4 ms·

Why do you say "Conservatives tend to reject both approaches as an impingement on business freedoms."? I really do want to know what you are basing your beliefs

by jerrac 9y ago

Why do you say "Conservatives tend to reject both approaches as an impingement on business freedoms."? I really do want to know what you are basing your beliefs about Conservatives on. I, and the circles I've been in, would not necessarily do that. We would reject regulations that are too strict (which, lately, most environmental regulations have been). We would also reject the Federal Government being involved, since it would be a violation of the 10th Amendment in cases that don't cross the state lines. When they do cross the state lines, we'd still prefer it be left to the states, and the Federal government should keep their nose out of it unless the states just can't deal with it. As for State and Local governments, we would accept them implementing regulations when the factory and local residents are unable to come to an agreement on their own. Note, I'm a US citizen, so I'm referring to that Government. :)

stult 9y ago
Well this is pretty much exactly what I meant when I said our political discourse is "childishly uninformed." You claim that environmental remedies should be worked out between factories and local residents. Disregarding the absurd implication that factories are the only or even the most important polluters, the only mechanism by which local residents can directly negotiate enforceable restrictions on factories is litigation. So you have unknowingly parroted the talking point you claim conservatives don't believe. You've just swallowed the misleading political messaging whole without realizing what it was euphemistically disguising. Failing direct negotiation you say states and localities should enact regulations where state boundaries aren't crossed. Essentially no environmental regulations deal with things that do not cross state boundaries. Water and air don't respect lines on a map. Nor do ecosystems. Worse yet, that isn't even really your position. You say "most" environmental regulations are too strict. So you actually don't think states and localities should regulate the environment. You think we should remove federal regulations and states should not replace them. So really you are parroting the exact positions we have described above without recognizing their true import.
- vturner 9y ago
  Interesting response with lots of "You <x>..." in there. I'm also a conservative minded person (leaning more libertarian) and thought I would add a response. First off, the conservative/libertarian discourse is not "childish" or "uninformed." Libertarian thought has been in development for centuries beginning with classical liberalism. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#History] Second, the commentor clearly indicated that states and localities can be involved in regulation but only when local discourse fails. The commentor only stated that "most" environmental regulations are too strict, but that doesn't mean we should not have sane ones driven by local (not nationwide cultural ebb and flow demands of the day)! Third, apparently you are not very familiar with environmental regulation. Environmental regulations need not cross state boundaries (we can regulate water and air from entities in in our own states). Unfortunately, we do not have that capability to balance the locality's needs and the environment's. The current system leaves little if any recourse for citizens or small businesses against government. Who do we go against? Oh yes, the EPA which is nearly or more difficult to reason with than a court system.
  - crymer11 9y ago
    How would Georgia (or a local government in GA on the GA/TN border) go about regulating an entity in Chattanooga, TN that's polluting the air?
  - stult 9y ago
    >First off, the conservative/libertarian discourse is not "childish" or "uninformed." Libertarian thought has been in development for centuries beginning with classical liberalism. The length of time that a school of philosophy has been around does not relate whatsoever to how people talk about it today. See, e.g., flat earthers. >Third, apparently you are not very familiar with environmental regulation. I used to practice environmental law. > Environmental regulations need not cross state boundaries (we can regulate water and air from entities in in our own states). That would make sense if the air and the water themselves did not cross state boundaries. Turns out they do. Speaking of the classical liberalism you are so fond of, you should really check out this crazy new theory called "the tragedy of the commons." This is a childishly uninformed discussion because you do not (and I am sure cannot without googling) refer to any specific regulations. Would you care to discuss the Clean Water Act and how you think it is too strict? Do you take issue with the "surface water connection" jurisdictional test for defining the navigable waters of the United States and thus the geographic limits of the CWA? Do you think the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System defines "impaired waters" too broadly? Are NPDES Total Daily Maximum Loads set