With respect to pollution? Treatment of workers?
2007-08-03 11:10:29 · 13 answers · asked by El Duderino 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Sure, and we should also do away with minimum wage and let the employers use a "fair wage" system instead. Let employers pay people what they think their workers are worth instead of an artificial limit being imposed. Let the free markets rule. Can you see it now, we'll all be working for the company store.
2007-08-03 11:23:28 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is a certain amount of self-regulation in any industry, simply because there are limits to what you can get away with while still finding people willing to work for you, supply you, and by your products.
Those limits, though, are far too modest to satisfy most people, so you can expect regulation to be a feature of our legal landscape fo the foreseable future.
(China is actually a bad example - the government still majority- or part- owns much of industry, there. It's more illustrative of bad regulation, than the evils of unregulated business. The Soviet Union forms a similar example. All industry was under complete governement control, but polution, for instance, was extreme.
2007-08-03 11:14:33 · answer #2 · answered by B.Kevorkian 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just look at China. The most polluted country with the worst treatment of workers and the least regulation on industry. So, no.
2007-08-03 11:14:30 · answer #3 · answered by Incognito 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
the project got here from the government making a criminal duty cap of seventy 5 million money and permitting the companies to self insure, those are the undesirable rules. this became completed to inspire exploration and save costs down, in spite of the undeniable fact that it became a decision made by utilising the government. We in basic terms choose for one authentic regulation, make oil companies struggle by using exterior insurers and no caps of criminal duty. you are able to result with a fleet of properly experienced inspectors employed by utilising the coverage firms to guard their investments, which may well be lots extra suitable than the hand finished of under-experienced people who we've examining the rigs now.
2016-10-09 04:07:55 · answer #4 · answered by goulette 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No organization in the history of the world has ever responsibly regulated itself.
2007-08-03 11:15:28 · answer #5 · answered by Mathsorcerer 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
That would be a big no . . . . ah, some might, but many wouldn't. That's why regulation started in the first place, in response to abuses.
2007-08-03 11:15:09 · answer #6 · answered by TaDa 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No way, Jose'!
Thank God we DO have regulations from people like OSHA, that help protect the worker from chemical exposure and other workplace hazards.
2007-08-03 11:32:54 · answer #7 · answered by John Doe 1st 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, they wouldn't. Business is competitive, and look for the cheapest way to produce their products. Those who paid higher or used more expensive production techniques would have higher prices, and people would buy the lower priced goods. So they would have to change, or go out of business.
2007-08-03 11:15:17 · answer #8 · answered by A Plague on your houses 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Sure, like the Fox would regulate himself while guarding the chickens. That is why Republican never make sense.
2007-08-03 11:14:10 · answer #9 · answered by Dangerous 2 · 2⤊ 1⤋
No. We'd look like China.
2007-08-03 11:28:07 · answer #10 · answered by MoltarRocks 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