I can honestly say that in all the above people have taken advantage of loopholes in any legislation or codes, whether they be rich or poor, well or poorly educated, etc.. Even if rules and regulations are in place, some will disregard them and do what they want or can get away with. It's the consequences of the actions that often have a big effect e.g. no seatbelt causing injury = medical expenditure plus someone having to clean up the mess; financial skulduggery (a.k.a. theft) resulting in losses to those who can't afford to lose it.
That's a fair point. I think, though, that it depends on the regulation. If it makes sense (eg seatbelts) then people will do it without much question.
Some of the recent pool fencing rules, however, are ridiculous. Example: if you build a new house now, you have to have fixed security screens on even the high, small toilet windows. Apparently a toddler can be smart enough and sufficiently co-ordinated to climb up on the toilet, then onto the top of the cistern (good luck balancing there, kid), then understand how to manipulate the flyscreen out of the window, climb up onto the window sill and drop that substantial distance to the ground below. Now if you really think a 2 year old is going to do that, I'd like to meet that kid. This is in addition to having the actual pool fenced, cost of which, btw, for a 7m x 2.5m lap pool is nearly $8000.
I have a pool in the back yard. There is a six foot fence controlling access to the back yard.
There are security screens on all front windows and doors so even if my dog's warning to stay away was insufficient, no one, kid included, is going to break in. Yet I still have to have an additional fence around all egress from the house at the back, effectively fencing my pool off from myself. Just madness.
It's the enforcement that makes or breaks any rule. If there were no police but the laws remained on the books society would deteriorate - we see it overseas.
The issue is: "to what level" should be regulate/legislate?
That's a reasonable question. Do you think the pool fencing rules, as I have described above, are reasonable?
Unfortunately people in general have to be saved from themselves - either their stupidity, naivety/innocence , or the temptations, large or small, that come their way that brings out their dark side.
This is where we disagree. Of course there need to be regulations regarding basic safety, e.g. do not light fires in a drought where there is long grass. Personally, I'd have thought that was so damn obvious you wouldn't need to spell it out, but apparently not.
In a variation of "The Nanny State" there's an excellent article in yesterday's "The Weekend Australian" by Frank Furedi, Prof of Sociology, about the 'disease' of bullying.
http://www.frankfuredi.com/index.php/site/article/560/
Extract:
A close inspection of the claims made about bullying indicates that what they refer to are everyday troubles of human existence. Workplace bullying covers a multitude of sins. Virtually any negative, uncivil encounter can be, and is, defiined as bullying. The vast majority of experiences branded as bullying are what used to be called workplace politics. Bullying can mean deliverative destructive and threatening behaviour. But in most instances it refers to the normal tensions and conflicts integral to the life of work.
Unpleasant gesture, flaunting status, unwanted eye contact, ignoring a person's contribution, pulling rank or making jokes at someone's expense are now experienced as bullying In effect experts have redefined elementary forms of unpleasant and insensitive behaviour as bullying.
What the bullying industry has sought is to lower the threshold of acceptable pressure, stress and uncertainty in the workplace. The diagnosing of assertive management styles, plain speaking, undiplomatic behaviour, etc as claims for legal intervention and for financial resources implies adults possess the emotional and moral resources formerly associated with children.
Whatever the alleged costs of bullying, the price society pays for allowing its adults to be infantilised is far higher.
It's along the same lines as the medicalising of ordinary human emotions. It seems every episode of normal sadness following an unhappy event is now classified as depression and requires pharmacological intervention.
I don't know if anyone here can get what I'm on about, but it seems to me that in so many areas, our lives are being interfered with by various people who declare they know what is best for us. Imo it's going to be ultimately counterproductive as we produce a society that has lost the capacity for its members to think for themselves.