should remain so, as well as arguments as to why there should be more 'outside' regulation in place. Fundamentally, I am opposed to self-regulation as anything other than a very minor part of the oversight in place in regards to ANY profession...legal, scientific or otherwise.

What's your stance, and why?

Regulate the hell out of them. Whoever they are.

My personal perspective is that there should be multiple groups - including at least on government agency - that have specific remit purely for regulation. Add to that, I think consumer advocacy groups should have legitimate power to regulate, to some extent.

Regulation shouldn't be something applied as a band-aid or punishment. Regulation should be absolutely implicit.

If an industry wants to self-regulate, that shouldn't be alternative to other external regulation, it should be an optional extra.

Example: Doctor sexually abuses patient. Doctor is brought before legal oversight (obviously), before Government regulatory oversight, before Advocacy oversight, and before Medical Board oversight. Minimum.

Regulate the hell out of them. Whoever they are.
Sure. Do it until you have zero industry, because you're a totalitarian hellhole where it's unprofitable.

Example: Doctor sexually abuses patient. Doctor is brought before legal oversight (obviously), before Government regulatory oversight, before Advocacy oversight, and before Medical Board oversight. Minimum.
But doesn't that seem unnecessary? The doctor committed a crime, so he'll definitely be punished legally, and I guess that could be considered regulation. Does he really have to go before a separate regulatory oversight, an Advocacy oversight, and a Medical Board oversight so they can all say, "Yes, we agree with the outcome of the trial"?

Example: Example:
A customer wants a 340m long triple-decked, single-hulled ship to carry his heavy machinery. An industry study proves it's much safer and cleaner than previous designs.

But the government regulates that the ship has to have more dense bulkheads and unneeded inspection ladders all around, which makes it impossible to fit the machinery efficiently. And since the machinery contains oils, the ship has to have a double hull, which is pointless in this case. But the gov't isn't up to industry studies, and couldn't possibly be bothered to follow them anyway.

Result: The customer buys a fleet of used 1970-1980 ships, rusty, unsafe, oil-guzzling and polluting. But they're old, and have been designed before the new rules, so it's legal.



Postscriptum: This is not an entirely fictional example.

But doesn't that seem unnecessary? The doctor committed a crime, so he'll definitely be punished legally, and I guess that could be considered regulation. Does he really have to go before a separate regulatory oversight, an Advocacy oversight, and a Medical Board oversight so they can all say, "Yes, we agree with the outcome of the trial"?

As I said - it's an example. All the relevent parties would be checking for code compliance, not just queueing up to jump on people that already got busted for something.

Should they go before all those 'boards of regulation'? Sure - because people's interests are different. The advocacy group is regulating to make sure that the service that is supposed to be given to the consumer is being received in the manner in which it is being promised - that group answers to the consumer. The Medical Board (or whichever industry board it is) is interested in whether the doctor has been following the ordinances of that group (which, transparently, he hasn't) - and is answerable to that industry (as well as to other vested interests). The Government regulation board is the trump card, perhaps, but only in terms of just how much leverage it can bring to bear.

Looking at the same example, still sticking to the same criminal act, the doctor is porbably charged, tried, found guilty, and serves some kind of sentence.

Does the Government want that person jumping straight back into that business?

Does the Medical industry itself feel content that the business is over and done?

Are consumer groups going to be happy with the result?

See how different groups can have vested interest? They don't necessarily have to provide 'punitive action', but they should be able to gain some regulatory authority.


And - again, to reiterate - the example is extreme. At least, one hopes. The idea of regulation should be preventative.

Sure. Do it until you have zero industry, because you're a totalitarian hellhole where it's unprofitable.

Or not.

If dollars are more important that quality of service or human lives, then sure - run your business that way.

It's funny that you call my regulated model a hellhole because of the regulation, and I think your counterexample would be a hellhole because people are valued below goods and services.

Example:
A customer wants a 340m long triple-decked, single-hulled ship to carry his heavy machinery. An industry study proves it's much safer and cleaner than previous designs.

But the government regulates that the ship has to have more dense bulkheads and unneeded inspection ladders all around, which makes it impossible to fit the machinery efficiently. And since the machinery contains oils, the ship has to have a double hull, which is pointless in this case. But the gov't isn't up to industry studies, and couldn't possibly be bothered to follow them anyway.

Result: The customer buys a fleet of used 1970-1980 ships, rusty, unsafe, oil-guzzling and polluting. But they're old, and have been designed before the new rules, so it's legal.



Postscriptum: This is not an entirely fictional example.

The simple answer in that situation, is to not allow pre-code vessels to be 'grandfathered in'.

Are consumer groups going to be happy with the result?
See how different groups can have vested interest? They don't necessarily have to provide 'punitive action', but they should be able to gain some regulatory authority.

Well, what about me and my s.o.? For one, we have a vested interest too. In many things. Say, roads, we want to only permit to build roads if they are good for a modern car and have a high speed limit of at least 100 mph. Sure we deserve our regulatory authority.

