Regulations, and particularly the codes and standards incorporated into regulations, aren't treated the same as laws often, you can't see them without spending a lot of money. It's one of the things postmodern bureaucracy did that breaks democracy. Doesn't matter who you vote for if the MPs or congressmen aren't making the bulk of the rules.
In many jurisdictions, you need to be compliant with certain standards that aren't government regulations to be compliant with the laws and regulations. That could be the ISO or IEC in Europe, and it appears that the BSI and IET in England are responsible for electrical codes, the NFPA in the US, or CSA in Canada. These organizations typically are not government organizations. Their codes and standards are incorporated by reference into regulations, rather than directly stated as rules directly.
As an example, if you think the Canadian Electrical Code is too draconian, there is no party you can vote for in parliament that will ever change the Canadian Electrical Code, because parliament doesn't write the Canadian Electrical Code, the CSA does.
Although the law out of congress or parliaments are always public, the regulations of specific government departments may or may not be public(but usually is available), and the code or standards those regulations incorporate aren't public (in the sense that you must purchase a licensed copy), and the specifics of how the regulation is applied by a certain bureaucrat exists only in that bureaucrat's head.
It's also important to realize that often, the codes and standards that are private and copyrighted make up a substantial bulk of the actual regulation. A regulation incorporating a few CSA standards may be a few dozen pages, but the referenced CSA standards may be cumulatively hundreds or thousands of pages long, meaning that most of the law effectively isn't the law itself, or even the regulation itself, but the hidden part.
Since the majority of the rules are not produced by the government, and the government has no way of changing those parts of the rules, voting can't affect the majority of the rules in government, and it's even challenging for the courts since the courts mainly have jurisdiction in rules written by parts of the government.
Codes and Standards can have the force of law behind them when they are adopted by regulators, meaning they effectively are the law, but they aren't laws because they aren't created like laws or treated like laws. A non-government body uses whatever methods it likes to create the codes, and it isn't anything like what we'd consider government.
Typically, while regulations directly created by a regulatory agency will be subject to some form of review (at least internal review, if not public review), codes and standards are the creation and the property of the non-profit that creates it, and typically won't be up for debate per se.
You can't sue the body that created the codes because you don't like the code in the same way you can challenge unjust laws directly, I suspect there'd be a problem with standing where they don't owe you anything since they're "just" the creators of codes and standards that are treated as law, but which are not law themselves. The lawsuits you found consisted of the private not for profit protecting its copyright and someone suing the CSA because of an employment dispute. Peripheral issues such as these are not relelvant to the discussion of the nature of codes and standards in the context of their use as regulations. That's the reason I brought up the ampacity of a wire, because that's an example of an actual code or standard, and something aimed at the CSA challenging a regulation like that would be highly relevant to the discussion.
The nature of a bureaucratic process is such that an order from a bureaucrat isn't like a charge in court, there's typically no lawyer involved, you just get the demand and typically you're expected to comply, and that's the expected process. Get a different bureaucrat on a different day, and you'll get a different order, or the opposite order, or no order at all.
Besides the regulations that are written down, there's the stuff the regulator will just tell you to do without really having any basis for it but if you don't do what they tell you you're gonna get in trouble, and with one sentence written on a piece of paper (more likely send as a pdf file these days) they can cost you millions. -- This is just a reality of dealing with a bureaucracy. Its a separate issue from the codes, but can be related in that the code which was created in a sort of arbitrary way is then interpreted by the local agent of the regulator who is just an employee. You can have the regulator tell you to do all kinds of things, and often it isn't really feasible to go "I need a lawyer!" because there isn't really anything to sue over -- Although of the three countries only the US has Chevron deference that gives wide latitude to regulators, typically a regulator acting within their mandate is going to be given some level of deference in all three countries. That why I said "That's not how this works. This isn't a courtroom, you've got a regulatory order in front of you, sit down shut up and do what we tell you."
If you are charged with something in court and they say "we're going to prove you are in violation of X and then mandate you to fix it" there is a process that is due to you to question whether they're right (and that standard can be different in a civil or criminal context, but there is a standard, be it 51% or 90%). If you're given an order by an inspector, you could use different processes to appeal and ultimately even sue, but it's a much different process and arguing isn't built into the process in the same way. Even for a multinational corporation, they'll follow the order, even if it's a relatively big deal to do so. Either way, it's not likely you'll be able to argue your way out of following a code or standard that's been adopted in a certain way even if it's a little unreasonable, or if the code or standard isn't really clear whereas in a courtroom you at least have stare decisis and so once a decision has been made that's the rule.
So the world is not a courtroom, and a lawyer isn't going to often be very effective in situations where it's unlikely for any disagreements to make it as far as litigation.
