What would happen if the government were to ban everything that appears to be extremely dangerous? (such as tanning beds, cigarettes… etc)?

We look at the performance of the Government in Belgium.

  • Monitoring compliance with economic legislation?

Nada.

  • Monitoring of compliance with the Constitution more specifically for the public administration?
  • Nada, except for Karel De Gucht.

  • Supervision of Banks (FSMA, NBB)?
  • Nada, Topman FSMA was even reappointed after the fiascos at Dexia, Fortis, Ethias, Optima,…

  • Finance?
  • The poor are not too syrups, the rich can buy their case for a fraction of the amount. Who remains? The Koeioneren of the middle class. Procedure to object to attack? At finance itself of course.

    Ombudsman for anything:

    • The Ombudsman of banks and insurance are faithful in the sector and paid in full by the sector.

    Problem anyone?

  • The Ombusman of the telecom, BPI, anyone heard about the bandwidth that you should get?
  • No, max 1 giga Terra Exabit Byte and what still, but minimum is not there. In terms of? Any bandwidth is OK. General terms and conditions that violate economic legislation? Tuut, Tuut, no connection to this number.

  • Other ombudsmen are officials but you need to know that a complaint about an official is first dealt with by the official himself.
  • Then to his boss, then higher up, to the legal Service of the local department, then to the service for the whole country, then to the oversight I know what for Belgium and then to the Ombudsman who is also an official. Knowing that for every top function is fought by the party males where they are part of the party, I say explicitly to this is not corruption. How many levels should you fail to handle a complaint? 5? 15? 100?

    It is easy to make laws and then not to check them decently.Almost everywhere, they still work with paper. The databases are scattered throughout departments and what if login works at one service is not supported by the other. You can be sure that cyberwise security is also a joke. Files are being rotted away, ministers have ties with fraud cases. No criminal consequence for the demise of Fortis or Dexia. #metoo? Take a look at the figures on rapes, how bitter little is solved, how many are shelved, and Heomuch lead to an effective condemnation. While the victim has been confronted with possible investigative acts for many years. And, there is no one in the whole world who just leaves a rape behind him. That’s for life.

    The government is a judge and a party in a number of cases (shareholder Proximus and supervisor BIPT, FSMA, NBB, FPS economy, Telecom,…). In other cases, they have money on the eye (buy off criminal cases, parking mafia, taxes and fees).In Belgium, every pressure group is given something. Apart from the middle class that gets the bill. And I can assure you, it is degoutant. Belgium is virtually bankrupt, like France, so the interest rate is kept about zero. Rises 1 percent? Bye bye Belgium, bye bye France.

    And there is a simple explanation for all that fraais.There is no official who is dismissed, on the proverbial exception (usually political settlement with the account for the citizen). An official can do a fine or attack that is not based on anything. You only have the opportunity to pay an expensive lawyer who again goes to an official (judge) to argue for rectification. You have lost thousands of euros in advance. Lawsuits are dragging for years. The official who was rolling the ball never has to fear anything, even if 5 years later it appears that no penalty or attack was allowed. But that money from the lawsuit you lost. No official is held responsible. Never. And you can invent five hundred levels of complaint handling and ombudsmen, the problem always remains the same. But in the meantime, “employment” is created, an additional body. It is not realized that every official is paid out of the Treasury. They do not pay taxes, they give back something of what they have gotten. Important detail. Belgium is dead sick, has far too many officials and quality leaves to be desired. A sad thing for it is my homeland. But I loathe how the skin-eyed workers should start working with both parents in order not to be able to save much. Pay for a pension that 100% will certainly not be. Every day hours in the traffic jam. Depression and burnout through the roof. Until the balloon can be inflated and explodes.

    Thanks, Quora user, for the question.

    Everything we do has risks.Most accidents happen at home. Should we now continue to prohibit home?

    Red meat appears to have a higher risk of stomach and colon cancer compared to other meats.Do we have to ban steak now? Sunlight is carcinogenic. Should we now also ban the outside? The world would be so sterile that there is little to do to live a fun and good life.

