4 ms·

Won't it lead to wildly different environmental laws in different states? One state can pump waste it considers safe into a river that is shared with another st

Won't it lead to wildly different environmental laws in different states? One state can pump waste it considers safe into a river that is shared with another state who considers that waste harmful? Factories on borders of states can pollute the air in ways they do not agree upon, etc?

lolinder 2y ago
In the short term maybe. The whole point is that Congress should actually write the laws they want implemented instead of writing the politically expedient extremely vague thing and just hoping we don't end up with the law changing every four years with the administration.
- falcolas 2y ago
  So how do you get congress to write thousands of such laws yearly which will properly cover every potential outcome for decades? Our current congress barely passed 27 laws last year.
  - pdonis 2y ago
    > how do you get congress to write thousands of such laws yearly which will properly cover every potential outcome for decades? You don't. You force Congress to obey the Constitution, and if that means the scope of the law has to be drastically scaled back so that Congress can manage it the way the Constitution says it's supposed to, good. We have far too many nanny state laws anyway that do much more harm than good.
    - falcolas 2y ago
      This might work if we were still living in the 1700's, where companies were held in check by the communities they served. Today, they're happy to do the bare minimum required (required today, not in the world you're advocating for) to avoid poisoning the air, water, and their customers.
      - pdonis 2y ago
        Poisoning the air, water, and customers is bad for business. Companies who actually have to survive in a free market won't do it for that reason. The reason companies do nefarious things is government interference in markets, insulating companies from competition. And then the government tries to "fix" the problems it had itself caused by doing that with further regulations. Which still doesn't really work because of regulatory capture. If companies did nefarious things a lot less in the 1700s, it was because of the absence of government interference with free markets.
        cyberax 2y ago
        > Poisoning the air, water, and customers is bad for business. Is it? What if your profitability depends on using a polluting substance, like PFAS, and not cleaning up after yourself? > Companies who actually have to survive in a free market won't do it for that reason. Bullshit. We have _many_ examples of the opposite. Remember the whole leaded gasoline hearing, for one. Or the resistance to lead and asbestos phaseout. Moreover, the "free market" _forces_ companies to do that. After all, suppose that you're a responsible company, and you spend money on installing expensive scrubbers for your wastewater to remove PFAS. Your less-responsible competitors will then outcompete you because their product is cheaper-priced. That's why you need laws that force _everyone_ to become equally less competitive by not poisoning people.
        pdonis 2y ago
        Your theory sounds nice but is not borne out by either basic free market economics or the facts. The reason companies can get away with not being "responsible" is that the market is not free. The government has its thumb on the scale in all kinds of ways. For example, the reason companies can get away with discharging polluting substances like PFAs into the environment is that the government effectively owns the environment, not the people, and the government sucks at protecting what it owns. The government then steps in with further "regulation" to "fix" this problem, but does it badly (regulatory capture is a thing), so that companies aren't actually forced to be "responsible", just to look on paper like they are "responsible" enough to satisfy the regulations.
- newzisforsukas 2y ago
  Aren't judges appointed by administrations as well? Won't the bias change, but just for longer periods of time? Much like what is happening with these recent decisions?

lolinder 2y ago

In the short term maybe. The whole point is that Congress should actually write the laws they want implemented instead of writing the politically expedient extremely vague thing and just hoping we don't end up with the law changing every four years with the administration.

falcolas 2y ago
So how do you get congress to write thousands of such laws yearly which will properly cover every potential outcome for decades? Our current congress barely passed 27 laws last year.
- pdonis 2y ago
  > how do you get congress to write thousands of such laws yearly which will properly cover every potential outcome for decades? You don't. You force Congress to obey the Constitution, and if that means the scope of the law has to be drastically scaled back so that Congress can manage it the way the Constitution says it's supposed to, good. We have far too many nanny state laws anyway that do much more harm than good.
  - falcolas 2y ago
    This might work if we were still living in the 1700's, where companies were held in check by the communities they served. Today, they're happy to do the bare minimum required (required today, not in the world you're advocating for) to avoid poisoning the air, water, and their customers.
    - pdonis 2y ago
      Poisoning the air, water, and customers is bad for business. Companies who actually have to survive in a free market won't do it for that reason. The reason companies do nefarious things is government interference in markets, insulating companies from competition. And then the government tries to "fix" the problems it had itself caused by doing that with further regulations. Which still doesn't really work because of regulatory capture. If companies did nefarious things a lot less in the 1700s, it was because of the absence of government interference with free markets.
      - cyberax 2y ago
        > Poisoning the air, water, and customers is bad for business. Is it? What if your profitability depends on using a polluting substance, like PFAS, and not cleaning up after yourself? > Companies who actually have to survive in a free market won't do it for that reason. Bullshit. We have _many_ examples of the opposite. Remember the whole leaded gasoline hearing, for one. Or the resistance to lead and asbestos phaseout. Moreover, the "free market" _forces_ companies to do that. After all, suppose that you're a responsible company, and you spend money on installing expensive scrubbers for your wastewater to remove PFAS. Your less-responsible competitors will then outcompete you because their product is cheaper-priced. That's why you need laws that force _everyone_ to become equally less competitive by not poisoning people.
        pdonis 2y ago
        Your theory sounds nice but is not borne out by either basic free market economics or the facts. The reason companies can get away with not being "responsible" is that the market is not free. The government has its thumb on the scale in all kinds of ways. For example, the reason companies can get away with discharging polluting substances like PFAs into the environment is that the government effectively owns the environment, not the people, and the government sucks at protecting what it owns. The government then steps in with further "regulation" to "fix" this problem, but does it badly (regulatory capture is a thing), so that companies aren't actually forced to be "responsible", just to look on paper like they are "responsible" enough to satisfy the regulations.
newzisforsukas 2y ago
Aren't judges appointed by administrations as well? Won't the bias change, but just for longer periods of time? Much like what is happening with these recent decisions?