Bush ready to gut Endangered Species Act.

[Bob47]

It is certainly difficult to get into sufficient detail in a few sentences to get to the center of a very complex issue. Somehow, you have convinced yourselves that government is necessary to protect the "classes" from each other, or to protect nature from human activity. I don't happen to believe that (only because nature can take care of herself and will get rid of us when we go too far) and have yet to see solid evidence that there is any need for government to get involved in most of the things it is involved in. For example I happen to think that "If there are no regulations, then businesses that don't cut corners, don't cheat their employees or their customers etc. go out of business." is one of the most absurd statements I have seen in many years. This individual does; however, make a statement that I do agree with: "Government isn't a business and can't run like a business." The issue is that governmental regulation puts the government in the position of driving policy and operational reality for every business it regulates, a venue in which it has no experience or capability.

As far as airlines are concerned, please. Air fares, in constant dollars, are a fraction of what they were before deregulation and there has been no degradation in safety as a result of deregulation (the safety issue is one where regulation still exists although the FAA has taken quite a black eye lately for examples of where it is not doing its job). Where no demand exists it is an absurd waste of capital and resources to provide service.

With respect to the argument regarding the credit crisis, fraud in applications, banks issuing loans they knew they shouldn't have in hopes of selling them off, you are talking about fraud, pure and simple. It can and should be prosecuted - criminal prosecution is more effective than more regulation. If you want to see how government regulation contributed to this take a look at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their policy directives to give out more minority home loans, which led to some of the practices that you cite. Real estate and mortgage trusts or organizations haven't been in my portfolio for a long time and I didn't need a governmental regulation to tell me to get out.

Since this is the US, everyone has a right to their opinion. I will simply suggest to you that when you combine the world's second highest effective tax rate with the amount and kind of regulation that is being demanded today we have absolutely no hope of ever being competitive on the international marketplace and will never be able to provide sufficient jobs for the economy to recover. Your regulation will destroy the economy and will result in a socialist political system and a command economy. At that point, the first sentence in this paragraph will become inoperative.

One way to test your position is to ask yourself this question: "If government issues a regulation in your area of expertise that you do not agree with, and that you think will be harmful to the public, do you accept the regulation as government's necessary responsibility or would you oppose it?" Please keep in mind that if you would oppose it, then you negate the concept that regulation is a necessary role of government and that it is capable of doing so in the public interest. If you accept it, you are not acting in an ethical and moral manner, and if a licensed professional, are violating your license. Before you tell me that we can't expect government to be perfect, remember that my point is that government should NOT regulate unless it is absolutely sure that regulation is necessary and that the regulation issued will do what is intended without unintended consequences.

[Bob47]

It is certainly difficult to get into sufficient detail in a few sentences to get to the center of a very complex issue. Somehow, you have convinced yourselves that government is necessary to protect the "classes" from each other, or to protect nature from human activity. I don't happen to believe that (only because nature can take care of herself and will get rid of us when we go too far) and have yet to see solid evidence that there is any need for government to get involved in most of the things it is involved in. For example I happen to think that "If there are no regulations, then businesses that don't cut corners, don't cheat their employees or their customers etc. go out of business." is one of the most absurd statements I have seen in many years. This individual does; however, make a statement that I do agree with: "Government isn't a business and can't run like a business." The issue is that governmental regulation puts the government in the position of driving policy and operational reality for every business it regulates, a venue in which it has no experience or capability.

As far as airlines are concerned, please. Air fares, in constant dollars, are a fraction of what they were before deregulation and there has been no degradation in safety as a result of deregulation (the safety issue is one where regulation still exists although the FAA has taken quite a black eye lately for examples of where it is not doing its job). Where no demand exists it is an absurd waste of capital and resources to provide service.

With respect to the argument regarding the credit crisis, fraud in applications, banks issuing loans they knew they shouldn't have in hopes of selling them off, you are talking about fraud, pure and simple. It can and should be prosecuted - criminal prosecution is more effective than more regulation. If you want to see how government regulation contributed to this take a look at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and their policy directives to give out more minority home loans, which led to some of the practices that you cite. Real estate and mortgage trusts or organizations haven't been in my portfolio for a long time and I didn't need a governmental regulation to tell me to get out.

Since this is the US, everyone has a right to their opinion. I will simply suggest to you that when you combine the world's second highest effective tax rate with the amount and kind of regulation that is being demanded today we have absolutely no hope of ever being competitive on the international marketplace and will never be able to provide sufficient jobs for the economy to recover. Your regulation will destroy the economy and will result in a socialist political system and a command economy. At that point, the first sentence in this paragraph will become inoperative.

