Ayeleeon

Aren't we all.

I am nice, though at the moment I am out of town and can't really get on SL. I will next week

Have you seen I Robot?

Many Sims have groups dedicated to them, so if there are particular places you love to take pictures at, check to see if there is a group for it.

It is a benefit, and for many products listing them is a good business practice, but it does not follow that it should be required. If you are interested in a product, but want that information before you buy, you will not buy it if the information is not there. The manufacturer will lose a sale. That is enough incentive without getting the state involved making regulations and buracracy to enforce them.

US regulations go beyond just listing the ingredients, they require percentages of certain nutrients, as well as the level of sodium, and sugar. The lable as well must follow a particular format, It is not sufficient to merely list this information on the lable. The issue is not whether such information is useful for the consumer, but whether all good producers should be required to place it on all food products. As you mentioned some consumers want this information, so to sell to them a manufacture needs to include this information. However take for example a farmer who wants to grind his own corn and sell corn meal. Is it really nessesary that he provide a standardized lable that lists calories per serving, sodium, and the amount of sugar. Wouldn't just saying it is 100 percent ground corn with no.added ingredients be enough? You mention place.and date of manufacture, this information is not required in the US, nor is country of origin. Many manufactures will include it because it is a good business practice, and many consumers want to know. But the big corporations don't want to have to place this on thier packages, so it isn't a requirement.

I did read about the impacts of food labeling on small scale food producers, but can't find anything on the internet yet. I did find an article that states that food labeling had no positive effects on health

For @Sukubia ScarmonHere is a start. https://mspolicy.org/regulations-should-help-not-hinder-small-business-growth/ https://www.uschamberfoundation.org/blog/post/regulations-impact-small-business-and-heart-americas-economy https://www.uschamber.com/series/above-the-fold/how-regulations-every-level-hold-back-small-business https://www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/washingtonbureau/2016/04/10-regulations-that-give-small-business-owners-the.html

https://www.instagram.com/p/CRo4Sh6nwv6/?utm_medium=copy_link

I am talking about government in general. If I was thinking of the Federal government, I would have said Federal government.

Someone probably mentioned this, but it would profoundly effect the way people interact with each other. Now you can boldly go into any social situation because if it goes south you can always TP out. Without that option it would be a very different SL

Mostly the government sets policies that increase the cost of living to a point where it outpaces wages. Things like artificially raising the price of land through zoning laws, and regulations that raise costs of consumer products, subsidies and price supports, as well as inflationary policies that insure prices go up over time. Without such interference wages would in fact be lower, but people could afford to live at those lower rates.

I will just pick one of your many objections. Dumping industrial waste on someone else's property is theft, and should be treated as such. As I said earlier, the government's role should be limited to protecting the life liberty and property of the people. If a chemical plant allows it's waste products to get on your land, the state should punish that company and insure your property is restored, this is how a true free market works. No one can take something of value from you without your consent. Instead governments have allowed companies to dump thier trash, and in so doing steal value from other people. They have done this on the name of the common good, but it is only good for the people making a profit from it.

LOL, I generally use the same spelling as in the post I am quoting, unless the quote spelling is wrong. In this case that spelling is not wrong, just not the common usage in the US

The government is only hands off in terms of regulations aimed certain practices limiting the actions of large corporations. Wages meanwhile have gone up, but not up relative to inflation you say, very true, but government policy creates inflation. Inflation discourages savings, why not spend it now when you can get more for it. Also it over time reduces the actual cost of the debt.

What is naive is believing that the government can improve on the free market, especially in light of the fact that so far, government interference has always been aimed at helping the wealthy. Why we think that suddenly we can get the state to help the poor is beyond me.

Under communism there is no private property at all, and the government is a dictatorship. Under socialism some private property is allowed however industrial production is owned and managed by the state, which is often a Democracy. In neither situation is the greater efficiency of the free market allowed to exist.

This is basically saying that labour isn't worth much but the labourer should be paid more than that. I disagree, I think labour is valuable, and that if the government stopped interfering in the market, the market would reflect that fact.

Technically Socialism is the ownership of the means of production by the state, as opposed to Capitalism which is ownership of the means of production by private individuals. Ownership however implies control, however in actual practice there are many ways that the state can control production without actually owning the companies involved. Ownership itself is not the issue. The issue is control. Time and time again it has been demonstrated that when the free market controls the economy with private individuals owning the means of production, the results are preferable to the state trying to take control and somehow improve on the results obtained with a free market.

The job of government is to protect the life, liberty, and property of the people under it's jurisdiction, without regard to race, gender, economic class, or anything else. What actually happens in practice is that government favors certain groups over others, such as the wealthy over the poor, and come up with some BS like the greater social good to justify it. The excesses of Capitalism are do to government interfering in the free market, not because government does to little. Of course government is more than happy to ride in like a big hero to fix a problem it created in the first place.

Most of my original sources are from books not the internet, and due to personal situations most of my library is currently in storage, but I will see what I can get for you.

One example, food labeling regulations, have driven many small producers out of the market and make it difficult for others to get in. Just because regulations that hinder large corporations have been removed does not mean we are less regulated than ever before. As Chroma Starlight points out. There is a systematic effort to keep common people down and prevent them from becoming financially independent. There are lots of laws on the books that are designed to do just that. When the government tells you it is deregulating. These laws are not being removed.