Neato Torpedo wrote:RugbyD wrote:Neato Torpedo wrote:I guess if you're hung up on the dictionary definition of "voluntary" I guess you could call it dishonesty but I don't see any hidden agenda or anything here. Probably not the best choice of words, but it all depends on how you read it (or how you want to read it). Besides, there's no need to vilify them for a single word when it's pretty clear what the message is.
Hung up on? I could understand if this were shades of grey, but this is nothing short of a boldfaced black&white lie, and it takes a true coward and fraud to say it only b/c he knows he's got the govt authority of threatened violence to make it passable. I don't understand why people aren't bothered by this.
Where's the lie? I see no deception in anything other than typical political office spin on a word that could be open to wide interpretation. The government is putting their plan on the table, and unless they deviate from that plan later on, they're telling the truth. Get off that one word and approach the whole message.
For something to be voluntary, there must be at least one other choice. Whether by guidelines or rules written into agency code (the difference being enforcement provisions), companies must do X. There is no Y. There is nothing close to resembling Y. It was never a thought. Without Y, it is 100% impossible for there to be any voluntary about this. There's nothing to interpret. To call it voluntary is a lie, not just spin.
And my problem here isn't with the nature of whatever the guidlines are, it's the fact that so much power is put in the hands of unelected and generally unaccountable bureaucrats via delegation to Agency jurisdiction that makes this garbage philosophy of governance possible, permissible, and for some reason unoffensive to people.