Restraining regulations (was: [blml] Law 24)

[Todd M. Zimnoch]

Eric Landau wrote:
> That the WBF has the *power* to restrict its subordinates' regulations 
> doesn't effectively restrict anyone or anything if the WBF is unwilling 
> to use that power.  We have been told repeatedly, however, that that is 
> their policy, or at least their "attitude".
 >
> There may be some theoretical, legalistic restriction on what can be 
> regulated, but as long as the WBF declines to enforce the "not in 
> conflict" provision of L80F and continues to permit its subordinate 
> authorities to pass whatever regulations they please, I will stand by 
> "effectively without restriction".

	Your argument fails when there are no regulations in 
conflict, which we're consistently told is true.  On which 
regulations do you feel the WBF should exercise its power?

-Todd