Comments on: Forbes.com: Down with the CPSIA!

By: Todd Rogers

Todd Rogers — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:29:23 +0000

Of course, this law could become obsolete with proper labels such as: “Not intended for distribution or use by persons under the age of thirteen.” “This item is made available purely for novelty use, only.” Yes, this kind of pedestrian side-stepping is clearly intended to disregard the spirit of the law. Such is the case when responding to poorly written law.

By: SmokeVanThorn

SmokeVanThorn — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 15:17:12 +0000

“Unintended consequence” is the euphemism for “something (bad) that advocates should have realized would happen but (a) were too stupid and/or too intent on their agenda to consider; and/or (b) was ignored because they were too busy feeling good about themselves while demonizing their opponents; and/or (c) really doesn’t matter as long as it is borne by others.”

By: asdf fff

asdf fff — Sun, 18 Jan 2009 00:48:38 +0000

That’s a really well-written article in Forbes, good job. Clear, interesting, persuasive.

One comment I would like to make is on the phrase “As CPSIA opponents mobilize, the phrase ‘unintended consequences’ is often heard.”

Have you ever noticed how often some law is passed, and then people argue that it’s clear text results in “unintended consequences”? Usually, people say “law X was supposed to solve problem Y,” and then they argue that law X actually harms Z, where Z is someone who is sympathetic and who does not contribute to problem Y at all.

The fallacy with this line of reasoning, in my view, is that the fact that a law’s text is different from its public justification (“problem Y”) or from the policy values of many people (“support Z”) does not mean its consequences are “unintended.” The best measure of the intention of a law, absent scrivenor’s error, is its text.

By: Cecilia Leibovitz

Cecilia Leibovitz — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 18:14:25 +0000

Thank you for this well researched and intuitive article.

Cecilia Leibovitz
craftsburykids.com
handmadetoyalliance.org

By: Richard Nieporent

Richard Nieporent — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 12:02:36 +0000

What blows my mind is how such an incredibly flawed piece of legislation could pass the senate by a margin of 89 to 3 and the house by a margin of 424 to 1. It says something about the collective wisdom of Congress

Why are you surprised? It’s for the Children™!

By: PhilG

PhilG — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 10:29:36 +0000

By: Brian Phelps

Brian Phelps — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 01:59:39 +0000

I can always trust Ron Paul.

By: SSFC

SSFC — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 01:57:50 +0000

Your first commenter at Forbes, the mini-Nader who poses the threat of children catching fire because of lead-tainted moccasins, is my favorite commenter of all time.

Probably an intern for CSPI or another Nader front, but what a catch!

By: Todd Rogers

Todd Rogers — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 01:49:13 +0000

Nicely done. Me sees a litigation lottery in the making. Small scale operations are not very attractive targets for “Big Law.” Like any predator, Big Law will enjoy a market bottleneck of “Big Toys;” only those elastic enough to absorb the shock of this law will survive. And Big Law will find easier marks and deep pockets for product liability suits.