ubiquitin

ujm

who you rooting for? Reform? Progressive slate? Mizrachi?

Sa,

I’m thinking about it and I dont get it

Your attaching significance to the date 5/1 and said “it was a day of many tragedies”
You geve three example of tragedies that occurred on 5/1
1. Yom hashoa (some years)
2. Hitler killing himself
3. Death of OSma

I dont understand why Hitler killing himself and OSama being kiled are “Tzaros to get us to wake up & do תשובה?” they seem like good things

I understand why the Holocaust is a day to think of teshuva ( though not why only on years it falls out on 5/1)

This is a bit silly

Avram has it exactly right

“A surviror is someone who was locked up in camp by Germans YMS or their collaborators”

so someone who was rounded up with his family watched them all shot, managed to pretend to be dead then ran off to jopin a partisan group living on berries and such for 4 years isnt a holocaust survivor because he wasnt ” locked up in camp”

Interesting take. You said “Nevertheless, in our frum circles they are just not on the same pdesatl. ” and “I think the line is clear” Not in my frum circles and it isnt clear to me ,
and also not clear why this matters

“Does anyone out there know how the word (and Gemara Masechta) “מכות” became “מלקות.” with a ‘ל?”

I would ask the reverse. The Mesechta discusses מלקות, (at least the third perek does and I guess the first sugya in discussing eideim zomim who get מלקות does) . why is it called מכות?

Toona

Thanks for the push to vote!

Platform sounds fine

Most items are ones that all frum yiden support (probably all besides the army one)

With enough votes well add your missing provision too

Hakatan

“Explain this: We can’t Pasken from Aggadeta, but you can Pasken against basic Pshat from a mention by Rav Chaim Vittal about the other half of those oaths.”

Its called mema nefshasch

to oppose Zionism you need to ignore classic way haalcha has been decided (igeres teiman is now halacha leMoshe Misnai) and ignore history.

These posts highlight the absurdity of the Anti-Zinoist position
It is wrong for so many reasons it is hard to begin.

So yes we dont typically pasken from agadata
Even if we did within the Agadadta there isnt necessarily a violation

Even if there would be , The nations allowed it etc etc etc

sure ignoring all that
and adding in an 14th ani maamin
and ignoring what is otherwise taken as a given “Judaism is a Nationality, not (only) a religion,”

Was that ever a controversial take? Of course Judaism isnt “just” a religion. This has been always taken for grnted, but now to butres the unsupportable antiZinosit position we rewrite halacha.

Yisroel im chata hu lo nikra Yisorel , this has not been normative halacha . But you need it to support your untennable position

All this has been discussed again and again

Has there been any new update in the past 2 decades on thsi subject?
(except for the last point thatI think you made up or misunderstood some netruei karta talking point)

“Again, individualism isn’t anti-rule and has nothing to do with government. It’s a philosophical school associated with people like Ralph Waldo Emmerson. It has no shaychus to anything you’re saying.”

We’ve been discussing this for over a month

In one of your first comments to me you wrote “Any crimes where the victims cannot functionally stick up for themselves (child abuse, animal abuse, elder abuse, poisoning a town’s water supply) are good arguments you could use against me”
I thought you were arguing that you oppose all government rules

I first brought up drunk driving 12/26, admittedly you never said otherwise. you did say “I’m b’klal anti-government …Probably because I’m not really a libertarian. They would concede to the “usefulness” of government a lot earlier than I would in this conversation” and that you were “Closer to an Anarchist…. but I have my priorities. Some parts of government more urgently need to be dissolved than others”

“If someone is willing to take the risk of killing himself and/or other people, it isn’t a traffic ticket that’s going to stop him…they’re punitive not preventative.”

Of course they’re preventative, if a person is driving drunk, they can (and often are) stoped BEFORE they harm someone .
and this is orne out by data*. And many drunk people think thye are “good drivers” even drunk , and arent afraid of accidents thye are more afraid of losing their license.

