FTC to Kill Amplifier Rule: Help us Protect it by Feb 16th, 2021!

Should the FTC Amplifier Rule Stay Active?

  • Yes. Let's hold manufacturers accountable with Truth in Power

    Votes: 46 90.2%
  • Doesn't Matter. It's never been enforced anway.

    Votes: 3 5.9%
  • No. Let manufacturers boast claims to feed my fragile ego.

    Votes: 2 3.9%

  • Total voters
    51
panteragstk

panteragstk

Audioholic Warlord
Why do you assert this is the role of government?

Why do you assume that government action actually stops unethical business practices?
Look at the history of why some regulating bodies were created. That will answer all your questions.
 
Pogre

Pogre

Audioholic Slumlord
No, the goal post of violence was never moved.
It most certainly was. You asked what would happen if someone ignored the standard, I said fines, then you moved the post to "what if they don't pay the fine?". I say more fines and/or suspending someone's license to do business. There's no violence in my answers but you keep reaching for it.

I think you insinuating violence is inevitable as it relates to this case is hyperbolic at best. Violence used to enforce regulations like this might be used a last resort in an extreme hypothetical and unrealistic scenario. Do you have some examples of violence being used to enforce amplifier regulations? Seems to me you're setting up a strawman...
 
jbiz42

jbiz42

Junior Audioholic
Oversight isn't the issue there, it's who is doing it. Yes, our government is also a government, but the intent (or what should be the intent) of oversight is to protect the consumer. Just because antifreeze tastes sweet doesn't mean companies should be allowed to use it in candy. Oversight exists in an attempt to stop unethical business practices, at least in this context.

Bring on the "that's where it starts" arguments...
Why do you assert this is the role of government?

Why do you assume that government action actually stops unethical business practices?
You clearly live with a huge chip on your shoulder when it comes to government involvement. Out of all the "chaff" you been spouting, the single grain of truth you posted is that the rules need to be updated to keep up with technology. The rest however is paranoid thinking on your part.
No, it's based on history. Read some of the articles I posted, unless you prefer your echo chamber. I have yet to see anything that supports your assumptions about government intervention. So you're not even trying, or you don't have anything. I'm guessing the latter, given the constant stream of strawman "logic" and ad hominem.
 
jbiz42

jbiz42

Junior Audioholic
So, you haven't heard of anything to do with the FTC's enforcement, but you leap to thinking it would be violent? Don't be a victim.

Words aren't violence, except in the minds of those who are so weak that it amounts to emotional collapse. A threat isn't violence, either.

Using some obscure word association to meet your needs in this thread doesn't make a rule or actions that result from violating rules meet the definition of the word-

Except that threats are usually considered illegal (often even by anarchists).

But I'm glad to see you trying to educate yourself. Now look up the definitions of coercion and extortion.
 
Pogre

Pogre

Audioholic Slumlord
Why do you assert this is the role of government?

Why do you assume that government action actually stops unethical business practices?


No, it's based on history. Read some of the articles I posted, unless you prefer your echo chamber. I have yet to see anything that supports your assumptions about government intervention. So you're not even trying, or you don't have anything. I'm guessing the latter, given the constant stream of strawman "logic" and ad hominem.
I haven't seen any evidence of your assertion that violence is the de facto go-to solution for enforcing standards applied amplification.
 
Trell

Trell

Audioholic Spartan
Perhaps create a new thread in the SteamVent forum to continue this discussion about government intervention?
 
jbiz42

jbiz42

Junior Audioholic
The violence that comes with those 'victimless crimes', assuming you mean the illegal drug trade, doesn't make it 'victimless'. How many people need to die in drive-by shootings that come with shytty aim, crossfire, firing into the wrong house or car, etc for you to see that it's far from victimless? What about the ones who die because someone sold drugs laced with something like Fentanyl, without telling anyone or the Heroin was stronger than expected? Try selling that crap to the families of people who OD'd.

Should we let those convicted of fraud roam free, possibly screwing people by selling things that aren't as described? Could be any product or service, but let's use 'fraud' as it applies to this thread. or does their crime not fit your definition of 'violence'?

The government isn't involved with audio specs, per se, as its main focus for the FTC, audio specs just happen to enter the discussion because, in defining trade practices, the information used by people to make a buying decision for audio equipment needs to be accurate and when a manufacturer or seller goes off the rails and makes it up as they go along, people don't get what they wanted.

I get the impression that if you received a list of requirements that came from engineers, you would question their validity.
Why do you think there are drive-by shootings? Look up the history of prohibition; it doesn't work. That's not even debated.

Prohibition by its very nature tends to concentrate the potency of the good being prohibited (due to risk in distribution/storage/transportation). Thus moonshine during the original prohibition, and heroin, crack, fentanyl, etc. during the current prohibition.

And it doesn't prevent the sale of prohibited products, just moves them to a black market, which is more dangerous. Or have you not heard of the infamous "white van" loudspeakers?

No, fraud is not violence (because there is consent in both parties). But it can be sued for, and otherwise addressed.

Requirements from engineers is great; requirement from bureaucrats is not. The FTC regulations seem more like the latter than the former.
 
jbiz42

jbiz42

Junior Audioholic
I haven't seen any evidence of your assertion that violence is the de facto go-to solution for enforcing standards applied amplification.
It's the ultimate result of any government regulation (or law). That shouldn't be a suprise.
 