If dollars are more important that quality of service or human lives, then sure - run your business that way.
Of course dollars are important, it's the money that in the end allows humans to have quality service and for human life to be valued. Human life is regarded as worthless in poor countries.

More or less? This isn't black and white. There's a certain value to a human life, it should be assessed (with adjustments depending on education level), and then in design and legislation we should multiply its value by the risk of loss, and weigh it together with other risks, gains and losses.

And yes, I want to run my business that way. I'm ready to put a sign notifying everyone of that at the door. But I can't due to the regulations - so why do you say "run your business that way", while advocating making that impossible?



The simple answer in that situation, is to not allow pre-code vessels to be 'grandfathered in'.
Well, that's an option. But it leads to the industry suffering greater expense. And a fleet of new vessels burns more fuel, costs more (read: takes more labor, thus more homes and cars for the laborers), and generally causes more harm than the single new one.

And it's not that the new ship is bad; it's much safer and cleaner than traditional designs - it's just that the government always lacks behind the industry in its knowledge, and doesn't bother to account for specifics of situations, as it has little vested interest in industry's prosperity.

In the end, everyone loses when regulations aren't economy-based.

Well, what about me and my s.o.? For one, we have a vested interest too. In many things. Say, roads, we want to only permit to build roads if they are good for a modern car and have a high speed limit of at least 100 mph. Sure we deserve our regulatory authority.

Errr. Okay.

What's your point supposed to be? That roads should regulate themselves? Cars should? Or your s.o.... ? What's your point in context?

Should you be represented in the regulatory process? Sure. Individually? Maybe - can you give a good reason why?

SHould arbitrary and stupid laws be pushed? Maybe not so much. Building roads that are functional for a modern car, would be good. Consumer advocacy groups should DEFINITELY be leaning on the road-building agencies to ensure that quality is sufficient.

Should the speed limits be 100mph? Why? What sort of area is it? Are you heading in direct contravention of local traffic laws?

Regulation shouldn't be arbitrary and obtuse - which is what I think you are aiming for. Of course - that's pretty much a logical fallacy you've got there.

Of course dollars are important, it's the money that in the end allows humans to have quality service and for human life to be valued.


Unsupported hollow rhetoric. Cute, but worthless.


Human life is regarded as worthless in poor countries.


Not even true. Prove it.

I can think of a number of cultures that value human life, and don't even HAVE money. That would make your argument a lie.


More or less? This isn't black and white. There's a certain value to a human life, it should be assessed (with adjustments depending on education level), and then in design and legislation we should multiply its value by the risk of loss, and weigh it together with other risks, gains and losses.


It should be black and white. Human lives shouldn't be being considered among the other figures. You shouldn't be doing recalls on your car ONLY once the deaths reach a certain break-even point. If the quality isn't there, you failed. It should be fixed, not used as a factor in a balance-sheet.


And yes, I want to run my business that way. I'm ready to put a sign notifying everyone of that at the door. But I can't due to the regulations - so why do you say "run your business that way", while advocating making that impossible?


Why do I say it? Sarcasm.


Well, that's an option. But it leads to the industry suffering greater expense.


I care. A lot.


And a fleet of new vessels burns more fuel, costs more (read: takes more labor, thus more homes and cars for the laborers), and generally causes more harm than the single new one.


I don't see that that makes any sense. I assume you mean that, fi you need a new ship, somehow this regulation will mean you'll have to buy an entire fleet? Errr... what?


And it's not that the new ship is bad; it's much safer and cleaner than traditional designs


Which is irrelevent. Is it the safest and cleanest technology available? Or JUST better than what went before?

And again - you are getting hooked up on a side issue. Self-regulation or external regulation is the issue.


it's just that the government always lacks behind the industry in its knowledge,


Then the industry is not doing a good job of keeping it's regulatory body up-to-date. That's a failing in the industry, not in regulation.


and doesn't bother to account for specifics of situations, as it has little vested interest in industry's prosperity.


That's because 'specifics of the situation' are irrelevent.


In the end, everyone loses when regulations aren't economy-based.

More hollow rhetoric. Less support. How surprising.

What's your point supposed to be? That roads should regulate themselves? Cars should? Or your s.o.... ? What's your point in context?
It's a counterpoint to your suggestions that everyone who wants to regulate should be able to do so.


Should you be represented in the regulatory process? Sure. Individually? Maybe - can you give a good reason why?
No, no. Not individually, as a group of us and our friends. Then we become a consumer advocacy group.

Should the speed limits be 100mph? Why? What sort of area is it?
We're a consumer group, we want to regulate it to be so. And you know what, rather make it a minimum limit.



Consumer advocacy groups should DEFINITELY be leaning on the road-building agencies to ensure that quality is sufficient. [/sarcasm]
Yes, and what about the people who just need a damn dirt road, because they drive trucks anyway, and can't possibly afford the tremendous cost of a quality road?