I agree regarding your federal government distinction.
I’m fine getting rid of NASA, though the problem is who decides who the “bad guys “are
Some say those banning drunk driving are the bad guys ., well too bad on those unenlightened simpletons. Of course if they convince enough people that drunk driving is good (or that laws dont help) then well get rid of the laws
ditto for NASA

*Kane, J. M., Wickizer, T. M., Sorensen, G., Boudreau, D., & Wells, K. (2019). Association of State Alcohol Laws With Motor Vehicle Crash Mortality in the United States, 2000-2015. JAMA Internal Medicine.

“because in a free market you can take your business elsewhere (at least more freely than you can take your citizenship elsewhere). The larger country or state is worse because it’s inherently a monopoly and even worse a monopoly that can force people to give it money.”

Got it thanks

“To clarify as best as I can, if you were asking:
-As an individualist, would I support HOA rules that are collectivist in nature simply because an HOA is private not public? No, individualism doesn’t have anything to do with government or lack-thereof.
-Are anarchists ok with HOA rules? Depends on which school of anarchism. That one is probably the far more interesting question, but I’m not really the person to ask.”

It was the second.

.” If you’re now admitted to making decisions based on your own self-interests rather than for the good of the motherland/humanity/collective/whatever, then you’re theoretically an individualist, but I don’t really buy it. Your stances show that you do want to tell people who to live their lives even when it has no effect on you whatsoever.”

I don’t really buy it either. I think I would support telling people how to live even when it has no effect on me whatsoever.. But IM more on the fence about it and definitely don’t think its crazy or evil to think otherwise. That was not the part of your view I found interesting (again IM not sure especially when we consider that the example I did call evil namely being ok with child molestation (not that you’re ok with it but your system is) isn’t one that affects me yet that was one of my earliest problems with your approach).

Allowing people to hurt other people is not an individualist ideal, nor have I ever claimed it was.

No but it is an inevitable absolute certain outcome of your approach. More so than mine. If there is no rule against drunk driving people will drive drunk and hurt other people (even with the rule people do it 1. Its probably less 2. We can stop them if caught BEFORE anyone is hurt)

NC

“Even a hardcore collectivist such as yourself is inherently acting on your own self-interests. You’ve just convinced yourself of your own benevolence and selflessness”

for sure true (the first part) I dont want drunk drivers becasue I dont want to get hit by one. This is true for all the examples given I dont want anyone to have access to chemical weapons becasue I dont want them to harm me (or those I care about)

“. If you cared about people, you would let them live their best lives by their own free will. ”

No this is silly. Letting someone follow his beleif of achieving eternal salvation by following his free will and releasing a chemical weapon isn not “caring about people” ditto for drunk driving, poisoing water. or all the examples we gave.
The one time were it was strictly carign about OTHER people, Seatbelt laws were I dont cover their health care, I’m a little conflicted should we protect “the brain too stupid enough to protect itself”? I’m not sure.

” This trait is shared by seemingly all doctors, so I find it impossible to believe that you’re “the odd one out” in the people you associate with. Most doctors basically wish America was North Korea.”
I dont hang really hang out with doctors, and definitely never discuss politics

What’s the ikker here?

Trying to understand your view of the groups, at first yo usaid “The simplest answer is that individuals trump groups, but I sort of reject the whole idea of “groups.”” Though HOA’s you are ok with . Which is throwing me off a little

“You gave no reasons as to why it’s not arbitrary. You just repeated several times that it’s not even though I think it is. ”

Apologies I thought I did .Arbitrary means with no rhyme or reason
An individual acts in his own self interest, even at the detriment of others. People have different even conflicting self interests. Too sort out who wins we created a government to weigh different options, whats more important this guy living here or a road to benefit many? So the Government representing the people decides on behaldf of the most people. This is not the same as an a individual deciding for himself.

you definitely dont agree with it. But it isnt “Random” it is a system. A bad one in your opinion, but a system nonthless.

