This notice is here to tell you not to remove this notice

This is an indirect link, to a MeFi post:

This notice is here to tell you not to remove this notice.

Embedded in that sentence, in the Mefi post, are three links, which I'll pull out here for your convenience:

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

This kind of sh*t is why conservatives get upset with government regulation. On what f*cking planet is this a good idea? All it does is guarantee a bunch of government jobs, inspecting notices, whose sole purpose is to tell you that the notice must be there.

And you can be fined $250 for not displaying the notice that you are required to display a notice.

The article wrote

TALLAHASSEE, FL -- Florida recently enacted new vending machine labeling requirements. All food and beverage vending machines must carry the new labels, effective July 1, 2010.

According to National Automatic Merchandising Association senior vice-president of government affairs Ned Monroe, the change will protect vending operators from unscrupulous individuals who were stealing business and tax information from current vending machine labels.

There is no fiscal effect on the industry from the changes to Florida's HB 7157, Monroe explained, "but complying will assist in protecting your corporate identity and tax information."

The change addresses the wording of the mandatory notice posted on all food and beverage vending machines in Florida. This notice now requires operators to replace the current label, removing all personal information -- name and address, Federal Employer Identification Number -- and using, instead, this wording:

FLORIDA LAW REQUIRES
THIS NOTICE TO BE POSTED
ON ALL FOOD AND BEVERAGE VENDING MACHINES.

Report any machine without a notice to (800) 352-9273. You may be eligible for a cash reward.

DO NOT USE THIS NUMBER
TO REPORT PROBLEMS
WITH THE VENDING MACHINE
SUCH AS LOST MONEY
OR OUT-OF-DATE PRODUCTS.

Ok, so there are 2 parts to this.

1 - the removal of identifying tax information from the previous stickers. This is a good thing it can help to prevent fraud.

2 - the change in wording. I agree that the above wording is a bit, ummm, help me with the word here..stupid... The logic presented in the article was that if the machine was in compliance with this law then they would probably be in compliance with all relevant laws is dubious at best.

I would guess that the machines already have to be inspected to make sure that they are functioning correctly, however I will have to look that up later when I have more time.

I assume that it's the assumption of the people who wrote that in an assuming way that once people see the sign so many times they will have memorized the phone number and take action and call it when they no longer see the sign on a machine fnord.

IMAGE(http://www.inquisitr.com/wp-content/sign-has-sharp-edges.jpg)

A vending machine operator that does not place the notice on the machine presumably is not in compliance with the other requirements such as registration and payment of the tax.

One of the congressional aids recommended putting a sticker on the vending machines that said something like "This machine has been registered and was last inspected on XX-XX-XXXX, if that date is more than a year ago please call X-XXX-XXXX". Sadly he was beaten to death by every politician in the room.

Malor wrote:

This kind of sh*t is why conservatives get upset with government regulation. On what f*cking planet is this a good idea? All it does is guarantee a bunch of government jobs, inspecting notices, whose sole purpose is to tell you that the notice must be there.

Then conservatives should be angry at businesses, not government.

The key was the quote from the government affairs guy (i.e., a lobbyist) from the National Automatic Merchandising Association. They wanted the law passed to protect their trade group members from "unscrupulous individuals". Very likely the law was written by the National Automatic Merchandising Association, not the Florida Legislature.

Right, because we can't expect the legislature to read or approve of the laws they pass.

Quintin_Stone wrote:

Right, because we can't expect the legislature to read or approve of the laws they pass.

Not when a member of the House of Representatives has to bring in about ten grand a week just raise enough money to keep his job.

All the time spent wrangling for a donation is time not spent serving the people who elected them. Or, more bluntly, people who donate get a hell of a lot more attention than the people the politiican is elected to represent.

OG_slinger wrote:

Then conservatives should be angry at businesses, not government.

The key was the quote from the government affairs guy (i.e., a lobbyist) from the National Automatic Merchandising Association. They wanted the law passed to protect their trade group members from "unscrupulous individuals". Very likely the law was written by the National Automatic Merchandising Association, not the Florida Legislature.

Why would they be angry at businesses rather than the politicians who both arrogantly assumed the authority to do this kind of thing, then let themselves be used to suppress competition?

Aetius wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

Then conservatives should be angry at businesses, not government.

The key was the quote from the government affairs guy (i.e., a lobbyist) from the National Automatic Merchandising Association. They wanted the law passed to protect their trade group members from "unscrupulous individuals". Very likely the law was written by the National Automatic Merchandising Association, not the Florida Legislature.

Why would they be angry at businesses rather than the politicians who both arrogantly assumed the authority to do this kind of thing, then let themselves be used to suppress competition?

They should be angry at both the businesses that get the politicians to do their dirty work, and the politicians that do what the businesses tell them.

I would not categorize this current situation as you did, I would categorize it as politicians meekly assuming that businesses actually know what is best from a legislative point of view. In fact I think that looking at all of the legislation that is so directly written by businesses, SOPA being a popular recent example, and deciding that the best way to fix that would be to give the private market more power in our society, is crazy.

Yonder wrote:

I would not categorize this current situation as you did, I would categorize it as politicians meekly assuming that businesses actually know what is best from a legislative point of view. In fact I think that looking at all of the legislation that is so directly written by businesses, SOPA being a popular recent example, and deciding that the best way to fix that would be to give the private market more power in our society, is crazy.

The best way to fix that is to stop the government from granting private companies power - power they can't get any other way. And the best way to do that is not to grant that power to the government in the first place. They can't abuse what they don't have.

Aetius wrote:

The best way to fix that is to stop the government from granting private companies power - power they can't get any other way. And the best way to do that is not to grant that power to the government in the first place. They can't abuse what they don't have.

The only abuse happening is corporations trying to unduly influence the government for their benefit. That can be ended quickly by simply making it illegal to inject any non-taxpayer money into the political process. No PACs. No donations. No way for businesses to buy a special exemption for themselves.

The answer is *not* to make the government so weak it can be completely ignored by corporations who only care about extracting the most short-term profit they can.