Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
lostone

Regulations

90 posts in this topic

1 minute ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

State actors shouldn't be enforcing federal regulations. And relying on them to do so is going to simply lead to "bloating" at the state level. 

I'm not sure why people think that these exceedingly complex areas of law and conflicted interest are simple and easily solvable. My guess would be unfamiliarity with the subject matter in question.

They're ideologues, pure and simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

State actors shouldn't be enforcing federal regulations. And relying on them to do so is going to simply lead to "bloating" at the state level. 

I'm not sure why people think that these exceedingly complex areas of law and conflicted interest are simple and easily solvable. My guess would be unfamiliarity with the subject matter in question.

Exactly how many police forces do we need?  I don't agree with the need for it.  I don't form opinions without some basis of doing so.  Agree to disagree...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

Of course you do. "Let the states handle it," is anarcho-capitalist code for, "This isn't unconstitutional but we don't want it to work."

More like, "Yeah, it's not unconstitutional but it's just not necessary" but yes, continue the snide remarks instead of actual conversation, that's totally fruitful...:rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, capologist said:

Exactly how many police forces do we need?  I don't agree with the need for it.  I don't form opinions without some basis of doing so.  Agree to disagree...

There is a basis....it's the execution of the laws of the United States. 

I'll never understand why situations like this are framed as a problem of "too much government" rather than a problem of private action. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, capologist said:

More like, "Yeah, it's not unconstitutional but it's just not necessary" but yes, continue the snide remarks instead of actual conversation, that's totally fruitful...:rolleyes:

Your argument is more or less, "Companies will regulate themselves regarding pollution and if not then people can just sue them." My argument is, "Companies did not regulate themselves and lawsuits were not effective prior to the EPA." One is feelings based, the other is demonstrable.

BrockSamson likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Psychic Gibbon said:

Your argument is more or less, "Companies will regulate themselves regarding pollution and if not then people can just sue them." My argument is, "Companies did not regulate themselves and lawsuits were not effective prior to the EPA." One is feelings based, the other is demonstrable.

I have never, ever said "Companies will regulate themselves, not even close".  Just phrasing it that way is a complete misrepresentation of what I've said.  Not sure why you can't just go with what I actually said which is "There are ways to achieve the same results without an additional agency".  I can only assume based on other comments made that you have some sort of personal issue with me or just not understand what I'm trying to say...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, capologist said:

I have never, ever said "Companies will regulate themselves, not even close".  Just phrasing it that way is a complete misrepresentation of what I've said.  Not sure why you can't just go with what I actually said which is "There are ways to achieve the same results without an additional agency".  I can only assume based on other comments made that you have some sort of personal issue with me or just not understand what I'm trying to say...

Alright, assuming your previously stated beliefs that companies will regulate themselves don't apply here:

Leaving pollution regulations and litigation up to the states is ludicrous. Pollution doesn't remain confined within state borders and it would be close to impossible to prove where exactly air, river, lake, etc. pollution originated for state v. state or state v. corporation cases to be viable unless the company is doing a particularly bad job of masking it. Due to that it would be convenient  and much more streamlined if a central force, a federal government if you will, took charge of these cases so they didn't have to bother with such obstacles. And if that federal government needs to create a new law enforcement agency to be able to enforce the laws on the books then so be it.

MAD597 and BrockSamson like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

14 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

Your argument is more or less, "Companies will regulate themselves regarding pollution and if not then people can just sue them." My argument is, "Companies did not regulate themselves and lawsuits were not effective prior to the EPA." One is feelings based, the other is demonstrable.

I'll also state my opinion that lawsuits are not useful when people are dying because of de-regulation. 

I'll never understand why conservatives think this is a good idea? Let the problem dramatically impact people to the point where they will sue (if they are still alive) instead of trying to prevent the problem in the first place? Also you got personal lawyers if people can afford it up against teams of highly paid corporate lawyers? Sounds like a fair fight huh?

Pollution is bad, we need to enforce people/companies from abusing the environment. It is that simple.

Cars are dangerous, we need safety regulation in place to steer companies into making safer cars and establishing safety guidelines.

Food is important, we need guidelines and enforcement on food safety.

Medication is important. We need guidelines regulations and over sight on developing and deploying medication to  the population.

All of these issues transcend State lines and can't be something left to them. So the only logical step is have the Feds develop regulations for these items for the entire country.

 

Edited by MAD597
BrockSamson likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

Alright, assuming your previously stated beliefs that companies will regulate themselves don't apply here:

Leaving pollution regulations and litigation up to the states is ludicrous. Pollution doesn't remain confined within state borders and it would be close to impossible to prove where exactly air, river, lake, etc. pollution originated for state v. state or state v. corporation cases to be viable unless the company is doing a particularly bad job of masking it. Due to that it would be convenient  and much more streamlined if a central force, a federal government if you will, took charge of these cases so they didn't have to bother with such obstacles. And if that federal government needs to create a new law enforcement agency to be able to enforce the laws on the books then so be it.