“You agree in principle that someone should not be coerced into paying for a product they don’t want… but, somehow it’s okay when the government does exactly that, ah but only in cases where you personally approve it, so not the Ford example. The only reason the philosophical logic makes sense to you is because you were raised with it and have never considered anything else. ”

No, its not ok when the government does that. It is ok when the government does that for the benefit of society. So would society beenfit if you had a Frod? No therefore it is an example I dont approve. Would society benefit if you had to buy Auto insurance yes, therefore you have to buy that.

how did we decide Ford is not beneficial but auto insurance is? We elect representives to decide these things.
(IF you dont like the representative sytem, we can switch to direct democracy but that ios a side issue, the main issue is that as a group we are all better off if indivudals follow rules)
Again, I’m not trying to convince you. But this isnt arbitraary this a clear system.,

“he only reason the philosophical logic makes sense to you is because you were raised with it and have never considered anything else.”

No IVe considered it, I’ll consider it again. Do I want drunk drivers ? Nope. Molested children? nope (not sure if this is due to self interest but if it is, stil ldont want it) people poluting my drinking water? nope I dont like it.

If you are still going to steadfastly refuse to consider the possibility that this axiom of government’s right to coerce is false, then why are you still talking to me?”
Ive considered the possibility
As I said I find your view fascinating

NC

“the arbitrary distinction everyone makes between private and government in the favor of government (eg. a corporation paving over a community = evil, but the government eminent domain’ing over a community = progress)”

I’m not sure thats arbitrary. Arbitrary means based on random choice or whim. There’s a reason why we have that distinction. A good reason in my opinion, one that you certainly reject but that doesn’t make it a not system. Its not random that we allow the government to lock up people even kill people but not private people, similarly the government taking over land is not the same as a private person doing so. I get that in your view it is (if not worse) but the distinction is not arbitrary.

I do agree that staes vs federal distinction, today is somewhat arbitrary. Historically people views it as “These United States” though htis is has been largely if not completely supplanted by “The United States”

avram

“Hasn’t been my experience. Maybe you hang out in better groups 🙂”

Lol! love it

“You’re in the medical field. Is it a quibble on HOW MUCH medication to give a patient? ”

Yes! great analogy If a patient comes in with say shortness of breath and 2 doctors disagree on dose of antibiotics thats a minor quibble . If doctor C says no its viral and doesn’t need antibiotics or COPD exacerbation and needs nebs/steroids THAT is a disagreement (of course in real life these patients get all of the above or as a medical satire blog jokingly wrote FUROSESONEROLAQUINOX )

Agree completely on celebrity worship

And mostly agree with your last paragraph. There does need to be more accountability

“So your presumption is, in essence, that individuals are too stupid or selfish to do the right thing, so we need some form of “benevolent” collective that, in addition to providing societal services, also rigorously polices behavior”

Yes. Exactly right

“The catch to the collective is that it is really just a bunch of individuals put together, so it follows that they will also be too stupid and selfish to do the right thing. ”

No, with a group of people and checks and balances hope is the stupidy will “even out”

“My presumption is that most individuals try to do what is best for themselves and for others. There is a minority who are anti-social or malevolent, and some who may be ignorant of the effect of an action on others”
Hasn’t been my experience. Maybe you hang out with better people

. That’s why we need some government regulations and enforcement”
Great! So you agree with me.
sure we can quibble on HOW MUCH regulation.
Though doesnt this undermine your problem with my approach. If most people “try to do what is best for themselves and for others” then how did we we get ham handed Covid policies that treated citizens as if they were the problem, not the virus?
People want whats best unless theyre int eh government? seems odd, and even if true ok then lets get a new government

My guess is that you will try to say we agree because we both support regulations in some instances, but that is not the case. Intent is important.”
You guessed correctly, . and sure intent matters

NC

“Your opinion on public health isnt “invalidated” either again I’m not sure what you mean.”
It seemed like you were suggesting that I don’t have the right to specifically criticize public health when I also have criticisms for all parts of government.”

