Republican Sen: Let restaurants ‘opt out’ of handwashing after toilet to ‘reduce regulatory bu

a reply to: neo96

I EFFING love how that got spun.

Me too Neo - but more in the way you've spun it

“I said, I don’t have any problem with Starbucks if they choose to opt out of this policy as long as the post a sign that says ‘We don’t require our employees to wash their hands after leaving the restrooms.’ The market will take care of that.”

Ah yes - the Magical Market (...and a hush fell over the crowd)

There's government in that no matter how we look at it, and he knows it (I think)

...as long as they post a sign that says...

Now, why should they have to even post a sign?

Guess people are too stupid to make up their own minds.

The Senator thought he would be making some big (and safe) smaller government, anti-regulatory/pro-capitalism brownie points when he said this

Does he think people are stupid? Maybe he's stupid...Golly - and he's a senator

:-)

originally posted by: TheTengriist
a reply to: NavyDoc

As brought up earlier... How does one regulate "put a sign up," if there are no regulations? Why would a business, under zero pressure to do so, injure itself by putting such information up?

Sure, perhaps "market forces" would eventually garner the place a bad reputation... but before that happens, lots of people are unaware, and are getting sick from the unsanitary practices. Further, there's really not a lot of "reputation" to worry about with large franchise places. A McDonalds off the interstate is likely to never have repeat business, but that's just fine for the restaurant.

I suggest every lunatic who thinks they are espousing "free market" ideals, pick up a copy of Adam Smith and actually read it. if he leaves out handwashing, it's only because germ theory of disease wouldn't be accepted until a century after "Wealth of nations" was published.

IMHO, you kind of miss the broader point. It's not about handwashing nor is it about signs. It is, and it is a valid point, that we don't need the large amount of regulation we have.

originally posted by: NotMoose
a reply to: TheTengriist

Do you need Obama to tuck you in at night?

Does that even mean anything?

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: TheTengriist
a reply to: NavyDoc

As brought up earlier... How does one regulate "put a sign up," if there are no regulations? Why would a business, under zero pressure to do so, injure itself by putting such information up?

Sure, perhaps "market forces" would eventually garner the place a bad reputation... but before that happens, lots of people are unaware, and are getting sick from the unsanitary practices. Further, there's really not a lot of "reputation" to worry about with large franchise places. A McDonalds off the interstate is likely to never have repeat business, but that's just fine for the restaurant.

I suggest every lunatic who thinks they are espousing "free market" ideals, pick up a copy of Adam Smith and actually read it. if he leaves out handwashing, it's only because germ theory of disease wouldn't be accepted until a century after "Wealth of nations" was published.

IMHO, you kind of miss the broader point. It's not about handwashing nor is it about signs. It is, and it is a valid point, that we don't need the large amount of regulation we have.

Yes, in fact I would argue we DO need regulation. This guy's argument is actually a pretty good example of why, as well. I "get' that it's a long-running fad to claim that all regulation is bad, but i for one prefer the notion that food service is regulated for the purpose of public health.

Maybe you and other proud red-blooded hunter-gatherers regard the occasional bout of trichnosis as nothing to worry about. The rest of us rather like that a place that doesn't cook our pork chop enough to kill parasitic worms can be shut down.

a reply to: neo96

Not much of an argument really - why don't you make your point here in this thread?

Too hard? Then why are you even here?

What the senator said is ridiculous - it's been picked up (and picked on) in more places than just here in this thread

He deserves to be ridiculed

If you're angry that I disagree with you - well - that's on you. Argue your point or let it go

a reply to: TheTengriist

Yes it does. It means does it make you feel better living in a nanny state?

originally posted by: NotMoose
a reply to: TheTengriist

Do you need Obama to tuck you in at night?

That would be awesome.

"Now Railgun.... Uhhhhhhh make no mistake. I have been to the closet, I have checked under the bed... Uhhhh let me be clear. I can say unequivocally that there are NO monsters hiding in this room. My people have done the math. Uhhhhhh you're perfectly safe."

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

You have to watch the video to see what's in it.

a reply to: NavyDoc

It is, and it is a valid point, that we don't need the large amount of regulation we have.

Don't we? How much do we need? Even if you and I agree (and we probably would) that there is too much regulation - which things do we we cut back on - which things do we let the market decide for us?

