|
|
 Originally Posted by Jack Sawyer
In your honest, unbiased opinion, without any other facts to consider, do you think it's a good idea to have made this person the head of the EPA?
It's the opinion of someone who believes government regulation of business is a bad thing in principle. The problem with that stance is it's been shown repeatedly that without gov't regulation, businesses will happily abuse the rights and well-being of citizens for their own profit.
An example: without EPA regs, mining companies could save money by not cleaning up the toxic byproducts of their operation. There is no laissez faire approach to business regulation that you could argue would self-police this matter.
E.g., a copper mine opens in Montana, takes out all the copper and leaves a bunch of toxic waste behind that bleeds into the drinking water, making everyone and everything that lives there sick for decades. According to some this would be a bad practice for that company economically because people would no longer buy their copper. Only that doesn't happen because the people buying their copper don't give a shit about the drinking water in Montana either.
|
Reply With Quote