Aren't all professions self-regulated. I'm struggling to think of one that isn't. Well, often the ability to self-regulate is part of the definition of a 'profession' as opposed to simply an occupation...but this definition is not necessarily universal.

The thing with self-regulation is that it is generally intended to do two things. Protect the public, and to maintain the reputation of the profession. Professionals can not escape criminal sanction simply because their profession is self-regulating (generally), but the ultimate decision to discipline them professionally...to allow them to continue practicing in their field or not for example, is in the hands of the profession itself.

So, theoretically, a lawyer could murder his wife, get out of jail after 10 years, and continue to practice law. (okay, not so theoretically...a former professor at my law school actually did this...eventually he was disbarred because of pressure from colleagues who felt that allowing him to continue practicing the law would seriously harm the reputation of the profession)

Is this really a problem? Who should be making that decision, if not members of the profession itself?

Regulate the hell out of them. Whoever they are. Why?

Is that economically feasible, or desireable? Is it morally desireable? What is the basis of your desire to 'regulate the hell out of them'?

I'm not an advocate of getting rid of regulations...but neither am I a supporter of simply creating more regulations in the belief that this will solve whatever problems currently exist within the self-regulation regime.

Not even true. Prove it.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4858073670009228423

And it's a known fact that the underdeveloped nations don't have the same "ZOMG sacred human liff!" attitude as the developed ones.


It should be black and white. Human lives shouldn't be being considered among the other figures.
It's the only way. Otherwise we'd all be walking with styrofoam and bubble wrap cocoons around us at 1 mph.

You shouldn't be doing recalls on your car ONLY once the deaths reach a certain break-even point. If the quality isn't there, you failed. It should be fixed, not used as a factor in a balance-sheet.
EVERY car model will crash once in a while, and once in a while it will kill the occupant.

People don't buy the high-safety Volvo and Porsche cars because the government forces them to, they buy them because they want to live and are ready to pay for that.

I care. A lot.
Yes, I know you don't care about the industry suffering expenses. Because you're a communist, and an USSR-style one at that.
But remember that industry expenses always translate to your expenses.

I don't see that that makes any sense. I assume you mean that, fi you need a new ship, somehow this regulation will mean you'll have to buy an entire fleet? Errr... what?
It's easier to meet regulations with small vessels (particularly pre-regulation ones, but not only), as they're easier to design and inspect.
But they consume much more fuel.

Which is irrelevent. Is it the safest and cleanest technology available? Or JUST better than what went before?
It's cleaner than the alternatives. The safest and cleanest will run you billions per vessel (like the military pays), so the whole idea of shipping goods will be forfeit.


Then the industry is not doing a good job of keeping it's regulatory body up-to-date. That's a failing in the industry, not in regulation.
Yes, if it's the industry's own regulatory body.

However, if it's a governmental one, the industry has no control over it.


Self-regulation or external regulation is the issue.
Exactly. And external regulation doesn't give a fuck about the industry, leading to its demise. Self-regulation works fine.



That's because 'specifics of the situation' are irrelevent.
Of course.
http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=565189

It's a counterpoint to your suggestions that everyone who wants to regulate should be able to do so.


Two things.

One: No it's not - I was talking about regulating industries, and your warbling on about a road. Who are you supposed to be 'regulating' exactly?

and Two: I didn't say that, or anything like it.


No, no. Not individually, as a group of us and our friends. Then we become a consumer advocacy group.


Good job. Yes, you should be able to activate a mechanism to obtain some sort of regulatory authority, then. It mightn't make you the final arbiters of regulation, but it's got to be a good thing.


We're a consumer group, we want to regulate it to be so. And you know what, rather make it a minimum limit.


What are you talking about? Do even you know?

How do you think you're debating the topic?


[/sarcasm]
Yes, and what about the people who just need a damn dirt road, because they drive trucks anyway, and can't possibly afford the tremendous cost of a quality road?

If they only need a dirt track.. why are they building a road? What ARE you on about?

(The obvious answer to the 'they drive trucks' conundrum, of course, is to ban trucks).

Two things.
One: No it's not - I was talking about regulating industries, and your warbling on about a road. Who are you supposed to be 'regulating' exactly?
Private road construction industries. You know it exists, right? The gov't isn't always fast to get its ass where its services, already paid for, are needed.


Good job. Yes, you should be able to activate a mechanism to obtain some sort of regulatory authority, then. It mightn't make you the final arbiters of regulation, but it's got to be a good thing.
So the entrepreneur shouldn't have the ultimate authority; his actions should be decided by the symposium of regulatory bodies, that's what you want?


If they only need a dirt track.. why are they building a road? What ARE you on about?
(The obvious answer to the 'they drive trucks' conundrum, of course, is to ban trucks).
A remote settlement needs a way to get to the town. They're OK with paying for a dirt road. They're OK with driving trucks to traverse it when it's wet (besides, they need to carry goods). But they can't afford a fine paved road.

