3 ms·

> Simply because all the regulations correlate with improved cars does not prove that they all caused the improvements. True, but the balance of evidence must

> Simply because all the regulations correlate with improved cars does not prove that they all caused the improvements. True, but the balance of evidence must be to demonstrate that making that change WILL cause an improvement. Otherwise, you're simply in a religious argument. So what evidence is there that reducing regulation on cars improves their environmental impact?

atomi 9y ago
For some people the potential money they make justifies the change, the environment be damned. They'll bend over backwards to rationalize it with false equivalencies as either being benign or actually benevolent when in truth it is neither.
PurpleBoxDragon 9y ago
Generally I take the stance that every regulation (and every other law) should have to justify its existence, and that it failing to do so would justify its removal. Yes, that is effectively a religious/moral argument given that determining why a law should exist is a subjective issue.
- JoeAltmaier 9y ago
  Lets try that with your car some time - remove the brakes today, make them 'justify their existence' every so often. I don't think this idea is more than an ivory-tower sophistry.
  - PurpleBoxDragon 9y ago
    Brakes aren't always applied, and I do have need to apply them many times every day I drive, and I can see the immediate consequences of not applying them. Also, I find the comparison of laws to brakes to be overlooking some key parts of laws and just how much abuse and corruption happens because of bad laws. If laws could be tested as much as brakes are, and if the laws had to show that they could achieve the desired results before being deployed to the public, then perhaps we could treat them more equally.
    - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
      Cue the essay by G. K. Chesterton regarding reform (and how its complex and simple solutions are naive): https://www.chesterton.org/taking-a-fence-down/ https://www.chesterton.org/taking-a-fence-down/

atomi 9y ago

For some people the potential money they make justifies the change, the environment be damned. They'll bend over backwards to rationalize it with false equivalencies as either being benign or actually benevolent when in truth it is neither.

PurpleBoxDragon 9y ago

Generally I take the stance that every regulation (and every other law) should have to justify its existence, and that it failing to do so would justify its removal. Yes, that is effectively a religious/moral argument given that determining why a law should exist is a subjective issue.

JoeAltmaier 9y ago
Lets try that with your car some time - remove the brakes today, make them 'justify their existence' every so often. I don't think this idea is more than an ivory-tower sophistry.
- PurpleBoxDragon 9y ago
  Brakes aren't always applied, and I do have need to apply them many times every day I drive, and I can see the immediate consequences of not applying them. Also, I find the comparison of laws to brakes to be overlooking some key parts of laws and just how much abuse and corruption happens because of bad laws. If laws could be tested as much as brakes are, and if the laws had to show that they could achieve the desired results before being deployed to the public, then perhaps we could treat them more equally.
  - JoeAltmaier 9y ago
    Cue the essay by G. K. Chesterton regarding reform (and how its complex and simple solutions are naive): https://www.chesterton.org/taking-a-fence-down/ https://www.chesterton.org/taking-a-fence-down/