Comments on: First Do No Harm

By: kurt

kurt — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 23:10:09 +0000

BA– Darn. I’m trying so hard to be bi-partisan, and now you’ve trashed one of my few Republican social friends, Nancy Nord of the CPSC. :)

By: medicthree

medicthree — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 12:48:23 +0000

While the moral of the quoted email forward is great, the fact that I have seen it should tell you it is like most email forwards–great story… Little fact.

I have no news reports to reflect this. Don’t think that businesses do things quietly like this.

That being said… Laws that make it HARDER for small businesses to survive, let alone thrive have no place in MY America.

By: Gerald A. Naus

Gerald A. Naus — Sat, 14 Feb 2009 01:30:21 +0000

I for one thank the concerned legal departments across this great nation. I would have perished countless times had it not been for their tireless efforts. Why, just the other week the advice “Not a toy. Do not put bag over head” saved me from becoming a victim of natural selection.

By: M.Z. Forrest

M.Z. Forrest — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 19:42:20 +0000

Closing a mill has serious consequences. It even has negative consequences for the business that does it, at least initially; they do so because they believe it will make sense in the long run. But we don’t tell the business owner not to close mills because it may indeed be prudent for the business owner to close the mill. Likewise with government regulation, the existance of negative consequences in actions is a call for prudence and not some res ipsa loquitur.

A lot of this reminds me of HIPAA. You get lawyers (no offense) and consultants involved all trying to justify their buck, and you end up with people running around scared. Sarbanes Oxley was also like this. Not to be a defender of big business, but small businesses including Mom and Pops are responsible for a lot of preventable deaths and injuries in this country. Reading around for example, they talked about a woman at a farmers market selling a pacifer studded with lead crystals.

Does this mean I think Mom and Pop’s should be targeted? No. Does it mean I think Etsy should be closed? No. The government doesn’t have the resources to enforce at that level anyway. (Etsy invites complications beyond the scope of this comment.) Does this mean that people are operating outside the law? Yes, but the dirty secret is a lot fo these folks were operating outside the law anyway. They were already required not to have these things in there products. They were already liable if someone was harmed by having prohibited substances in their products. The testing requirement inhibits their ability to operate on the gray market. That is the end game at the small level.

Having said all of that, yes it is prudent to revisit the regulations so that small manufacturers can be more easily brought into compliance.

By: LCB

LCB — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 19:24:23 +0000

The law of unintended consequences is a beast, and it is one of many reasons that the vast majority of governance should take place at the smallest possible level, as per the Social Doctrine of the Church.

Most “feel good” legislation (CAFE gas standards, for instance) ends up causing far more harm than good.

And enforcement of this law ought to be taking place at the border and at ports, since most the problems were with objects produced in China.

By: LCB

LCB — Fri, 13 Feb 2009 19:22:18 +0000

“which required any manufacturer of children’s products to certify,”

I believe a major component of the problem is that the verification requirement rests on the retailer and not the manufacturer. And no enforcement what soever is to take place at the border or at ports.