One way to test your position is to ask yourself this question: "If government issues a regulation in your area of expertise that you do not agree with, and that you think will be harmful to the public, do you accept the regulation as government's necessary responsibility or would you oppose it?" Please keep in mind that if you would oppose it, then you negate the concept that regulation is a necessary role of government and that it is capable of doing so in the public interest. If you accept it, you are not acting in an ethical and moral manner, and if a licensed professional, are violating your license. Before you tell me that we can't expect government to be perfect, remember that my point is that government should NOT regulate unless it is absolutely sure that regulation is necessary and that the regulation issued will do what is intended without unintended consequences.

[tripp]

Please keep in mind that if you would oppose it, then you negate the concept that regulation is a necessary role of government and that it is capable of doing so in the public interest. If you accept it, you are not acting in an ethical and moral manner

Nonsense. I'd argue that that regulation is either unnecessary or poorly conceived. Just because I oppose a particular regulation doesn't mean that the concept of regulation itself is a bad one.

I can easily turn that argument on its head and put it to you in an equally absurd fashion. It proves nothing except that the extreme case on either side of the issue is untenable, which happens to be my POV.

Gov't raison d'etre is to enforce regulation (and collect the taxes necessary for said enforcement). It's a human institution, which means that it's fubar, but that said, it's better than nothing.

[tripp]

Somehow, you have convinced yourselves that government is necessary to protect the "classes" from each other, or to protect nature from human activity.

Nope. Try again.

I don't happen to believe that (only because nature can take care of herself and will get rid of us when we go too far) and have yet to see solid evidence that there is any need for government to get involved in most of the things it is involved in.

So you prefer a reactive approach. One that reacts to crises as they happen and the instability that they bring. I prefer a more proactive approach. I'd rather anticipate a problem and try to avoid it rather than wait for the market to react to it.

That doesn't mean that we completely stifle innovation and economic growth with exessive regulation. That's self defeating. But you can't completely deregulate everything either. It's not in the public's best interest because it leads to instability and a lower quality of life.

[FL_Prius_Driver]

Bob47-
Lack of any government regulation is called anarchy. I'm pretty sure you are not advocating that. Unfortunately, the descriptions you provide are meaningless because they don't provide any agreement point to start from. There are good regulations. There are bad regulations. Pick a specific area for discussion, not a philosophy of the entire universe.

[Bob47]

You all seem to begin from the perspective that "regulation" is necessary. Keep in mind that I'm not talking about basic law, i.e. the Constitution, nor law passed through our Constitutionally established system (irrespective of how idiotic it may be). There is certainly plenty of that. What I am talking about is law that is legislated from the bench (judicial activism) or regulation imposed through governmental agencies, usually as a precondition to receipt of governmental funds, or governmental issued permits. As an example. NEPA is a very simple and short piece of legislation that says that prior to taking a federal action that has the potential to cause harm an interdisciplinary study will be made of the social, economic and environmental effects of that action.

Individual federal agencies through regulation and the courts through judicial activism have turned this process into a horridly expensive and time consuming process that virtually any group can either block or so significantly delay that progress is virtually impossible. In terms of energy, remember the dam whose purpose was to generate hydroelectric power that was blocked because of the Snail Darter?

My question, extreme though it was, in a prior post was simply whether you believed that the government was capable of determining what was within its lawful exercise of its police powers, i.e. necessary for the health, safety and welfare (and morals) of the public. Having worked in federal and local government and observed how individuals are promoted and decisions made, I have no confidence that government has that capability. Instead of reacting to real science, it reacts to political science, which often has little to do with reality. So then, does the possible impact on a species that is so rare that one must assume that it is not capable of evolving to remain viable in the current environment more important than producing power that does not rely on fossil fuels? These questions are not as few and far between as you might think. We can probably all think of examples of what we believe are "good" laws or regulations if we define the case and the issue narrowly enough, but has that "good" regulation been expanded to the point where it has become something quite different, as with NEPA.

Please keep in mind that I draw a real distinction between laws enacted through our Constitutionally established legislative system and regulation imposed through bureaucratic action of judicial fiat. You may say that this is difficult and I would agree, but that is why we have a republic rather than a democracy. There is no form of government more conservative (read resistant to change) than a pure democracy. The Framers understood that, which is why we have a republic that acts through a representative democracy. Bureaucratic regulation and judicial fiat are nothing more than socialism acting under the cloak of democracy. I do believe that is unacceptable on its face. If something is sufficiently important, and if the scientific proof is unassailable, then legislation is should be possible. Otherwise, regulation is based on what one, or a few, think is best for everyone.