Yeah, of course, ban trucks is what you'd do. "Ban it" is always the easiest answer.

Why?

Is that economically feasible, or desireable? Is it morally desireable? What is the basis of your desire to 'regulate the hell out of them'?

I'm not an advocate of getting rid of regulations...but neither am I a supporter of simply creating more regulations in the belief that this will solve whatever problems currently exist within the self-regulation regime.

Is it economically feasible? That rather depends. Should the industry be paying for it's external regulators? No. They should be sponsoring themselves and/or being supported by other sources. The industry should pay for it's internal regulators. The Government can pay for it's governmental regulators. It's not ecopnomically UNfeasible.

Is it desirable? That rather depends on your goals. I've lived in the UK which has MUCH tighter regulation than the US, and I've lived in the US. And, customers in the US get far, far worse service than customers in the UK. And they have less means of getting redress UNESS they can push a case to court.

Am I an advocate of creating more regulation? Not as such - but I am an advocate of making industries answerable. I've worked in industry, and what I know is - the more QA you do on products (or services) the better the quality of the product. If you only randomly check one valve a day, your output will almost certainly be way inferior to the manufacturing company that randomly checks one from each run. And the company that inspects every valve, will be making the best product of all. Not JUST because your mistakes get caught, but because people try harder to get a good product made (or service, rendered) if they think someone MIGHT be watching.

Would extra application of external regulation make all the problems of an internally regulated industry disappear? No - but it WOULD make a lot of them disappear. Pretty much instantly.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4858073670009228423


Awesome. A link to a video that it says is unavailable. I'm enlightened!


And it's a known fact that the underdeveloped nations don't have the same "ZOMG sacred human liff!" attitude as the developed ones.


It's a known fact, is it? That would be a logical fallacy, wouldn't it?

I didn't ask you for your opinion, or yet more rhetoric. I want you to show a positive correlation. Again - I can think of cultures that have valued human life, but to whom 'money' would be an irrelevence. Similarly, 'undeveloped' cultures that have similarly valued human life.

I want you to show there is a causal link between shitloads of cash, and giving a shit about each other. If anything - you seem to be advocating exactly the opposite as actually being true.


It's the only way. Otherwise we'd all be walking with styrofoam and bubble wrap cocoons around us at 1 mph.


What? How do you even think that conects?


EVERY car model will crash once in a while, and once in a while it will kill the occupant.


Okay. Is it a fault in the CAR that causes it?

If so - once is too many.


People don't buy the high-safety Volvo and Porsche cars because the government forces them to, they buy them because they want to live and are ready to pay for that.


Again with the 'huh'?


Yes, I know you don't care about the industry suffering expenses.


I certainly don't hol corporate bottom lines to be the final arbiter.


Because you're a communist, and an USSR-style one at that.


Oh really? How so? Hollow rhetoric? Flamebait?

Is it supposed to be a flame? If it is - it's a little weak.

Pray, eluctidate.


But remember that industry expenses always translate to your expenses.


Rubbish.


It's cleaner than the alternatives. The safest and cleanest will run you billions per vessel (like the military pays), so the whole idea of shipping goods will be forfeit.


More hollow rhetoric. It doesn't matter how expensive the vessel - if you transport ENOUGH goods in it, you'll eventually break even. (Assuming we're still talkig your profit model. If we're not - how are you buying a ship?)


Yes, if it's the industry's own regulatory body.

However, if it's a governmental one, the industry has no control over it.


One doesn't need 'control' to educate.


Exactly. And external regulation doesn't give a fuck about the industry, leading to its demise. Self-regulation works fine.


And internal regulation doesn't give a fuck about anyone outside the industry. Self regulation doesn't work fine. I have to assume you've never left the US.


Of course.
http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=565189

What. What's that supposed to connect to? How does it answer the question of what value the specifics of industry requirements should have to extrernal regulation?

"Canada, we're better off with Harper." Seriously? That's the campaign line? LAME.

Okay sorry, distracted for a moment.

I am in favour of limiting self-regulation for a number of reasons. In relation to the legal profession specifically, I belief that self-regulation is simply a way for the profession to maintain its monopoly on services which results in an increasingly complicated, and inaccessible (re: expensive) system. I hate to resort to a market-based analysis, but honestly, the demand for legal services is such that this artifical restriction on the number of practicioners (limiting the number of people admitted to law school etc) is genuinely problematic and ensures that the cost of legal representation remains ridiculously high. The latter is obviously the point, and frankly I don't believe it's justifiable. Of course a profession is going to want to be able to ensure the financial wellbeing of its members. Giving it nearly absolute power to ensure this happens doesn't seem to serve the public interest in any way.

Many professions argue that the layman, or the legislator is simply unqualified to regulate a specialised field like the law, or engineering...but knowledge can be bought...specialists can advise administrative bodies in this area just like they do in every other 'externally regulating' administrative body.