You have the righjt to criticize whatever you want. I’m sorry if I implied otherwise

“So, you would contend that you have the answers for literally everything? By me admitting that I don’t, I somehow lost credibility? Does that really make sense?”
Yes.
Keep in mind my system includes yours. So while in your system the only thing stopping a terrorist from releasing chemica l wepaons on the subway is threat of a lawsuit. In my system yo ucna still sue him! Plus we have regulations to (try) to prevent him from getting them in the first palce. Ditto for posoing water whith heavy metals

“OK, yet you do support regulation in other areas (which is fine). Yet, somehow if I support deregulation in one area, I have support it everywhere?”

I’m not sure what you mean by “have to” I though t that was your position, no government regulation. as mentioned several times (though you dont believe me) , my position is not “regulate everything” my position is whatever works.

” So, why did you keep asking me about other government functions? What if I had said “yes, I do support THAT part of government” to one of you inquiries? Would I then “lose” for being inconsistent?”

Lose what?
Yes you would be inconsistent. when I described your position as “closer to anarchy” you said this was correct. (1/6/25 CE 10:45 AM) So yopu supporting “parts of government” makles you not an anarchist.

“I don’t mean to devolve this into insults, but this is just flat out arrogance. Of course you believe your ideas “work” and mine “don’t,” otherwise there would be nothing to talk about. There’s no constructive point in saying that other than demonstrating that you’re very sure of yourself. And, while I’m being a degenerate anyway, your opinions actually just seem like mainstream, textbook liberalism at this point (not saying that as an insult as I couldn’t care less about the left/right split). The unwavering dedication to the moral superiority of collectivism seems a bit foreign like Canadian/European or Israeli perhaps, but I guess it’s frighteningly possible that full-blooded Americans are now ending up with that level of disregard for individual liberty.”

Not an insult. Agree with (almost) every word of this paragraph. copied it verbatim, very well put. (except 1) “frighteningly possible” thats a great thing not frighteing
and 2) you said “Of course you believe your ideas “work” and mine “don’t,””
Its not a “belief” Ive demonstrated it. Child abuse, you agree on. ditto for other vulnerable groups. fire department weve covered you are forced to create an imaginary world where “probably” people would buy insurance . etc etc. You support terrorist having the right to buy automatic weapons and chemical weapons (1/11/25 CE 9:16 PM) . I dont hink its fair to call it a “belief” that this wont work. I get it, you view “individual liberty” as being the most important goal. and this is the price to pay but this is not a workable system

Square

“Furthermore, it is wrong to needlessly delay the performance of any mitzvah.”

emphasis on “needlessly”

And your post cracked me up.
Ok so theres a magen avraham but hes arguing on a mefarush “hakehl shul community bulletin” who does this guy think he is

“Therefore, you can safely bet everything you own that Jews will NEVER abandon this minhag under ANY circumstances,”

Thats a beutiful setment.
True maligim like you arise every so often people wh think they know better and scoff at klaal Yistoel. but even for money Klal yisroel will stand by their mesroa.
Its beautiful to see how crazy it drives you

“Each individual can decide what he wants to pay for in a capitalist society. If enough people decide to pay for the CDC, it will exist. If not, it won’t. Why are you so afraid of leaving it up to this?”

Markets have their failures.
Look up negative externality

NC

“You’re consistent in your shittah of seemingly always supporting government, and I’m consistent in my shittah of seemingly* never supporting it.”