[tripp]

Bob,

I agree that gov't management of everything is a poor way to go. I don't think anyone is advocating that. Having a completely unregulated market is also a poor way to go about things. A balance has to be struck and regulations need to be thoughtful, as permissive as possible (while still serving their intended purpose), and reviewed so that they remain relevant (subsidies always seem to escape this last one).

Nothing's perfect and there's no free lunch. Democracy is a helluva lot more work than either communism or facism, but that's our lot.

[Bob47]

Originally Posted by tripp

Bob,

Nothing's perfect and there's no free lunch. Democracy is a helluva lot more work than either communism or facism, but that's our lot.

Here we are 100% in agreement.

[FL_Prius_Driver]

Originally Posted by Bob47

You all seem to begin from the perspective that "regulation" is necessary.

Yes, Good regulations in the required areas. I do not hold much hope for anarchy.

Originally Posted by Bob47

Keep in mind that I'm not talking about basic law, i.e. the Constitution, nor law passed through our Constitutionally established system (irrespective of how idiotic it may be). There is certainly plenty of that. What I am talking about is law that is legislated from the bench (judicial activism) or regulation imposed through governmental agencies, usually as a precondition to receipt of governmental funds, or governmental issued permits. As an example. NEPA is a very simple and short piece of legislation that says that prior to taking a federal action that has the potential to cause harm an interdisciplinary study will be made of the social, economic and environmental effects of that action.

Total agreement that having a non-legislative branch making defacto legislation will usually, if not always, end up being destructive. What is much harder is having the legislative branch make regulations that are constructive. When that is done successfully, it is rarely noticed. When done wrong, it's front page news.

Originally Posted by Bob47

Individual federal agencies through regulation and the courts through judicial activism have turned this process into a horridly expensive and time consuming process that virtually any group can either block or so significantly delay that progress is virtually impossible. In terms of energy, remember the dam whose purpose was to generate hydroelectric power that was blocked because of the Snail Darter?

It is critical to seperate the intent from the execution. Once this is done, it can figured out if the regulation intended is working or failing. In the case above, the intent was to prevent ecological disasters by requiring some science to be done before hand. There are quite a few areas permanently poisoned by mine trailings because nobody required any thought prior to dumping the heavy metal waste into the rivers. (See jayman's comments on the present toxic settling ponds in Canada) When the legislation can be gamed, the problem was not with the intent, but the failure of the regulation to be properly written, constrained, and/or enforced. I lose if a useful dam is not built. I lose if I am slowly poisoned.

Originally Posted by Bob47

My question, extreme though it was, in a prior post was simply whether you believed that the government was capable of determining what was within its lawful exercise of its police powers, i.e. necessary for the health, safety and welfare (and morals) of the public. Having worked in federal and local government and observed how individuals are promoted and decisions made, I have no confidence that government has that capability. Instead of reacting to real science, it reacts to political science, which often has little to do with reality. So then, does the possible impact on a species that is so rare that one must assume that it is not capable of evolving to remain viable in the current environment more important than producing power that does not rely on fossil fuels? These questions are not as few and far between as you might think. We can probably all think of examples of what we believe are "good" laws or regulations if we define the case and the issue narrowly enough, but has that "good" regulation been expanded to the point where it has become something quite different, as with NEPA.

For a regulation to be constructive, look at all the things that must be done right:
1) A real need is identified (e.g. prevent grouper overfishing in Gulf of Mexico)
2) Write legislation that achieves that purpose (e.g. legislation that totally bans all fishing in Gulf of Mexico is destuctive)
3) Enforce the legislation (make poachers activity unambiguous)
4) Update the legislation as lessons are learned (protected areas are better than specific no fish periods)

For a government to be useful, ALL of the above steps need to be done right. I make a BIG distinction between faulty regulation and faulty government. In the case of the snail darter, the government failed, but the intent of the original legislation had merit.

Originally Posted by Bob47

Please keep in mind that I draw a real distinction between laws enacted through our Constitutionally established legislative system and regulation imposed through bureaucratic action of judicial fiat. You may say that this is difficult and I would agree, but that is why we have a republic rather than a democracy. There is no form of government more conservative (read resistant to change) than a pure democracy. The Framers understood that, which is why we have a republic that acts through a representative democracy. Bureaucratic regulation and judicial fiat are nothing more than socialism acting under the cloak of democracy. I do believe that is unacceptable on its face. If something is sufficiently important, and if the scientific proof is unassailable, then legislation is should be possible. Otherwise, regulation is based on what one, or a few, think is best for everyone.

Your point here is quite different, at least in words, with some of your original statements. This is better. Right now the only way to fight this is to identify the questionable regulations, reveal the failures, and make others aware. Now the next level down needs to be identified. What are the specific regulations that give you the most heartburn?