I just love the whole argument really. The safeties and protections that most people benefit from (including our politicians) aren't going anywhere - but they can still be used as political ammunition in the argument for a smaller government

a reply to: NotMoose

As opposed to living in the woods, eating whatever I manage to stab with a sharp stick, and hoping that the rabbit isn't infested with some sort of parasite? yeah, I'll take health code regulations over that, sure. I've done subsistence before. it's not very fun. And i'd much rather have some guarantor that if I go to a restaurant, I'm not taking the same chances I would in the woods, but paying money to do so.

If that's your thing, well, more power to you. Just remember, whether you like it or not, there are regulations against poaching, too.

a reply to: olaru12

The point he is trying to make is that we don’t need to force business to comply we just need to inform consumers of the decisions the business makes. He thinks that this restaurant that doesn’t require the washing of hands after wiping your butt, will be taken care of by the market. An informed consumer will avoid this restaurant and the business will fail.

I can see his point. Now all we need is for all those corporations or businesses to inform the consumer of their bad practices. Make it mandatory to disclose the nature of your pollution and plunder. It would make a nice slogan, “We care, we also dump tons up tons of toxic chemicals into your drinking water because it’s so much cheaper to do it this way. Working hard to keep the cost down for you.”

But the good Senator is a little clever and a little slow in understanding that the requirement to publicly post policy would itself be immediately jumped upon and decried as onerous government regulation.

Maybe our fine government officials should have a requirement placed upon them to post all their actions and votes taken while in the sacred position as the peoples representatives, with a detailed explanation of and motivation for taking these actions and votes.That way the market could take care of them.

originally posted by: neo96

The market would take care of it.

Possibly, but only after the Gov. passes a NEW regulation requiring stores to post a sign (specified Size? Store Position?Font? enforcement etc) explaining that their employees don't wash hands? (his solution)...then AFTER that NEW regulation...the market would take care of it?

He is so stupid that he literally represents a public danger as Senator.

I'll reserve comment on ideologues that feel compelled to defend that logic.

a reply to: Indigo5

I do not know why so many people are ignoring his other comment.

That’s probably one where every business that did that would go out of business,” he added. “But I think it’s good to illustrate the point that that’s the sort of mentality that we need to have to reduce the regulatory burden on this country.”

The market would take care of it.

a reply to: xuenchen

I read the transcript - and watched the video

:-)

And...?

It looks like reading comprehension is a lost art.

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
a reply to: NavyDoc

It is, and it is a valid point, that we don't need the large amount of regulation we have.

Don't we? How much do we need? Even if you and I agree (and we probably would) that there is too much regulation - which things do we we cut back on - which things do we let the market decide for us?

I just love the whole argument really. The safeties and protections that most people benefit from (including our politicians) aren't going anywhere - but they can still be used as political ammunition in the argument for a smaller government

Local health code standards, being local, are really not that against the idea or support of limited government and limited regulation. The whole point of limited government, is to govern at the lowest level practicable, and local health codes and traffic codes do indeed fit that model.

Whereas I would agree that the example he pulled out on the spot was off--he should have pulled out some silly federal regulation of which we have in abundance--the underlying premise that we are an over regulated society is one I can agree with.

a reply to: thesaneone

It looks like reading comprehension is a lost art.

He said what he said. It was ridiculous - and I'm betting right now he wishes he hadn't said it

The thing is, even though he didn't mean for it to be that kind of example, what it does is demonstrate why regulations happen in the first place. People think it's funny - and are laughing at him - exactly for this reason. He kind of undoes his own argument

If he had had time to think it through, he could have come up with a much better example. That's politics - that's life

originally posted by: NotMoose
a reply to: TheTengriist

Yes it does. It means does it make you feel better living in a nanny state?

Effen "nanny state" nonsense...Demanding you don't eat someone else's feces means you would like Gov. to be your Nanny?

Where does that stop? If you aren't willing to drink flammable water you are wuss?

Why not disband the military? hell when Russia invades...just man-up!

And who needs a fire department or Paramedics? What? You are a fan of the Nanny State?

"Do you need Obama to tuck you in at night?"

No...but I need a government that tells restaurants they can't serve feces.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Indigo5

I do not know why so many people are ignoring his other comment.

That’s probably one where every business that did that would go out of business,” he added. “But I think it’s good to illustrate the point that that’s the sort of mentality that we need to have to reduce the regulatory burden on this country.”

The market would take care of it.

AFTER the GOV REQUIRES stores post the sign! New regulation...THAT IS WHAT HE SAID..

Are you not getting it? His solution is trading one sign/regulation in the bathroom "Employees must wash hands" with another at the front door???