Wrong again. The EPA was originally formed to control the pollution and environmental destruction caused by the government. And the reason charities weren't able to form is because of two reasons, one dependence on government to "save" us from some perceived threat and two because of lack of awareness of the problem. Now we know the problem and charity will suffice.
Talk about unsubstantiated bull! :lamo
Dependence on government when the EPA didn't even exist?!? Again you get the :lamo
Lack of awareness? You get the third :lamo
Everyone knew what was going on. Again, you're acting like you read all this in a book (and a poor one at that) instead of living it. Industry was killing our environment and our people. Cities and even some states tried lawsuits but there wasn't enough evidence to convict in most cases. You can see plenty of examples of pollution before the EPA was formed by looking at the Super Find Site list. If whole states had problems winning cases in court, what charity do you think could have done it?
As for pollution being caused by the government - you really need to go down the hall, second door on the right. Someone fed you a load of crap and your regurgitation of that crap smells even worse.
Unsupported Assertion.
<snip unrelated sermon>
History of Workplace Safety in the United States, 1880-1970 | Economic History Services
Death on the Job Report
History - Workers Compensation
FL Workers Comp - History
Yep, and when I buy a new vacuum cleaner, I shouldn't have to read the reviews! The government should just create an agency that determines for me which one is best! Same thing with cell phones! Without this government agency we'd all have ****ty vacuums and cell phones, right? There is no economic incentive to produce untainted beef, or safe drugs, right? We need government to do that!
If your vacuum cleaner can kill you, yes, you might want to think about how safe it is.
Of course there is. If beef isn't tracked, as required by law (WOW imagine that!) then no one would even know where the tainted beef came from.
Tainted beef can make you sick relatively quick but with drugs you never know what's going to happen or when. Plenty of people makes lots and lots of money every year off "herbs", which are unregulated, and many of them have turned up as "problematic" to say the least. So, yes, there needs to be at least minimal market regulation and oversight for food and drug production and testing. That doesn't stop others from testing foods and drugs, too. There is nothing standing in the way of a
Consumer Reports for food or drugs. Knock yourself out.
As far as me reading the government reports, I don't trust the government, period.
I said you had the option to gather your own data. Not one thing stopping you from doing that - except, of course, the huge cost involved.
And there would be a lot more of this going on without the government.
More unsubstantiated garbage. People have been growing there own food for thousands of years. Neighbors have been selling to neighbors almost as long. No one forces you to go into a store and buy canned food or meats.
Personally, I can't ever remember buying tomatoes at the store though I've eaten small quantities at restaurants - they're usually pretty bad compared to what I'm used to. But where I live is almost perfect for tomato growing.
We've always had regulations and they didn't stop a damn thing either.
Sure they did. Workman's Comp laws made most large companies and some whole industries much safer than in the past. OSHA extended that to include other industries where accidents happened at a lower rate than the original high-risk industries that were targeted by the workman's comp laws.
History of Workplace Safety in the United States, 1880-1970 | Economic History Services
FACEPALM. The point was that we're talking about how the government, by intervening in the first place, is creating a market distortion. You keep replying about how we can get around this distortion, pretending like it doesn't exist in the first place. Imagine I build a wall in the middle of the road and I talk about how it's creating unnecessary traffic and causing unnecessary death and accidents, and you reply that people can simply go around it.
Government wouldn't have intervened at all if industry had regulated itself - but industry didn't do that. Industry did what any good business would do, everything it could to make money, which included not treating industrial waste and not providing a safe work environment, both of which raise the cost of production.
Government doesn't block charities from operating in the US. Government doesn't stop other groups from duplicating most of it's functions, either, if that's what they want to do. You tried that argument already and your examples failed miserably.
