Re: Could a liberal on the forum explain this to me
Why do liberals want a huge costly over bearing government that tries to control every aspect of our lives? For every rule or regulation the government comes up with people lose more freedom. What is it with the liberal psyche that makes them want to totally control the lives of other people? Why do liberals think they need to tell me what I should do or not do in minute detail????????????
Every law is an impingement on someone's freedom. Every single law.
Now, unless you are of the opinion that all laws are bad, then all we are going to discuss are which laws are good/bad.
The Right is typically railing against government overreach such as the EPA or banking regulations, etc.
"DEREGULATION!" is their mantra, and they point to some 'outrage' that has occured as a result of government regulations of one sort of another.
What they fail to do, IMO, is go back and ask themselves "Why does this regulation or law exist in the first place? Why was something that was legal made illegal?" and "What is the likelihood that making it legal again will result in the consequences that brought about the regulation or law in the first place?"
I'm old enough to remember when the EPA was created. Before the EPA and its myriad regulations, it was legal for a polluter in one state to dump its toxins into a river in that state. Those toxins then made their way into the water supply of downstream states. Those states were being poisoned by a polluter in another state and there was almost nothing they could do about it, save go to court, a process that could literally take years. All the while the citizens and the crops of the downstream states had to be exposed to those toxins. The EPA was created to stop these kinds of problems.
If it were up to the automobile industry, there would be no emissions standards and we could all suck up blue exhaust today. Emissions standards reduce air pollution, but they cut into profits. The industry leaders literally and proudly argued against seat belts and airbags and crash standards. Sure, they save lives, but again, they cut into profits. Government regulations overcame industry objections when, through scientific studies, it was proved that seat belts and airbags and crash standards not only saved lives but saved states money by reducing county emergency costs.
The crash of 1929 came as a result of bankers and brokers turning the stock markets and banks into casinos with other people's money, the money of their depositors. Millions of citizens lost their life savings, their pensions, everything they had. All because greedy and irresponsible people were not restrained from dangerous banking and investing practices. In response, we now have the FDIC, which insures depositors funds in the event a bank goes under. To be a part of the FDIC, bankers have to agree to certain prudent practices regarding their depositors' funds. Failure to adhere to prudent practices will result in the loss of their membership in the FDIC and who would bank with such an outfit?
These are just a few examples of how and why we have federal regulations, what some like to call "nanny-state' laws. I'm not saying that regulations should never be reviewed or reconsidered. I am saying that most laws and regulations exist for a good reason.
Say what you will, but I like the fact that toy manufacturers can't sell Lawn Darts any more. I like the fact that many cities have cleaner air and water than they did back in the 50s and 60s. I like the fact that food suppliers have to tell us what we are eating - before we eat it. I'm glad we have a choice in phone service providers, something that did not and could not exist before the government broke up AT&T.
