3 ms·

I think that's a far lesser problem than having un-elected individuals making and enforcing the same laws. Congress hasn't just abdicated a power, they've abdic

I think that's a far lesser problem than having un-elected individuals making and enforcing the same laws. Congress hasn't just abdicated a power, they've abdicated a responsibility. You're worried about bad lawmakers, but that's a problem orthogonal to the issue and how we ended up with such a structure in the first place.

jxramos 6y ago
How can they be making and enforcing laws? Doesn't that violate the separation of powers? Where do they get their authority to enforce laws precisely and by what means?
- Retric 6y ago
  It’s more obvious with a specific example. Write a law that makes penalties for speeding without directly defining the speed limit on every road. Then write a law giving the department of motor vehicles the ability to define a different speed limit for each stretch of road. As such government agencies aren’t actually creating laws, but the laws are written to give their choices legal weight.
- mcguire 6y ago
  Think of it as a separation of powers issue itself. Assuming agencies only have advisory capabilities and that regulation itself is handled by lawmakers directly. The determination of what is safe or not becomes a matter of who has the best lobbyists; any actual damages will occur years down the line, will be visible only in statistical terms (i.e. a higher rate of leukemia), and will only affect people without significant political power. This is a textbook description of an issue which democratic institutions are spectacularly bad at handling: expert knowledge is required to understand the issue, there is no immediacy, and the consequences are delayed while the costs are up-front. Consider climate change---it will cost a shit-ton of money, cause a crap-load of damage, and yet humanity has collectively done essentially nothing to prevent it in something like 40 years. Now, it's possible that legislative regulation could work, if the legislators essentially rubber-stamp the advisories from the agency, but still allows political influence in the issues. Consider PVC and cigarettes. The approach, then, is for the legislature to delegate authority for regulation, within specific parameters, to an executive agency. The agency then sets the regulations, which the legislature can override with exactly the same ease as they would regulate them in the parent's model. I am unaware of any country that relies on legislative regulation and is regarded in any sense as successful. In fact, political interference in regulations is almost universally regarded as a bad thing. Anybody have a specific example of regulatory excesses? [At one point I got trapped in a conversation with a cousin's husband, who had recently gotten fined by OSHA or the state equivalent because he had diesel stored in the correctly color-coded container, but it did not have "diesel" written on it. I thought about mentioning people who didn't know the color codes (Red = gasoline, yellow = diesel, blue = kerosene, and green = oils) or about the color-blind, but I prefer to avoid arguments.]
  - hcurtiss 6y ago
    Yes, but how much pollution to accommodate is a decidedly political question. Science cannot answer how much is too much. If your answer is that no pollution is acceptable, that's not science either (frankly, it's more akin to an ideological position). But presuming you're willing to admit that the benefits of certain activities outweigh their impacts to the environment or human health, particularly when our information is imperfect, then the question becomes how much is too much. And every human has their own utility curve and risk preferences. Science cannot answer those questions. Like the parent, I agree that this is decidedly a question for policy makers (preferably accountable to the electorate) informed by science.
- ethbr0 6y ago
  > How can they be making and enforcing laws? The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act_(United_States) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act...

jxramos 6y ago

How can they be making and enforcing laws? Doesn't that violate the separation of powers? Where do they get their authority to enforce laws precisely and by what means?

Retric 6y ago
It’s more obvious with a specific example. Write a law that makes penalties for speeding without directly defining the speed limit on every road. Then write a law giving the department of motor vehicles the ability to define a different speed limit for each stretch of road. As such government agencies aren’t actually creating laws, but the laws are written to give their choices legal weight.
mcguire 6y ago
Think of it as a separation of powers issue itself. Assuming agencies only have advisory capabilities and that regulation itself is handled by lawmakers directly. The determination of what is safe or not becomes a matter of who has the best lobbyists; any actual damages will occur years down the line, will be visible only in statistical terms (i.e. a higher rate of leukemia), and will only affect people without significant political power. This is a textbook description of an issue which democratic institutions are spectacularly bad at handling: expert knowledge is required to understand the issue, there is no immediacy, and the consequences are delayed while the costs are up-front. Consider climate change---it will cost a shit-ton of money, cause a crap-load of damage, and yet humanity has collectively done essentially nothing to prevent it in something like 40 years. Now, it's possible that legislative regulation could work, if the legislators essentially rubber-stamp the advisories from the agency, but still allows political influence in the issues. Consider PVC and cigarettes. The approach, then, is for the legislature to delegate authority for regulation, within specific parameters, to an executive agency. The agency then sets the regulations, which the legislature can override with exactly the same ease as they would regulate them in the parent's model. I am unaware of any country that relies on legislative regulation and is regarded in any sense as successful. In fact, political interference in regulations is almost universally regarded as a bad thing. Anybody have a specific example of regulatory excesses? [At one point I got trapped in a conversation with a cousin's husband, who had recently gotten fined by OSHA or the state equivalent because he had diesel stored in the correctly color-coded container, but it did not have "diesel" written on it. I thought about mentioning people who didn't know the color codes (Red = gasoline, yellow = diesel, blue = kerosene, and green = oils) or about the color-blind, but I prefer to avoid arguments.]
- hcurtiss 6y ago
  Yes, but how much pollution to accommodate is a decidedly political question. Science cannot answer how much is too much. If your answer is that no pollution is acceptable, that's not science either (frankly, it's more akin to an ideological position). But presuming you're willing to admit that the benefits of certain activities outweigh their impacts to the environment or human health, particularly when our information is imperfect, then the question becomes how much is too much. And every human has their own utility curve and risk preferences. Science cannot answer those questions. Like the parent, I agree that this is decidedly a question for policy makers (preferably accountable to the electorate) informed by science.
ethbr0 6y ago
> How can they be making and enforcing laws? The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act_(United_States) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act...