For more examples of how bureaucrats can poke their fingers into things and recourse is challenging and likely not even going to come up even with respect to mega-corps, look at all the government actors that we now know had their fingers in twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. They made their request, and it was somewhat extra-legal, and it was definitely unlawful under the US constitution, but they did it anyway and they got their way and the company didn't even try to fight any of it because the world isn't a courtroom.
The opaque nature of this whole system means a few things. First, it's largely opaque to the democratic republican or parliamentary forms of government because the majority of the rules are not created by any government actor. Second, because it's opaque, it isn't managed or controlled by anyone in charge. Third, because of the nature of bureaucratic rule making, it tends to grow and become stricter and larger over time as more reasons to add more rules show up. Finally, because it tends to get stricter and larger in an uncontrolled manner, you end up with situations where entire industries are in some degree of regulatory gridlock, such as the housing industry, which has led to housing costing insane amounts around the developed world.
There's 2 options, I think. Some bureaucracies ultimately topple themselves over and take their empires with them. Other times, another force with equal appeal is able to help curb the bureaucrats. They can do some good work and have brought about good times in many eras, but left to their own devices they are quite conservative (not necessarily politically, but practically) and institutional conservatism can end an institution.
I think it's safe to blame the end of the Chinese empire on bureaucracy to an extent. It obviously wasn't a direct factor, but the intense conservatism led them to turn away the English who had technology centuries ahead of anything China had, and if they were more interested in the outside world then they may not have been so badly humbled by the outside world they neglected.
Hopefully, political reforms come in the future to release the stranglehold the bureaucratic state has on our civilization. Otherwise our kids may not be the same stuff as we are, as another civilization wins culturally.
In many jurisdictions, you need to be compliant with certain standards that aren't government regulations to be compliant with the laws and regulations. That could be the ISO or IEC in Europe, and it appears that the BSI and IET in England are responsible for electrical codes, the NFPA in the US, or CSA in Canada. These organizations typically are not government organizations. Their codes and standards are incorporated by reference into regulations, rather than directly stated as rules directly.
As an example, if you think the Canadian Electrical Code is too draconian, there is no party you can vote for in parliament that will ever change the Canadian Electrical Code, because parliament doesn't write the Canadian Electrical Code, the CSA does.
Although the law out of congress or parliaments are always public, the regulations of specific government departments may or may not be public(but usually is available), and the code or standards those regulations incorporate aren't public (in the sense that you must purchase a licensed copy), and the specifics of how the regulation is applied by a certain bureaucrat exists only in that bureaucrat's head.
It's also important to realize that often, the codes and standards that are private and copyrighted make up a substantial bulk of the actual regulation. A regulation incorporating a few CSA standards may be a few dozen pages, but the referenced CSA standards may be cumulatively hundreds or thousands of pages long, meaning that most of the law effectively isn't the law itself, or even the regulation itself, but the hidden part.
Since the majority of the rules are not produced by the government, and the government has no way of changing those parts of the rules, voting can't affect the majority of the rules in government, and it's even challenging for the courts since the courts mainly have jurisdiction in rules written by parts of the government.
Codes and Standards can have the force of law behind them when they are adopted by regulators, meaning they effectively are the law, but they aren't laws because they aren't created like laws or treated like laws. A non-government body uses whatever methods it likes to create the codes, and it isn't anything like what we'd consider government.
Typically, while regulations directly created by a regulatory agency will be subject to some form of review (at least internal review, if not public review), codes and standards are the creation and the property of the non-profit that creates it, and typically won't be up for debate per se.
You can't sue the body that created the codes because you don't like the code in the same way you can challenge unjust laws directly, I suspect there'd be a problem with standing where they don't owe you anything since they're "just" the creators of codes and standards that are treated as law, but which are not law themselves. The lawsuits you found consisted of the private not for profit protecting its copyright and someone suing the CSA because of an employment dispute. Peripheral issues such as these are not relelvant to the discussion of the nature of codes and standards in the context of their use as regulations. That's the reason I brought up the ampacity of a wire, because that's an example of an actual code or standard, and something aimed at the CSA challenging a regulation like that would be highly relevant to the discussion.
The nature of a bureaucratic process is such that an order from a bureaucrat isn't like a charge in court, there's typically no lawyer involved, you just get the demand and typically you're expected to comply, and that's the expected process. Get a different bureaucrat on a different day, and you'll get a different order, or the opposite order, or no order at all.
Besides the regulations that are written down, there's the stuff the regulator will just tell you to do without really having any basis for it but if you don't do what they tell you you're gonna get in trouble, and with one sentence written on a piece of paper (more likely send as a pdf file these days) they can cost you millions. -- This is just a reality of dealing with a bureaucracy. Its a separate issue from the codes, but can be related in that the code which was created in a sort of arbitrary way is then interpreted by the local agent of the regulator who is just an employee. You can have the regulator tell you to do all kinds of things, and often it isn't really feasible to go "I need a lawyer!" because there isn't really anything to sue over -- Although of the three countries only the US has Chevron deference that gives wide latitude to regulators, typically a regulator acting within their mandate is going to be given some level of deference in all three countries. That why I said "That's not how this works. This isn't a courtroom, you've got a regulatory order in front of you, sit down shut up and do what we tell you."
