mrstickball said:
Mr Khan said:
mrstickball said:
And there's the anti-capitalist statement. In by doing so, you've already prevented businesses from certain activities and industries. The only regulations that must be 'untouched' is when an entity actively endangers or destroys another's property in a tangible way. In such a case, its already codified and does not need additional regulation.
|
I would hardly think that making sure future energy bills cannot subvert the Clean Water and Clean Air acts (as those damn Marcellus Shale companies can) would qualify as damaging to trade or commerce. At least not more than the public health damage they would create would ultimately offset the market (like families that, due to marcellus shale drilling, have to buy barrelled water since their water can catch on fire, and surely that barrelled water money could go towards something more productive?)
It is the job of regulation to guarantee a level playing field, make sure that business only has to bother with business and can't dick around in other sectors, and to deal with nonmarket externalities that businesses have no immediate incentive to address
|
But if the government is forcing companies to limit their activities in the name of clean air, at the cost of certain processes, you are essentially forcing the market to react to their demands. This happens all the time in various industries, and causes major issues in terms of cost and research, as the government, not the business, dictates the practices.
Why do they feel the need to continually add and supplement codes to the laws? Their regulatory structure is not static. They continually add new codes to the act, which continues to restrict business and innovation. If it were a simple act that was static, I could potentially understand it, but when they undermine business after business, I have to believe the motive isn't as beneficial as you might believe.
|
I would argue that the static nature reflects the fruit of endless scientific studies that constantly readjust claims of what is harmful, or how much of what is "too harmful," as well as some potential lobbying from "green" corporations seeking to undermine their more polluting rivals. I would argue that certain scientific standards should be seen as indisputable, and for the purposes of protecting certain vestiges of the environment which are nonmarket factors but whose goodness is superior to the immediately perceivable lost economic gains, a centralized set of iron-clad rules is needed, one that can be subverted by neither business lobbying nor the EPA