Hey...GnI? Is there some reason you're being a big fat ass to Vault 10? Maybe I'm missing some history between you two, but there's a level of snarkiness in your posts that seems somewhat disproportionate to the discussion. Just wondering. It's not as though snarky assness is new to me after all...

As a student of law, I am already a member of a profession that is fiercely self-regulating. There are many others...including probably at the far end of the spectrum in regards to controversy, the armed forces and many police forces. However, you also have professions such as engineering and so on that have high levels of self-regulation, yet are much less controversial.

There are a lot of arguments advanced as to why the self-regulating professions should remain so, as well as arguments as to why there should be more 'outside' regulation in place. Fundamentally, I am opposed to self-regulation as anything other than a very minor part of the oversight in place in regards to ANY profession...legal, scientific or otherwise.

What's your stance, and why?

I work in the paper industry, in the "color kitchen" @ my company.
We are the model for every cannibal zombie movie ever made.
BEAT THAT!!! BITCHEZZ!!!

Private road construction industries. You know it exists, right? The gov't isn't always fast to get its ass where its services, already paid for, are needed.


So - you're saying private road construction companies.. shouldn't be regulated?


So the entrepreneur shouldn't have the ultimate authority; his actions should be decided by the symposium of regulatory bodies, that's what you want?


Hell yeah. Absolutely. Is that even a serious question?


A remote settlement needs a way to get to the town. They're OK with paying for a dirt road. They're OK with driving trucks to traverse it when it's wet (besides, they need to carry goods). But they can't afford a fine paved road.


Okay. And this has... what to do with it?


Yeah, of course, ban trucks is what you'd do. "Ban it" is always the easiest answer.

Hey, you presented a situation that created it's own dilemma. I just showed you that Solomonic logic applies.

Hey...GnI? Is there some reason you're being a big fat ass to Vault 10? Maybe I'm missing some history between you two, but there's a level of snarkiness in your posts that seems somewhat disproportionate to the discussion. Just wondering. It's not as though snarky assness is new to me after all...

I don't pull any punches with Vault. If he wants to twitter on about stuff that's not on topic, I'll tell him so. If he wants to present rhetoric that has no backing, I'll tell him so. If he wants to make unsupportable claims, I'll tell him so.

You'll have noticed he drops parts of my responses that he wishes to ignore. You'll have noticed that he - if need be - will actually construct things he WISHES I'd said, to respond to.. rather than actually addressing my argument. You'll have noticed that he's long on rhetoric, and short on facts - long on logical fallacy, and short on actual arguments.

But I don't think I'm especially 'snarky' to him. I just don't waste any time on being tactful or diplomatic.

But I don't think I'm especially 'snarky' to him. I just don't waste any time on being tactful or diplomatic.

Fair enough, enjoy.

Fair enough, enjoy.

If you would... let me just redirect a couple of the points to you, for your consideration - perhaps I'm being unfair.

Is it true that: cultures that don't have large economic balances, don't care about 'human life'?

Is it true that: cultures not considered 'developed' (by Euro-Western standards, one assumes) are intrinsically devoid of respect for human life?

Am I being unfair to call bullshit? To ask for some kind of corroborative source?

Many professions argue that the layman, or the legislator is simply unqualified to regulate a specialised field like the law, or engineering...but knowledge can be bought...specialists can advise administrative bodies in this area just like they do in every other 'externally regulating' administrative body.
What if these self-regulating agencies just didn't hire those they regulate? Instead of hiring lawyers, the ABA would hire people who have masters of legal administration, or professional ethicists. It'd be something like a governing body of "attorney deacons."

Or is the fact it is still private make it less trustworthy?

If you would... let me just redirect a couple of the points to you, for your consideration - perhaps I'm being unfair.

Is it true that: cultures that don't have large economic balances, don't care about 'human life'?

Is it true that: cultures not considered 'developed' (by Euro-Western standards, one assumes) are intrinsically devoid of respect for human life?

Am I being unfair to call bullshit? To ask for some kind of corroborative source?
Don't take it to heart GnI, I'm pretty tired today, and fairly mellow...I'm not reacting to your valid challenges of his/her points...just the tone. Seemed a bit more biting than usual, and I wondered if you were stressed out or something.

To be honest, were I more full of vim and vigour at the moment, I'm sure I'd join you in jumping down Valut10's throat :D

What if these self-regulating agencies just didn't hire those they regulate? Instead of hiring lawyers, the ABA would hire people who have masters of legal administration, or professional ethicists. It'd be something like a governing body of "attorney deacons."

Or is the fact it is still private make it less trustworthy?

If it's not hiring those it regulates, then by definition, it's not self-regulating.

If it's not hiring those it regulates, then by definition, it's not self-regulating.
Oh. Right. :$

EDIT: Why is the embarrassed mouth a dollar sign? It looks like I have some sort of weird lip piercing.

Oh. Right. :$

To your other point...about whether it's the private nature of the regulating body itself which makes it suspect...no, not in my mind. It's the inevitable conflict of interest of a group of professionals regulating themselves.