If you are charged with something in court and they say "we're going to prove you are in violation of X and then mandate you to fix it" there is a process that is due to you to question whether they're right (and that standard can be different in a civil or criminal context, but there is a standard, be it 51% or 90%). If you're given an order by an inspector, you could use different processes to appeal and ultimately even sue, but it's a much different process and arguing isn't built into the process in the same way. Even for a multinational corporation, they'll follow the order, even if it's a relatively big deal to do so. Either way, it's not likely you'll be able to argue your way out of following a code or standard that's been adopted in a certain way even if it's a little unreasonable, or if the code or standard isn't really clear whereas in a courtroom you at least have stare decisis and so once a decision has been made that's the rule.
So the world is not a courtroom, and a lawyer isn't going to often be very effective in situations where it's unlikely for any disagreements to make it as far as litigation.
For more examples of how bureaucrats can poke their fingers into things and recourse is challenging and likely not even going to come up even with respect to mega-corps, look at all the government actors that we now know had their fingers in twitter, Facebook, and YouTube. They made their request, and it was somewhat extra-legal, and it was definitely unlawful under the US constitution, but they did it anyway and they got their way and the company didn't even try to fight any of it because the world isn't a courtroom.
The opaque nature of this whole system means a few things. First, it's largely opaque to the democratic republican or parliamentary forms of government because the majority of the rules are not created by any government actor. Second, because it's opaque, it isn't managed or controlled by anyone in charge. Third, because of the nature of bureaucratic rule making, it tends to grow and become stricter and larger over time as more reasons to add more rules show up. Finally, because it tends to get stricter and larger in an uncontrolled manner, you end up with situations where entire industries are in some degree of regulatory gridlock, such as the housing industry, which has led to housing costing insane amounts around the developed world.
There's 2 options, I think. Some bureaucracies ultimately topple themselves over and take their empires with them. Other times, another force with equal appeal is able to help curb the bureaucrats. They can do some good work and have brought about good times in many eras, but left to their own devices they are quite conservative (not necessarily politically, but practically) and institutional conservatism can end an institution.
I think it's safe to blame the end of the Chinese empire on bureaucracy to an extent. It obviously wasn't a direct factor, but the intense conservatism led them to turn away the English who had technology centuries ahead of anything China had, and if they were more interested in the outside world then they may not have been so badly humbled by the outside world they neglected.
Hopefully, political reforms come in the future to release the stranglehold the bureaucratic state has on our civilization. Otherwise our kids may not be the same stuff as we are, as another civilization wins culturally.
Part of the problem of being a rich country is you have the resources to waste on bullshit.
I wouldn't want to worry about water, but it might not be so bad for some people to be reminded that services don't just happen.
Ah, I didn't realize that. I was gonna say something about bleach to prevent legionnaires disease, but realized you probably know more about it than me, now I'm glad I didn't mention it. haha
@gentoobro @sj_zero I don't think liberty should mean that you are allowed to do things that endanger other people.
@gentoobro @Vril_Oreilly @sj_zero It's legal for poor people to run street food stands anywhere, what do you mean?
I believe the numbering of "worlds" is a relic of the cold war, the first world being developed democratic capitalist countries, the second world being communism, and the third world being anything else. Today I think it would be undeveloped or underdeveloped nations, developing nations, and developed nations.
I had some tenants from India, they were telling me that restaurants there just open, people try their hand at it and either succeed or fail, not like the bureaucratic process here.
I think we don't realize just how locked down we are, but I know my grandfather died bitter having fought the fascists in the name of freedom only to see his freedoms slowly taken away, and my father tells me things were very different when he was young.
I think we don't realize just how locked down we are, but I know my grandfather died bitter having fought the fascists in the name of freedom only to see his freedoms slowly taken away, and my father tells me things were very different when he was young.
I'd love to have food stands on every street corner where I live.
I remember there being a burger stand in a nearby city. That was nice while I still ate meat.
I remember there being a burger stand in a nearby city. That was nice while I still ate meat.
Also, America is like a jealous girlfriend, she expects you to send her money even if you're not around. (probably not on 2500 a year mind you) but she still wants you to file taxes and pay any applicable taxes.
They need that money to regulate food stands!
They need that money to regulate food stands!
The fact that 3k/month for rent isn't in any way hyperbole in many places really saddens me. You know, I'm not *that* old, and when I was just getting on my feet you could get a 2 bedroom place for 250. Shared it with my brother. Now you might be able to get that place for 1500. And they say 2% inflation.