- Joined
- Feb 12, 2013
- Messages
- 160,900
- Reaction score
- 57,844
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
I'm not sure you understand my reasoning on either issue. The EPA for example mandates solutions to problems they decide exist to business in every single regulation they turn out. They will not just use regulations however for valid concerns, but also use regulations to push political goals, like for example, pushing regulations that are purposely too costly for industry to afford to incentivize them towards technologies the EPA agrees with. A recent example of this was stopped by an EO by Trump that was designed to push car companies to electronic cars by making producing and selling fuel powered cars too expensive. This kind of behavior I consider a violation of human rights and an abuse of government power.
Furthermore, I do not believe the commerce clause was designed to control economic behavior of private individuals, but was instead designed to stop states from blocking trade from other states. Therefore, I believe that EPA is unconstitutional and should be done away with. There is also the matter that I believe regulations are in fact laws, and since the EPA is not congress they do not have the constitutional authority to make law.
SMH. We have those agencies to protect people from greed, misrepresentations, fraud, illegal dumping, tainted food, quackery, etc. Are they perfect? No, but that is how functioning governments work. They give it their best shot to protect the greatest number of people from things like selling old meat or dumping mercury into a river.
One reason Libertarian philosophy is dumb is actually what you are discovering at the bar. No one will protect you from being hustled.