Politicians voting in pay raises for themselves is an example of how self-regulation in public bodies is ridiculous.

Don't take it to heart GnI, I'm pretty tired today, and fairly mellow...I'm not reacting to your valid challenges of his/her points...just the tone. Seemed a bit more biting than usual, and I wondered if you were stressed out or something.

To be honest, were I more full of vim and vigour at the moment, I'm sure I'd join you in jumping down Valut10's throat :D

You sound kind of mellow, actually. Should we be worried? ;)


I encountered Vault in a similar sort of debate a few days back, where he made some interesting points, including one about authoritarian government being the same as BDSM, or something... the exact phrasing slips my mind. I guess this is the natural balance point when he and I are going to meet.

You sound kind of mellow, actually. Should we be worried? ;) Na, I was just out partying late last night, and in school early...plus this is my first week back at school and it's been tiring. I shan't stay mellow for long, I promise!


I encountered Vault in a similar sort of debate a few days back, where he made some interesting points, including one about authoritarian government being the same as BDSM, or something... the exact phrasing slips my mind. I guess this is the natural balance point when he and I are going to meet.
Hmmm...except in BDSM, the one submitting to the 'authoritarian' gets off on doing so, and has the power to stop the 'authoritarian' at any time.. I don't think the same can be said of those forced to live under an authoritarian government.

Na, I was just out partying late last night, and in school early...plus this is my first week back at school and it's been tiring. I shan't stay mellow for long, I promise!


Yeah, it's been a long week here, too. Maybe that's why Vault is getting less diplomacy than I might be expected to give.

More vitriol, dammit!


Hmmm...except in BDSM, the one submitting to the 'authoritarian' gets off on doing so, and has the power to stop the 'authoritarian' at any time.. I don't think the same can be said of those forced to live under an authoritarian government.

It might be worth looking the thing up... I think it was Poli that posted a response about being used, abused, and then tearing down legitimate government all night long baby... or something. It was better when she said it.


EDIT: Found it: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13955999&postcount=183

EDIT: Found it: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=13955999&postcount=183

That's pretty much the only reasonable response.

That's fucking gold.

I was impressed. +1 for Poli.

I was impressed. +1 for Poli.

Other awesome Poli quotes (I've become a collector):

"Also, I've met every lawyer and rape victim in the whole world while I was wandering around in my capacity as a doctor/soldier/gigolo/lion tamer/Jesus, and they all agree with me, except for the Muslim ones, who are all evil, and whom I shot in the head from 20,000 feet away while operating my gun with my enormous penis."--Deep Hot Remote Kimchi Legs Online, as written by Poli.

"Indeed. I'm not pretentious about my cock preferences - when I want a cock, I just want a cock, not an iced diet mocha venti cockaccino." - Poli

Other awesome Poli quotes (I've become a collector):

"Also, I've met every lawyer and rape victim in the whole world while I was wandering around in my capacity as a doctor/soldier/gigolo/lion tamer/Jesus, and they all agree with me, except for the Muslim ones, who are all evil, and whom I shot in the head from 20,000 feet away while operating my gun with my enormous penis."--Deep Hot Remote Kimchi Legs Online, as written by Poli.

"Indeed. I'm not pretentious about my cock preferences - when I want a cock, I just want a cock, not an iced diet mocha venti cockaccino." - Poli

She totally rocks.

Ah. Poli has the kind of celebrity I can only aspire to. :)

You'll have noticed he drops parts of my responses that he wishes to ignore. You break posts down into tens of irrelevant single-phrase responses. I don't have the time to respond in depth to each of your single-word remarks.


Again - I can think of cultures that have valued human life, but to whom 'money' would be an irrelevence. Similarly, 'undeveloped' cultures that have similarly valued human life.
That's good. So name some cultures that go through greater expenses to save a life of their citizen than US and other developed nations.


EVERY car model will crash once in a while, and once in a while it will kill the occupant.
Okay. Is it a fault in the CAR that causes it?
If so - once is too many.
Yes, of course, it's always partially a car's fault. It's not as safe as it could possibly be.

You want a car that's safer? Well, please. If you're not much for driving involvement, Mercedes S-class monitors the distance to nearby cars and keeps it safe, and has a load of passive safety features. It will run you $80,000+. If you want more driving involvement, Nissan GT-R has a very advanced four wheel drive system with active differential, active yaw control, and every other computer gizmo to date, to make sure it will always go exactly where you steer it. Powerful brakes, very stiff and tough steel body, side airbags. Only $90,000.


What? How do you even think that conects?
It's the safest way. Cars, or anything that moves above human running pace, will always remain dangerous.


More hollow rhetoric. It doesn't matter how expensive the vessel - if you transport ENOUGH goods in it, you'll eventually break even. (Assuming we're still talkig your profit model. If we're not - how are you buying a ship?)

No, it does matter. If it's too expensive, you can't transport enough goods in it to break even.
Thus, no one will order it. That means it won't need to be designed and built. Jobs will be lost. Economy suffers losses.