That isnt my shita. but yes You’re consistent I didn’t mean to imply otherwise

when conversation first began and you said “I don’t public health should exist as a concept.t” I thought I would “get you” statement was (and is) so preposterous to me that I assumed 1) you dint know what public health was (are we differed on what was included) or 2) you hadnt thought the statment through

I was completely wrong
You have your shita driven by, I’m not sure what exactly, but interesting nonetheless
But it isnt a “public health” shita. At first I (wrongly) assumed it was. thats what I meant by my comment.
Granted I dont have a soley “public health” shita either, but the conversation started with your statement which I thought was about public health

“If the majority, or even plurality of people drive Fords, should I have to drive a Ford instead of anything else?”
no.
See I dont always support the government. There should be no regulation requiring everyone to buy Fords

“You like the services that the CDC and NIH provide, so you can pay for them, but I don’t, so why should I have to?”
Because you benefit from them. And even if you think you don’t or even if you actually dont its part of living in society. Same as if you oppose war your taxes fund wars. You are of course free to vote for an anti-war candidate or and anti-CDC candidate. But at some point collective decisions need to be made and not every indicdual is happy (You knew this I dont get what your getting at)

“With guns and lawsuits.”
Am I right in assuming you oppose gun limiting legislation? what about machine guns? heavy weapons/explosives such as bazookas/ grenades? chemical weapons? any restrictions on those?

Also how are the judges apointed who enfoirces their decisions?

(* you stuck in “seemingly” was this intentional? is there some government entity/regulation that you do support that I haven’t uncovered?)

NC

I dont understand your question
1) Are you sure theres no shemetz issur in saying AD . Mishna in Sanhedrin says saying an A”Z is “my God” is a chiyuv sekila. Saying “In the year of our lord 2025 ” sounds adjacent to that
2) Even if not assur. and not strictly logical ok so what its emotional AD certainly makes me uncomfortable. why is it bad to say somehting that makes people more comfortable even if built on emotion rather than logic ?
3) I’m not sure there ever was a period where “everyone used BC and AD” These are generally used in historical context no one says “I was born in 1948 AD” or “he died in 1986 AD”) Was there ever popular history books geared to a frum audience that used BC/AD . Artscroll certainly never used it . I have an older History of the JEws written by one Solomon Grayzel published in 1947 that uses BCE/CE. Are you sure BC/AD were in regular use among frum people?

Amom
I didmt miss your point.
Im in healthcare I’ve thought about it a lot too.

You were comparing hstzolah to 911. They aren’t comparable.for the several reasons I’ve outlined
Furthermore

Hospitals have plenty of competition. Some are good some not so much. A problem is when someone has a heart attack he can’t exactly ask around for which ambulance service or hospital is the best nor the cheapest

NC

forgive me I have lots of pending comments, but I genuinely find this interesting.

you are exactly right in your analysis of how the conversation progressed

In a pending comment I wrote in response to your comment “I’m arguing that the only people making life altering decisions should be the individuals involved. It’s nobody else’s business.”

That isn’t completely true. Depends how you define “individuals involved” obviously you polluting water supply or not paying your fire insurance affects others, arguably those too are “individuals involved” yet they cant stop you

I think this is the crux of our discussion.
when your decisions DOES affect me do I get a say. , I would assume you’d say no its solely your decision Even if you have say TB you should be allowed to travel the world as you see fit . You should be allowed to dump your toxic by products wherever you want (in public areas) – correct me if I’m wrong.
(You seem to offer conflicting responses since a few posts were defending why private fire departments would be better – if I understand you correctly it doesnt matter, If you choose not to pay for fire insurance and set fire to your house 10 feet from mine during a dry windy season that is yoru right Even if it was a worse system still nobody;’s business what decisions you make. correct?)
Do I have this right?

and other issue of people who cant make their own decisions, whci you conceded was a “kasha”

NC

“I’m arguing that the only people making life altering decisions should be the individuals involved. It’s nobody else’s business.”

That isn’t completely true. Depends how you define “individuals involved” obviously you polluting water supply or not paying your fire insurance affects others, arguably those too are “individuals involved” yet they cant stop you

NC

Just to clarify a point in my most recent post .
I said “Your system sounds evil. sure government has its problems but these are bugs not features. Your approach is designed this way”

What I mean is any problem with the government, my response is “ok lets work to fix it” Government led to holocaust? Ok lets have a system with checks and balances/separation of powers to prevent one branch (certainly individual) from becoming too strong. Any other problem you identify my response will be the same, ok lets fix it. The “fix” may even be ok lets give that role to the private sector.
Plus the private sector ALSO exists so going back to my original point of discussion regarding clean water. I’m on board with allowing individuals to sue if an entity contaminates water supply. I am not saying leave it solely to the government. I dont think thats enough PLUS as alluded to in last psot STILL need government to adjudicate the lawsuit and to enforce its decision
with your system when there are problems (and there are plenty as I identified) repsosne is thats just the way it has to be.