unreasonably low? Do you think joint Army Corps of Engineers and EPA jurisdiction over impaired waters leads to excessive enforcement bureaucracy? These are not things I just googled but rather regulations I have helped draft, administer, enforce, and even challenge. I am happy to debate the finer points and would be thrilled to see that debate on a national level. But the debate on the national level is instead childishly uninformed because conservatives argue in nebulous generalities, using catch phrases and talking points, but do not engage with the specifics of the policies in question. The vagueness of their claims allows them to avoid rigorous standards of proof or argumentation. Statements like "Unfortunately, we do not have that capability to balance the locality's needs and the environment's." This is simply a nonsense talking point, which wholly disregards the non-local nature of the environment. Localities don't get to choose to prioritize their needs over the environment's because they share their environment with other localities. So those localities get together and decide as a group how to regulate the environment via this fancy new invention called the federal government. What precisely do you even mean? The ability for localities to decide they want more pollutants discharged into the environment? What needs are not being respected? Their need to have lower costs for businesses in order to keep jobs? Which they can only have at the expense of their neighbors, by emitting pollutants into the environment which then flow into their neighbors' jurisdictions and by taking jobs from neighbors who choose not to poison their own and others' land, water, and air? It's also nonsense because it's factually untrue in many cases. Take NPDES. States enforce it, with the exception of four direct implementation states that have elected to allow the federal EPA to enforce it. The federal EPA simply sets standards and partially funds enforcement via block grants. Worst of all, your argument does not contribute anything useful to the discussion. "There's too much federal regulation of the environment and more needs to be done at the local level." Ok, fine, let's unpack that statement and see where the argument takes us and why it is so damaging to our national discourse. What federal regulations are excessive and need to be moved to the local level? Your answer will likely be the result of something you recently googled, but let's assume you make a legitimate, well-informed point and identify one federal regulation that should be moved to the local level. I will then point out another ten regulations that clearly need to remain at the federal level. Assuming we then go through every federal regulation on the environment and make this assessment, we are left with a list of some regulations that need to be changed and some that don't. Great. So we then reform the EPA and localities start regulating more efficiently etc. etc. That would be a really awesome result of a national political debate. This has not happened nationally because we are not having a discussion with that specificity. Conservatives simply argue that the EPA is bad and has to go. Even if they admit in argument that theoretically some regulations should be federal, the practical manifestation of their ideology is a concerted effort to abolish the EPA. See, e.g., Scott Pruitt's current activities. And that's the real problem with your vague talking points. They drive poisonous, poorly thought out policy-making which does not even reflect your own stated positions. This is why we have Trump, the master of spewing vague generalities. A man wholly unprepared to be president, who is incapable of engaging with policy details on even the most superficial levels, resulting in absurdly awful legislative proposals and a complete absence of legislative progress. Please, point to specific regulations or policies that you think unreasonably burden localities. That would be a productive contribution to the national debate about environmental regulation. Perhaps the regulation needs to be revised, or perhaps there is a justification you are not considering. Either way, the conversation is worth having. Regurgitating talking points doesn't.
- jerrac 9y ago
  I was being specific to the example situation you presented. You specifically mentioned factories, so that's what I used in my answer. Litigation is not the only option. A group of people can get together and go talk to the owners of the factory directly. No need for lawyers at all. Just individuals working together to come to an agreement. It's only when that fails that Government should get involved. Either by passing a local law that enacts proper regulation, or via litigation if that's the best option. I seriously doubt there's a one size fits all solution... I did address issues that cross state borders. Again, I only used the environment related example because you did so first.
sqeaky 9y ago
> We would reject regulations that are too strict (which, lately, most environmental regulations have been) What?! There are no rules against dumping limitless amounts of CO2 into the air, how is none too much? Or do you reject the scientific premises of climate change?