Again, I never said leave the regulation up to the states.  Not sure why you are having such a time understanding what I'm actually saying.  If Congress passes a law and establishes standards then the enforcement (not actually making the regulation) mechanism can be handled at the state level.  I can't stress this enough, the disagreement is in the phrase "needs to create".  You see a need where I do not.  It's really that simple.  We can agree to disagree on that without all the misrepresentation and snide remarks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

33 minutes ago, capologist said:

Again, I never said leave the regulation up to the states.  Not sure why you are having such a time understanding what I'm actually saying.  If Congress passes a law and establishes standards then the enforcement (not actually making the regulation) mechanism can be handled at the state level.  I can't stress this enough, the disagreement is in the phrase "needs to create".  You see a need where I do not.  It's really that simple.  We can agree to disagree on that without all the misrepresentation and snide remarks.

Because your position makes no sense. You want 50 separate EPAs for no other reason than because you feel uncomfortable with the federal government enforcing federal law with an agency dedicated to enforcing those particular laws.

edit: Also, this has just been a winding journey from your original attempted point of, "How did we ever manage prior to 1970?" When it was pointed out that companies did not self-regulate regarding pollution and environmental damage, lawsuits were ineffective, and existing agencies could not properly enforce the CAA and other laws prior to the formation of the EPA you went to this argument of what is, in effect, 50 separate EPAs, which is completely inefficient.

Edited by Psychic Gibbon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

22 minutes ago, Psychic Gibbon said:

Because your position makes no sense. You want 50 separate EPAs for no other reason than because you feel uncomfortable with the federal government enforcing federal law with an agency dedicated to enforcing those particular laws.

edit: Also, this has just been a winding journey from your original attempted point of, "How did we ever manage prior to 1970?" When it was pointed out that companies did not self-regulate regarding pollution and environmental damage, lawsuits were ineffective, and existing agencies could not properly enforce the CAA and other laws prior to the formation of the EPA you went to this argument of what is, in effect, 50 separate EPAs, which is completely inefficient.

Also who is going to over see these 50 EPA's to make sure they are enforcing the laws evenly across the board? Pretty clear opportunity for companies to bribe local EPA's to look the other way and would probably be cheaper then bribing the Senate/Congress. The FEDS obviously would need to make sure the states correctly enforced the laws.

Well maybe let's just cut out the middle man on issues that transcend state lines like this.

Edited by MAD597

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

State actors shouldn't be enforcing federal regulations. And relying on them to do so is going to simply lead to "bloating" at the state level. 

I'm not sure why people think that these exceedingly complex areas of law and conflicted interest are simple and easily solvable. My guess would be unfamiliarity with the subject matter in question.

I wouldn't be so dismissive of the idea having the state enforcing regulations. For one, our country is massive and incredibly diverse. Coastlines, deserts, mountains, lakes, glaciers, oil reserves, and nevermind consideration of their primary industries like agriculture, technology, manufacturing, etc... States would be far more experienced and efficient responding to cases in a corresponding region with a common set of environmental risks.

capologist likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey @kicker could you at least remove my company from your post.  I'd appreciate it.  I don't mind you attacking me but leave the company out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, pzummo said:

I wouldn't be so dismissive of the idea having the state enforcing regulations. For one, our country is massive and incredibly diverse. Coastlines, deserts, mountains, lakes, glaciers, oil reserves, and nevermind consideration of their primary industries like agriculture, technology, manufacturing, etc... States would be far more experienced and efficient responding to cases in a corresponding region with a common set of environmental risks.

States already have some level of environmental enforcement at the state level...for that exact reason. However, it's perfectly reasonable and sound public policy to have a federal agency tasked with regulation and enforcement to establish a sort of "baseline" level of action. 

As for states being far more efficient....IDK man. I don't think that's true. But I think that's a humanity problem, not a state/fed problem. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry said:

States already have some level of environmental enforcement at the state level...for that exact reason. However, it's perfectly reasonable and sound public policy to have a federal agency tasked with regulation and enforcement to establish a sort of "baseline" level of action. 

As for states being far more efficient....IDK man. I don't think that's true. But I think that's a humanity problem, not a state/fed problem. 

If you already have a level of enforcement, you don't need another level.  A simple subcommittee of Congress to handle regulations and standards.  That's my entire argument, there are already mechanisms in place that we should use instead of creating other mechanisms...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0