Also your original comment that first intrigued me namely “I don’t public health should exist as a concept.” was a bit of an understatement. within your worldview of course you don’t

“I don’t think you really mean this. I think you treat government as the fallback solution when nothing else is obvious.”

Even if thats true, that doesnt contradict what I said to which you “Agreed in theory,” what I said was ““I’m not looking for an all encompassing solution. Each area can be different.”
So manufacturing works better in private hands let them handle it
Fire fighting works better in Government hands (for arguments sake) let them handle it
education not sure which is better no obvious solution so we’ll fallback on the government until we come up with a less obvious/ better approach that may not involve the government. This doesnt contradict what I said at all .
In other words I DO treat government as a fallback solution when nothing else is obvious at the same time I’m not looking for an all encompassing solution. Each area can be different.

“. My shittah is that if there are problems that aren’t financially advantageous enough to be naturally dealt with within a free capitalistic system, then they aren’t truly worth dealing with at all no matter how cold that may sound.”

Not just cold it sounds evil (as you sort of concede “Any crimes where the victims cannot functionally stick up for themselves (child abuse, animal abuse, elder abuse, poisoning a town’s water supply) are good arguments you could use against me”
not thinking that child abuse is a problem “truly worth dealing with” is more than cold

“This renders all of those statements meaningless. If they’re all allowed to be subjective, then I will just declare that I personally think the government solution is subjectively worse. That’s just my opinion, but you left it up to my opinion with this clause.”

Not at all Again there is no “government solution”
If you define “better” as tasting better, cleaner, safer, cheaper, better for teeth. However we define it the government can regulate accordingly . If you define better as more poisonous we can do that too! More likely it will be a balance of all of the above (except more poisonous that is more likely with your capaitilistic system)

” since it’s unlikely an entire building would not pay for protection”

Lol! this literally made me laugh out loud. not unlikely it is a certainty some people wouldn’t pay. (I know people who intentially set fires, you think they have “remembered” to pay for the fire fighting ) . and again “unlikely ” is not good enough. If it is “likely ” that my neighbor 10 feet away rmebered to pay annual fire service bill , that is not very reassuring .

“need to feel like everything is “free” because we ignore the fact that we pay for it with taxes.”

It isnt ignoring the fact. It is a feature of the system

“I appreciate your restraint. My position could be called a lot worse than odd. Genuinely, I really do appreciate how interested you seem to be in something that 99% of people would just swear off as “crazy” almost right away.”

In this post, My restraint waned a bit (sounds evil) , but it is fascinating . . Ive had these discussions before (simplistic statements like FDA shouldn’t exist or Public health shouldn’t exist etc) you’re the first who is sticking to this “cold” (your word) evil sounding shita Kudos I guess?

Is it your own? Ive met liberterians before, but as you said earlier you arent really a libertarian. Closer to an Anarchist. Do you oppose all government?
Who or what shaped this ideology of yours?
(Im not big on arguments of authority the few times you thought I made one I wasnt eg the Rambam wasnt a reply to you and same in time zone thread reg Aguda) rather to spare you endless questions and this back and forth sometimes takign day for post to go up is a bit ineffcent — maybe government could do better 🙂 )

“There are plenty of people that die as a result of government as well..nobody has an all-encompassing solution”

I’m not looking for an all encompassing solution. Each area can be different.

I dont want the government regulationing everything no matter what.