by jerrac 9y ago

stult 9y ago

Well this is pretty much exactly what I meant when I said our political discourse is "childishly uninformed." You claim that environmental remedies should be worked out between factories and local residents. Disregarding the absurd implication that factories are the only or even the most important polluters, the only mechanism by which local residents can directly negotiate enforceable restrictions on factories is litigation. So you have unknowingly parroted the talking point you claim conservatives don't believe. You've just swallowed the misleading political messaging whole without realizing what it was euphemistically disguising. Failing direct negotiation you say states and localities should enact regulations where state boundaries aren't crossed. Essentially no environmental regulations deal with things that do not cross state boundaries. Water and air don't respect lines on a map. Nor do ecosystems. Worse yet, that isn't even really your position. You say "most" environmental regulations are too strict. So you actually don't think states and localities should regulate the environment. You think we should remove federal regulations and states should not replace them. So really you are parroting the exact positions we have described above without recognizing their true import.

vturner 9y ago
Interesting response with lots of "You <x>..." in there. I'm also a conservative minded person (leaning more libertarian) and thought I would add a response. First off, the conservative/libertarian discourse is not "childish" or "uninformed." Libertarian thought has been in development for centuries beginning with classical liberalism. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#History https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism#History] Second, the commentor clearly indicated that states and localities can be involved in regulation but only when local discourse fails. The commentor only stated that "most" environmental regulations are too strict, but that doesn't mean we should not have sane ones driven by local (not nationwide cultural ebb and flow demands of the day)! Third, apparently you are not very familiar with environmental regulation. Environmental regulations need not cross state boundaries (we can regulate water and air from entities in in our own states). Unfortunately, we do not have that capability to balance the locality's needs and the environment's. The current system leaves little if any recourse for citizens or small businesses against government. Who do we go against? Oh yes, the EPA which is nearly or more difficult to reason with than a court system.
- crymer11 9y ago
  How would Georgia (or a local government in GA on the GA/TN border) go about regulating an entity in Chattanooga, TN that's polluting the air?
- stult 9y ago
  >First off, the conservative/libertarian discourse is not "childish" or "uninformed." Libertarian thought has been in development for centuries beginning with classical liberalism. The length of time that a school of philosophy has been around does not relate whatsoever to how people talk about it today. See, e.g., flat earthers. >Third, apparently you are not very familiar with environmental regulation. I used to practice environmental law. > Environmental regulations need not cross state boundaries (we can regulate water and air from entities in in our own states). That would make sense if the air and the water themselves did not cross state boundaries. Turns out they do. Speaking of the classical liberalism you are so fond of, you should really check out this crazy new theory called "the tragedy of the commons." This is a childishly uninformed discussion because you do not (and I am sure cannot without googling) refer to any specific regulations. Would you care to discuss the Clean Water Act and how you think it is too strict? Do you take issue with the "surface water connection" jurisdictional test for defining the navigable waters of the United States and thus the geographic limits of the CWA? Do you think the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System defines "impaired waters" too broadly? Are NPDES Total Daily Maximum Loads set unreasonably low? Do you think joint Army Corps of Engineers and EPA jurisdiction over impaired waters leads to excessive enforcement bureaucracy? These are not things I just googled but rather regulations I have helped draft, administer, enforce, and even challenge. I am happy to debate the finer points and would be thrilled to see that debate on a national level. But the debate on the national level is instead childishly uninformed because conservatives argue in nebulous generalities, using catch phrases and talking points, but do not engage with the specifics of the policies in question. The vagueness of their claims allows them to avoid rigorous standards of proof or argumentation. Statements like "Unfortunately, we do not have that capability to balance the locality's needs and the environment's." This is simply a nonsense talking point, which wholly disregards the non-local nature of the environment. Localities don't get to choose to prioritize their needs over the environment's because they share their environment with other localities. So those localities get together and decide as a group how to regulate the environment via this fancy new invention called the federal government. What precisely do you even mean? The ability for localities to decide they want more pollutants discharged into the environment? What needs are not being respected? Their need to have lower costs for businesses in order to keep jobs? Which they can only have at the expense of their neighbors, by emitting pollutants into the environment which then flow into their neighbors' jurisdictions and by taking jobs from neighbors who choose not to poison their own and others' land, water, and air? It's also nonsense because it's factually untrue in many cases. Take NPDES. States enforce it, with the exception of four direct implementation states that have elected to allow the federal EPA to enforce it. The federal EPA simply sets standards and partially funds enforcement via block grants. Worst of all, your argument does not contribute anything useful to the discussion. "There's too much federal regulation of the environment and more needs to be done at the local level." Ok, fine, let's unpack that statement and see where the argument takes us and why it is so damaging to our national discourse. What federal regulations are excessive and need to be moved to the local level? Your answer will likely be the result of something you recently googled, but let's assume you make a legitimate, well-informed point and identify one federal regulation that should be moved to the local level. I will then point out another ten regulations that clearly need to remain at the federal level. Assuming we then go through every federal regulation on the environment and make this assessment, we are left with a list of some regulations that need to be changed and some that don't. Great. So we then reform the EPA and localities start regulating more efficiently etc. etc. That would be a really awesome result of a national political debate. This has not happened nationally because we are not having a discussion with that specificity. Conservatives simply argue that the EPA is bad and has to go. Even if they admit in argument that theoretically some regulations should be federal, the practical manifestation of their ideology is a concerted effort to abolish the EPA. See, e.g., Scott Pruitt's current activities. And that's the real problem with your vague talking points. They drive poisonous, poorly thought out policy-making which does not even reflect your own stated positions. This is why we have Trump, the master of spewing vague generalities. A man wholly unprepared to be president, who is incapable of engaging with policy details on even the most superficial levels, resulting in absurdly awful legislative proposals and a complete absence of legislative progress. Please, point to specific regulations or policies that you think unreasonably burden localities. That would be a productive contribution to the national debate about environmental regulation. Perhaps the regulation needs to be revised, or perhaps there is a justification you are not considering. Either way, the conversation is worth having. Regurgitating talking points doesn't.
jerrac 9y ago
I was being specific to the example situation you presented. You specifically mentioned factories, so that's what I used in my answer. Litigation is not the only option. A group of people can get together and go talk to the owners of the factory directly. No need for lawyers at all. Just individuals working together to come to an agreement. It's only when that fails that Government should get involved. Either by passing a local law that enacts proper regulation, or via litigation if that's the best option. I seriously doubt there's a one size fits all solution... I did address issues that cross state borders. Again, I only used the environment related example because you did so first.

sqeaky 9y ago

> We would reject regulations that are too strict (which, lately, most environmental regulations have been) What?! There are no rules against dumping limitless amounts of CO2 into the air, how is none too much? Or do you reject the scientific premises of climate change?