Ultimately, when it's an industry-wide situation, everyone suffers losses - consumers can't get their goods for a reasonable price, and shipyard workers are fired.


And internal regulation doesn't give a fuck about anyone outside the industry. Self regulation doesn't work fine. I have to assume you've never left the US.
I know it works fine in shipbuilding. Better than any external regulation does.

Don't see what leaving US has to do with it. Foreign companies abide by the Register codes, and do just fine - as long as the government keeps its nose out and lets the industry self-regulate.
Because that way it can combine high safety with high profits - they know unsafe ships mean losses, so they make them safe.

Overburdening industry with regulation after regulation, bureaucratic paperwork after bureaucratic paperwork, can be very dangerous for the economy, since it's a major disincentive to start a business and can actually be very expensive in the long run. Regulation for the sake of regulation is not a virtue, you should only be doing what is absolutely necessary to ensure that working conditions meet the minimum requirements as well as product safety etc... Any superfluous governmental regulation only does harm.

I'm interested in the assumption being made that anything other than self-regulation would be ridiculously bureaucratic and expensive.

In the case of the legal profession, for example...arguing that removing self-regulation would cost too much is honestly laughable. Without the artificial restrictions imposed by self-regulating bodies, there would be more practicioners in the field, and the overall costs of legal representation would be lessened. Right now, great expense is undertaken by various governments at different levels to try to offset the costs of legal service for the poorest clients. There are also the social costs and personal costs affecting the majority of people in the middle-income range who do not qualify for legal aid and yet who risk being financially ruined if involved in lawsuits.

Professional parachutests are the best self regulators.

What's your stance, and why?In as far as matters that concern specifically the profession, I don't see how a layman (in that subject) could give proper regulation. Regulation without understanding is a disaster waiting to happen.

In as far as matters that concern specifically the profession, I don't see how a layman (in that subject) could give proper regulation. Regulation without understanding is a disaster waiting to happen.

Understanding can be bought.

Administrative bodies in charge of regulating various non-self-regulating industries hire professionals all the time to advise them.

I'd much rather see self-regulation than government regulation. Someone involved in the cause, organization or what have you is, I would think, more likely to have the best interests of said cause, organization or what have you at heart and/or will know's what is good for it(within reason) than some distant beareaucrat.

Understanding can be bought.Up to a point, but beyond that you have to live it.

Administrative bodies in charge of regulating various non-self-regulating industries hire professionals all the time to advise them.If expert advice starts to become the only thing you rely on, you may as well cut out the middle man and just let them manage it directly. The involvement of the administrative body only makes sense when there is sufficient input from other sources.
So as an example, a medical review board would seem, to me, like a good example of self-regulation. Because the only thing an administrative body could do is ask other doctors whether the case under review was handled properly. It doesn't have the competency to judge it itself, nor does it bring significant external input to the table. So rather than add to the bureaucracy, letting the medical community handle it seems the best way. (So says the lay person with neither expertise in administration, legislation, regulation, nor medical matters)

I'm interested in the assumption being made that anything other than self-regulation would be ridiculously bureaucratic and expensive.


I'm not sure if you're referring to my post or not, but I'm not saying this at all. I'm just saying that too much (self or external) regulation can be very bad for the economy.

Regulation to me should only be done for the purposes of the environment (which is nearly impossible to quantify is dollars) and for businesses where there are no/few competitores (monopolies and duopolies).

Its important that people pay the true cost of things rather then relly on someone elses taxes but without proper competition there is no requirement for businesses to keep their prices low.

I'd much rather see self-regulation than government regulation. Someone involved in the cause, organization or what have you is, I would think, more likely to have the best interests of said cause, organization or what have you at heart and/or will know's what is good for it(within reason) than some distant beareaucrat.

The problem with organization regulation is like the government they have special interests. They will need the funding from somewhere to opperate which will cause them to always ask for more.

A beareucrat can be from the area. They are also accountable under the law. If there is just some body without proper accountability they can easily fall into corruption.
not wearing a suit dosnt make you any more capable.

I'd much rather see self-regulation than government regulation. Someone involved in the cause, organization or what have you is, I would think, more likely to have the best interests of said cause, organization or what have you at heart and/or will know's what is good for it(within reason) than some distant beareaucrat.

By which logic, monpolies never exist.

Ever heard of Underwriters Laboratories? I thought so. It's a private company that is paid to test and regulate electronics. It is very highly esteemed, and was created without any government involvement.

I'm not sure if you're referring to my post or not, but I'm not saying this at all. I'm just saying that too much (self or external) regulation can be very bad for the economy.
Too little regulation can also be bad. See the recent history of the US airline and banking industries as examples.

This is a difficult question to answer. I am merely a (potential) consumer of services from self-regulated professions, and my own area of work -- the arts -- is deliberately only lightly regulated, if at all, both by itself and by government (which is mostly kept out of it by law in the US).

