<< Ludwig, comparing speed limits and potato marketing regulations is silly >>

Hang on Rhian. I gave an example of how the law can get out of whack with general practice if the regulatory regime is not up to scratch. Speed limits / road safety is a good example.

The same can happen in any area of law, and does all too often in our society. Marketing regulation is no exception.

I’m just talking about broad principles.

<< And the regulator picked on one farmer because he opposed the system – a serious misuse of authority, in my view. >>

Maybe so. I don’t know. And with respect I don’t you can really know either just what the real story is.

Further to your comment:

<< There is a broader principle at stake here, as well as just economic efficiency. I think the State should stay out of people’s lives unless there are good and serious reasons to intervene >>

There is an even broader and more basic principle: that of optimal management to provide the best outcome.

If the best outcome requires a high level of regulation, then so be it. If it can be achieved with minimal or zero regulation, then great. Thus, the regulatory regime should be based on the best outcome, not on the notion of governments minimising ‘interference’ in our lives. .

Again, road safety is a good example of the need for a high level of regulation for the best outcome.

<< What makes you say the system is “not all that bad”.>>

I explained that. I also said in an earlier post:

< However, if you can assert that there isn’t a better overall outcome or that there are significant negative factors in the way it operates, then I’m with you. >

Ah bugger!

I suffer really badly from missing word syndrome in my OLO posts!

No amount of spell and grammar checking, proof-reading, re-reading and re-re-reading can cure it!

Most annoying it is! );>/

Correction to my last post:

< And with respect I don’t THINK you can really know either just what the real story is. >

And from an earlier post:

< … or as I say on the other side of the coin; suffer from inefficient regulation and hence poor performance in the very purpose that it was SET up for. >

Rrrrgh!

You're in good company Ludwig. I suffer the same thing.

What an amazingly learned debate about WA's Socialist Potato Paradise (Lost) its been.

Pete
(and Kommissar Po)

Cheers Pete the potatohead. It is sort of comforting to know that there is at least one other person out there who has a mashed brain like mine!! ( :>)

----

I wrote:

< There is very little that we can do that is completely independent of some rule or regulation. And fair enough too >

Stezza, you replied:

<< This is the exact sort of attitude that allows the government to not only access and monitor your private communications, but also track us via our phone/gps. The next dictator (socialist/fascist/other) will have much more powerful tools at their disposal to control and oppress the population. >>

Wow, is that ever over the top!

Take a walk down the street. You feel free and unoppressed by laws of the state. But there are all sorts of laws that apply. You can’t legally go nude, you can’t throw rubbish around, you can’t brazenly offend or assault people, you can’t damage property, you can’t do all sorts of stuff. And people can’t legally do them to you.

Every one of these laws is fair enough, (well, except perhaps for the going-nude-in-public one, but that’s another story!). They don’t in the slightest bit open the way for governments to be more intrusive in our lives.

Most of these laws go unnoticed and completely out of mind. But you can imagine how horrible it would be if they didn’t exist and people felt free to subject you to offensive behaviour or assault or whatever without you having any legal recourse.

It is a matter of best management and striving to find the optimum level of regulation to produce the best outcome.

There is indeed very little that we can do that is completely independent of some rule or regulation. That is absolutely fair and reasonable in a free society. Indeed, it wouldn’t be a very free society at all without these laws.

"Wow, is that ever over the top!"

Sorry reading my comment again, it does come across as an extreme position. However what I said is true- our governments do intrude into our lives too much.

The uk government wanted to track us via our phones/gps without a warrant
http://www.guardian.co.uk/law/2012/jan/23/supreme-court-gps-tracking-ruling

And what do you suppose they do out at pine gap?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Echelon_(signals_intelligence)

Anyway, this is a bit off topic, but my point is that we need to be vigilant about how much power we give governments to regulate/control our lives. The government thinks that everything they do is for the best, and once given power it strongly resists giving it up.

Yes, fair comment Stezza. Cheers.