Beaverstate

There you are, the EU considers that their subjects are idiots and need the state to protect them. Simple citizens cannot see the difference between thirst and dehydration. You can have the EU, I will choose the alternatives.

EMR

I would rather have the EU than rely on the advertising industry for facts and health advice.

Beaverstate

I can see your problem. I am fine thank you.

amideislas

Sometimes, I wish we could go back to the old days when people actually knew the difference, and greedy criminal intent was NOT the only purpose for being in business.

But obviously, with all our regulation, we're far more advanced now. So much so, that people don't even need to know the difference between shit and shinola anymore.

We've advanced far beyond the "greedy criminal intent" problem, by rendering virtually any type of trade either immoral, greedy, or otherwise dubious in one way or another. After all, as our advanced social system increasingly encourages us to assume less and less responsible for anything, we need increasing regulation to protect us from our irresponsible selves.

And in continuing our successes in this advanced social equality, I reckon it won't be long before we outlaw trade altogether, for the "common good".

jimenato

Advertising is regulated because advertisers lie.

I have no idea why you are inflating that into some communist anti-American, anti-trade, anti-free will, anti ...um... just about everything scenario.

Maybe it's because you are happy with advertisers lying.

amideislas

well that's equally exaggerative.

It's about being anti-everything, which explains much about our current condition. Certain contributors here consistently exhibit those very same sentiments about almost everything.

And frankly, those who favour increasing restrictions on everything inevitably argue in the same sentence that business' sole purpose is to victimise an innocent population for wanton greed anyway, so all the better.

Offensively, that viewpoint requires the presumption that a) people are stupid, and b) everyone is out to rip them off. I'd argue that in the end, that attitude ultimately becomes nothing more than a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Fact is, it's already difficult enough to establish a business or conduct trade without imposing even more petty obstacles that serve no practical purpose, nor "protect" the public from anything. Not to mention spending a fortune in public funds to come up with these useless notions.

At a time when we're still facing serious economic difficulties, it occurs to me that we should be encouraging trade, not implementing more and more useless restrictions or "protectionisms" that protect nobody from anything, solely to make it even more difficult to conduct trade.

And ironically, relieving burdens on trade seems conspicuously absent from most political discussions these days.

I just can't reckon how increasingly restricting our ability to prosper can ever make us more prosperous - except of course, for those who intentionally circumvent those restrictions, which, as one might expect, with so many restrictions, is increasingly necessary just to be in business in the first place.

As our increasing "protectionisms" make it less and less necessary for anyone to take any responsibility for anything, the notion that everyone is a victim and all are trying to rip us off just becomes more and more apparent every day, only adding fuel to this self-fulfilling prophecy.

jimenato

Precisely.

Note that it doesn't express the point being made very well.

Beaverstate

Jesus H Christ! Its about degree..Thirst vs dehydration. Saying the EU edicts are over the top isn't saying if you oppose it, or you are laissez faire or in favor of unfettered capitalism, hell even the US has truth in advertising laws, believe it or not.

amideislas

That's the point, really. We seem to be unwittingly moving toward an increasingly regimented society where no matter what, you're likely to go foul of some regulation, no doubt qualifying you as a "greedy capitalist hell-bent on victimising the population" in the eyes of some. Precisely what the intent aspires to avoid, yet in the end, virtually everyone would be guilty of.

In an exaggerated fleeting thought, I have this mental image of the "perfect society" where everyone wears grey uniforms and exhibits the character of robots, to avoid violating any of the many rules intended to "protect ourselves from ourselves".

Didn't somebody write about that a while back?

jimenato

This thread has all got a bit exaggerated hasn't it?

Yes - over-regulation isn't good and the article in the OP seems on the face of it to be an example of over-regulation.

OK?

Maybe1day

B"·$%locks. Ignore the EU until it is time to leave...........

Fredbargate

EMR

Frecyou must have spend days of your life posting comments regarding the Eu its actions and lack of them regading Gibraltar.
You more than most of us rely and need the EU to act.
You cannot ignore them and nor have you.

amideislas

True, the EU seems quite proficient at taking action, particularly against some of our most alarming threats, such as preposterous claims like "water (aka. hydration) can relieve dehydration".

I'm told this has sparked another serious debate and subsequent funding for research into whether mixing water with earth can produce mud.

I'm anxiously awaiting the result of that study, and what regulations will be imposed to deal with this growing menace.

EMR

You I understand that Ukip is keenly waiting for the results of these tests as they would like the EU to bring in a mandatory specification of for mud that does not stick.