Does government control over manufacturing result in better outcomes* ? If yes then govt should control of not then not

Does government control over healthcare result in better outcomes* ? If yes then govt should control of not then not

Does government control over education result in better outcomes* ? If yes then govt should control of not then not

Does government control over public health result in better outcomes* ? If yes then govt should control of not then not

Your position is a bit odd to me though overall consistent. Even if it would result in “better outcomes” you don’t want them involved. .
But it’s not like I’m saying they should always be involved.
There are areas where unquestionably need govt involvement. For example where your decidions impact other people . Suing you after the fact is too little too late.

I recall once reading of a community with private fire department you made a small annual fee and if rl was a fire they came to put it out. Someone who hadn’t paid had a fire they let it burn. Tgis would never work in a dense place like NY. Here it works better run by government . Does this mean govt should only run fire department if they can do everything better? Of course not. Each area is separate. I’m not looking for an “all encompossing solution”

(*however we define it)

AAQ
Great point there you have a specific exception for a specific reason
Its Nedarim 80b as “Rashi” explains because cheyecha kodmin there isnt enough water for everyone so chayecha kodmin presumably based on B”M 62a (theres a machlokes whether water for washing clothes comes before drinking water for downstream people)

Again I am not suggesting EVERY thing should be regulated, so even if this is an example of deregulation, and it very well might be, it doesnt undermine my point.

chazal have many many regulations on what you can do in your property. In the 2nd Perek of Bava Basra you’ll find restrictions on what you can do with waste, noise pollution (for example 20b) , environmental pollution (25a) .

At first I thought these weren’t good examples, since I was under the impression that from a halachic standpoint there is no distinction between criminal and civil. as opposed to lehavdil the US.

Meaning in America as I understand it even if I am allowed to do something if someone gets harmed they can sue me. So NC’s argument (as I understand it) is there should be no regulation on where I discharge my waste and if someone gets harmed (and realizes i t and can afford a lawyer and can prove causation) he’ll sue (of course with the hope being that my fear of a lawsuit will prevent me from misbehaving in the first place).

At first glance I thought the B”B examples were not relvent since there is no “suing” in halacha if I acted properly .Generally speaking If I have a right to do something and someone gets damaged thats on them. Therefore we need halacha to say I am not allowed to do something.

However when flipping through the relevant blat this is clearly not correct. Mishna B”B 20b gives oven safety regulations how far oven has to be from floor/ceiling. Thers a machlokes in Mishna if damage happens even if I followed the regulations am I liable?. Rambam Shecheinim 9:11 and MEchaber CM 155:1 both pasken are chayav. Clearly the regulation is NOT just to allow the damaged to sue for damages .

NC

The Government can (and does) set regulations BEFORE they occur. These regulations can be enforced BEFORE they cause damage.

Yes if there are victims they need money but the point of regulations is to prevent victims

I don’t understand your next paragraph.
Under your proposal I can dump toxic substances into local drinking supply. Until someone is harmed (and knows they are) cand can prove that my substance caused their harm i’m good. It might ne worth taking that risk.
Even if you know I’m polluting your water supply. The only way to stop me is to get haarmed.

That doesn’t seem like a good approach.

Yo usay “If a big company wrongs people living in upstate NY…” The idea of regulation is to stop them before the people are harmed.

Maybe I’m not being clear,
Drunk driving probably doesn’t fall under “public health” (or does it?)
Should there be a law banning drunk driving?
I say yes. The idea is to stop the drunk driver BEFORE he hurts someone. Sure he can be sued if/when he hurts someone. but a. That is still tru with government regulation, and 2) that is too little too late once the damage has been done.
Same thing here it wouldn’t suffice to let the private sector sue companies AFTER thyeve committed damage ( and is known and can be proven) the idea is to stop it before

AAQ
“I am not saying I am against all regulation,”
Then we agree!

“This may be a silly argument when you are suggesting full gov regulation v. full lack of it”
I agree completly
Though at no point did I say “full gov regulation”
NC did say full lack of it whci hsurprised me “I don’t public health should exist as a concept.”