Pogre

Pogre

Audioholic Slumlord
Why do you think there are drive-by shootings? Look up the history of prohibition; it doesn't work. That's not even debated.

Prohibition by its very nature tends to concentrate the potency of the good being prohibited (due to risk in distribution/storage/transportation). Thus moonshine during the original prohibition, and heroin, crack, fentanyl, etc. during the current prohibition.
I do however, pretty much agree with you here. In fact I have some pretty strong feelings about the number of US citizens that are in jail for victimless crimes. It upsets me quite a bit.

However, we're not talking about prohibition or the miserable failure of the war on drugs (more strawmen). We're talking about having a standard in place so consumers aren't getting ripped off.
 
mtrycrafts

mtrycrafts

Seriously, I have no life.
... Govt. has a role to play in ensuring certain standards are maintained otherwise we have chaos and worse.
....
Some like chaos or worse. ;):)
Just look at Texas grid failure. Texas wanted to be independent of the US government with respect to the grid. On the cheap got you this mess there.
 
jbiz42

jbiz42

Junior Audioholic
It most certainly was. You asked what would happen if someone ignored the standard, I said fines, then you moved the post to "what if they don't pay the fine?". I say more fines and/or suspending someone's license to do business. There's no violence in my answers but you keep reaching for it.

I think you insinuating violence is inevitable as it relates to this case is hyperbolic at best. Violence used to enforce regulations like this might be used a last resort in an extreme hypothetical and unrealistic scenario. Do you have some examples of violence being used to enforce amplifier regulations? Seems to me you're setting up a strawman...
I get what you're saying. No, I don't think it's often the case. But it is always the ultimate fallback and is a threat. Like getting mugged; maybe the majority if cases don't involve violence, but that is the overriding threat that drives behavior. That's why I say the goalpost didn't move, you weren't arriving at the conclusion of violence because you didn't consider the full chain of actions/effects.
 
3db

3db

Audioholic Slumlord
Gene, Can we shut this thread down? There is no longer any value in it as its been totally sabotaged by a troll.
 
Pogre

Pogre

Audioholic Slumlord
I get what you're saying. No, I don't think it's often the case. But it is always the ultimate fallback and is a threat. Like getting mugged; maybe the majority if cases don't involve violence, but that is the overriding threat that drives behavior. That's why I say the goalpost didn't move, you weren't arriving at the conclusion of violence because you didn't consider the full chain of actions/effects.
How about instead of the "majority of cases don't involve violence", you acknowledge that there hasn't been a single example of violence being used to enforce these regulations? Not one that I know of anyway. It's just a silly assertion. To invoke it is to set up a strawman unless you wanna provide some examples. If you can find any let me know...
 
jbiz42

jbiz42

Junior Audioholic
How the hell did we get from a straight forward thread on amplifier spec regulation review into this weird anti-govt debate? Govt. has a role to play in ensuring certain standards are maintained otherwise we have chaos and worse.

I think laws and regulations should be up for review, update or sunset every X many years. The review should be written into each law and regulation. Technology change, society change, value systems change, the laws and regulations should also keep up with the changes. Otherwise we end up with outdated and often contradictory layers that become difficult to interpret and comply and also muddled due to differing contradictory opinions by various courts creating even more confusion.
The debate is inherent in the discussion about whether regulation should be maintained or not. The decades-obsolete state of at least a couple of the rules show the danger of leaving regulation to an uncompetitive monopoly. Standards are handled better by non-governmental entities (e.g. IEEE 802.11).

Perhaps the more philosophical threads should be moved elsewhere. But unfortunately there hasn't been much discussion on the technical merits (or lack thereof) of the rules, which I've brought up several times. People keep trying to defend the system that results the in obsolete rules in the first place.

The irony is that the FTC itself believes that standards organizations are better suited to manage this: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/1585038/p974222amplifierrulewilsonstatement.pdf

So if you support the FTC, why wouldn't you believe them when they admit they probably shouldn't have a hand in this??
 
jbiz42

jbiz42

Junior Audioholic
How about instead of the "majority of cases don't involve violence", you acknowledge that there hasn't been a single example of violence being used to enforce these regulations? Not one that I know of anyway. It's just a silly assertion. To invoke it is to set up a strawman unless you wanna provide some examples. If you can find any let me know...
No, not a strawman because it's inherently part of the chain of consequences. So the denial of violence as a potential outcome is the strawman.

Of course there has been violence in enforcing regulations in general, though neither of us know for sure about this specific regulation. My point is about the general case.
 
jbiz42

jbiz42

Junior Audioholic
Gene, Can we shut this thread down? There is no longer any value in it as its been totally sabotaged by a troll.
Sabotage = anechoic chamber instead of echo chamber.
 
Pogre

Pogre

Audioholic Slumlord
No, not a strawman because it's inherently part of the chain of consequences. So the denial of violence as a potential outcome is the strawman.

Of course there has been violence in enforcing regulations in general, though neither of us know for sure about this specific regulation. My point is about the general case.
Well this thread is about a specific case. You can create a chain of consequences for ANY situation that leads to violence.
 
newsletter

  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top