    The aforementioned risks are not extreme enough to prohibit.They are far from 100%, so yes the examples I give will also fall under these ‘ extreme risks ‘, indicating that it has no added value. Prohibitions should be limited to substances that are actually extremely dangerous, such as organokwikcompounds.

    My first impulse is to say that we are then pushing towards dictatorship.There must be an organ that is going to determine what is dangerous-which is my glass of wine? Can I still go to the sauna? Can C茅line still be a short skirt?

    Cars that are dangerous!Trucks as well. Cycling….

    And there must be an enforcement body, so one who controls how much wine I drink, how long your skirt is…

    It seems like a kind of fundamentalism….. Without religion.

    If you think about it for ten minutes you come to the conclusion that it is a matter of short time before knowledge is also dangerous. Knowledge of chemistry, physics, but also inflammatory philosophical ideas.Schools will provide a limited curriculum, and increase the number of hours of ‘ how to become a good citizen ‘

    Then participation in democracy is also an issue, and actually that twisted democratic system.We Choose a helmsman who must protect us.

    Meanwhile, the summit continues to do all these dangerous things..

    He first that comes to my own is that the government then enters into the field of personal responsibility.Discouraging is one thing, banning is a very big step further.

    Whether they can do that is a fundamental question.

    In addition, it has already been tried, and the results are not undivided positively.

    Just a knock on the by or reality.

    We live in the Netherlands.The government shifted about every 4 years, with choices never fixed. The government only prohibits things consistently if they:

    A.Are indeed extremely dangerous (such as weapons)

    B.The prohibition yields more than the cost of allowing.

    C.See earlier two.

    Excise duty, tax, surcharges, are all intended to Spey the State treasury.That makes sense, because we are all in the country, and if we smoke it costs everyone money. If you eat sugars, it will cost everyone more money in the long run. If you use things that are bad for your health, it will cost everyone more money in the long run.

    Why do we still use a microwave?Because we have more benefit than disadvantage. Does it make for more cancers? Possible, probably even, but it also gives us more time in everyday life. Even with negative advice, the government will not be quick to ban a microwave. This means that the life rate of the citizen is deteriorating again, the working time is reduced again and so there is less tax. The economy will deteriorate (calculated).

    Smoking is a clear case of benefit/expense.Everyone knows by now that smoking is bad for you. The problem is: 1. Statistically, as a smoker, you suffer less quickly than as a meeroker. 2. Statistically speaking, smokers live only a fraction shorter (it seems as if man is still so egoistic to take a closer look at his/her own life. 3. There would be much dissatisfaction among voter if smoking was completely banned. Which affects the incumbent parties that control the government. 4. The excise duty on smoke was now so high that it does a nice job in the pouch of the government, that the abolition of all the smoke had become an economic risk (people are born and go dead, a nation is living for centuries).

    The government must prohibit things that harm others and where others cannot make choices to avoid them.A tanning bed only harms those who choose to use them and therefore do not have to be banned.

    Cigarettes may be banned or extinguished as far as I am concerned (only current smokers older than 18 receive a pass to be able to purchase them yet.You can’t actually smoke without it inflicted on others.

    In many cases, a balance must be made.Motorised traffic creates a lot of air pollution, but also has a certain usefulness. Cars completely banished is unrealistic, but discourage use, especially in certain places, is still appropriate.

    The danger is the definition:

    What is extremely dangerous?

    In the USSR earlier, they found many ways of thinking extremely dangerous.Or that you could simply travelfreely to other cities: much too dangerous (for the rulers).

    That is a sliding scale.

    Heroine is dangerous.So we prohibit it. Lots of sugar too. On the voucher? You get black trade again in sugar coupons. Also dangerous.

    The middle is just what it is now. What we find too dangerous leads to laws that come about democratically.A sugar ban never saves that.

    In other words, if 51% of people find heroine OK, that’s legal sooner or later, that’s so. But what ‘ higher power ‘ than democracy would you want to use then?

    What a colourless worldview.What should I find, football fun?

    Cigarettes all the way.No sales. The reason I say that: I’ve already stopped about 80 times and also started again. Can’t describe how rotten that is.

    But a vape pen should be able to.

    Leave a Reply