Shameful!

[festive1]

I don't disagree with what you are saying, but I don't trust the average person.

Well, you kinda do disagree with what I'm saying then. Please, don't feel like you need to say you agree with me to be polite. You clearly disagree, and that's fine.

But I don't disagree with you in all circumstances... which is why I said this. For instance, here in Maryland it is illegal to sell or buy unpasteurized milk. Our local farmer's market has a stall from Pennsylvania that advertises if you want unpasteurized milk, you can drive to their dairy across the state line. I think this is ridiculous. The government shouldn't stop small farms from producing something people want. Even if I don't want to drink unpasteurized milk myself, and yes, unpasteurized milk can pose a threat to a person's health, but that's for the consumer to decide, not the government.

I want government officials to ok that bakery that opened down the street to ensure they don't have pests or potentially hazardous conditions for their customers or employees.

You realize that government officials are, for the most part, average people right? What makes you trust them, but not anyone else? Why trust the regulators?

You're right, government regulators tend to be average people, and there are certain industries where knowledge of the field itself is more helpful in determining regulation than common sense. This is a two fold problem, how to determine what regulations are necessary and ensuring those doing the regulating know what the hell they are doing. Not to mention the issue of if you hire an industry insider who knows the best practices for a given field, they very well could be a lackey for the industry and overlook potential dangers because it's common practice.
I don't want to take my kids to a restaurant where there has been no inspections or regulations met, because I don't want them to become ill from badly kept meat or something of the like. There is a point where the regulation gets to be too much, but basic things like having hot running water, working refrigerators, clean food prep areas, etc. are good things to check for. As I can't go in the back and check this out for myself, I'll rely on someone whose job it is to do so. It's an imperfect system, but it's better than no system at all.

Besides, I'm not entirely sure you know what think a government visit is going to prove. All it shows is that at that time, on that specific day, the place was seemingly legit. I say seemingly because there are plenty of ways to distract investigators from the facts. My point is, if you go to any store, anywhere, even if they have a lovely pretty certificate saying they are government approved, it is not a guarantee that they are, at that particular point in time, following regulations.

Again, you're correct. A one time inspection can easily miss violations. However, if I were to become ill from eating at a restaurant or injured from unsafe conditions, I can report it and it will be re-inspected (not instantly, it depends on the number and severity of these kinds of reports). I think it's important to have an agency in charge of fielding possible violation reports, which is also something these agencies do. I think a store with a good rating is more likely to be in compliance than a store that has never been rated. Not in all cases, certainly, but, as I said, it's an imperfect system.

I don't want unregulated daycares that don't have to worry about a random government person coming by.

I'd imagine there are plenty of these, usually because they don't advertise themselves to the government in the first place.

This is done on a state level here in the US. Daycares that have over a certain number of kids have to be inspected. Sure there are people who fly under the radar, but I would never leave my kids at such a place. And when these places are brought to light it's often in conjunction with a child being harmed in some way, showing that basic rules and regulations are helpful in ensuring safety.

And I certainly don't want some random person purchasing the chemicals necessary to make fertilizer without some form of oversight.

Erm...you realize it's pretty easy to do this anyway right?

Not in the quantities necessary to do your own start up fertilizer company. The government generally flags purchases of a certain amount or above.

I totally agree with you though, what happened at that plant is criminal negligence. But my money's on not one person being held criminally responsible.

Right, and that in my opinion is the main thing wrong here. Not a lack of regulation, but the fact that the people responsible aren't going to be held responsible. I'm honestly not sure what more regulation could have done in this scenario; it's a plant that deals with chemicals, and it's run by infallible humans. Mistakes are bound to happen at some points; that has been shown through human history.

The plant could have been shut down. The officials in charge of it's oversight could have done a follow up visit to ensure the plant had complied with correcting their cited violations. It's an imperfect system, but I think it could be improved to the benefit of all. No system is ever going to prevent all disasters like this, but we should at least try.