However, in general, I am a big fan of regulation. I have seen both the abuses and the failures that come from eliminating regulation of certain professions and industries. But it is definitely a balancing act.

I can see the sense of having highly skilled/technical professions regulate themselves in order to have regulators who know what they are talking about. On the other hand, self-regulatory bodies mostly exist to protect the profession, not the general public, so there can be and are conflicts of interest. Just look at how hard it is to get the AMA to revoke a doctor's license even if he/she has multiple malpractice incidents.

What if there were regulators upon the regulators? I'm thinking about how the General Acountability Office regulates (or used to be able to regulate, pre-Bush-I) the federal government. The GAO is an independent, non-partisan, non-profit office of the government comprised of professionals in various areas (mostly accountants, I think) recruited from private business. Their sole purpose is to audit pretty much everything the executive and legislative branches do and determine whether they are wasting the taxpayers' money. They used to have the power to enforce penalties on agencies/offices that crossed the lines of public responsibility too egregiously.

What if there were similar independent offices/agencies that audited what the regulatory bodies of private professions did and judged whether they were fulfilling their duties according to their rules, as the GAO does with the government? Might that go some way towards addressing the issues of conflict of interest and ass-covering that currently may be problems?

Up to a point, but beyond that you have to live it.
And I'm arguing that there's no need for that point to be self-regulation.



If expert advice starts to become the only thing you rely on, you may as well cut out the middle man and just let them manage it directly. You fundamentally misunderstand what self-regulation entails.

Issues like fraud, sexual misconduct, conduct unbecoming, and so forth are generally what self-governing bodies deal with. While some of those issues may not be absolutely cut and dry to the layman, it is nonetheless the case that expert witnesses, versed in the norms and practices of the field, can provide enough background to allow the layman to make an educated decision.

In fact, the courts do this all the time. Generalist judges preside over medical malpractice suits literally every day. Expert witnesses are used to fill that generalist in on the particulars of the case, but ultimately the issue is 'what happened, and did it violate the law/code of conduct'?

In fact, our entire jury system is predicated on the belief that even the average person, properly instructed, can learn enough of the important concepts at stake to make an informed, and correct decision.

The argument that 'outsiders' simply lack the necessary training and information to make an informed decision is disingenuous, and easily rebutted. Once again...expertise can be bought.


The involvement of the administrative body only makes sense when there is sufficient input from other sources. Of course. Administrative bodies access those other sources all the time.
So as an example, a medical review board would seem, to me, like a good example of self-regulation. Because the only thing an administrative body could do is ask other doctors whether the case under review was handled properly. It doesn't have the competency to judge it itself, nor does it bring significant external input to the table. Yet it could if it wanted to.


So rather than add to the bureaucracy, letting the medical community handle it seems the best way. (So says the lay person with neither expertise in administration, legislation, regulation, nor medical matters)
Self-regulation does mean less bureaucracy, only if you narrowly define bureacracy as 'government actors carrying out governmental functions'. The processes for making complaints, for example against lawyers, is as 'bureacratic' as anything the government has ever come up with.

It is not the case that I am suggesting there should be two tiers...self-regulating some other level of oversite. I'm saying the system should be blended from the outset to avoid self-regulation.

Ever heard of Underwriters Laboratories? I thought so. It's a private company that is paid to test and regulate electronics. It is very highly esteemed, and was created without any government involvement.

Uh....huh?

You going somewhere with this?

Uh....huh?

You going somewhere with this?

Yeah, Outside regulation/ quality control doesn't require government intervention. there is often a need for outside authorities in areas of business, but more government bureaucracy is neither efficient nor just. The private sector can provide all necessary outside regulation and government can have little to no involvement.

the legal profession pisses me off the most.
If your lawyer is high on drugs, late for trial, falls asleep and is generally hopeless you cant sue them. Same for a judge.

All other professions (apart from politicians) would loose their house. Its pathetic. Imagine the cost to a doctor if they were high for an operation, arrived late, fell asleep in the middle of it and botched things when they were awake. Both deal with the human life.

There is no profession nearly as self regulating then lawyers and politicians. Coincidently they are also the most hated groups of people in the world. Its no wonder why.

the legal profession pisses me off the most.
If your lawyer is high on drugs, late for trial, falls asleep and is generally hopeless you cant sue them. Same for a judge.

All other professions (apart from politicians) would loose their house. Its pathetic. Imagine the cost to a doctor if they were high for an operation, arrived late, fell asleep in the middle of it and botched things when they were awake. Both deal with the human life.

There is no profession nearly as self regulating then lawyers and politicians. Coincidently they are also the most hated groups of people in the world. Its no wonder why.
Traditionally in the UK it was because money paid to them was seen as a gift rather than a price (iirc they used to have a bag on the back of their robes, so if you thought they were doing well you put money in it) the other side of that was they couldn't sue for wages if you didn't pay them. I believe they closed that loophole though :(

the above is all based off half remembering things I didn't really know in the first place, bullshit content may exceed safety levels