Would it be Sacrilege to Retain the EPA?

[AuH20]

Am I in the minority here? Profit incentive doesn't lend one to be environmentally conscious. Obviously. I'm adamantly opposed to carbon credits and other schemes, but would many people have a problem with a regulatory agency prohibiting a private corporation dumping waste material into a public water source as opposed to letting the legal system sort itself post-litigation?

[Sentient Void]

Yes. Abolish the EPA, IMO.

Not only because they are a vast, vast, wasteful bureaucracy - but also because all we need to do in regards to pollution is respect property rights and sue the offenders. There are lab tests that can test pollution, based on it's makeup and other signatures, to determine where it comes from (I believe Ron Paul even covered this in his 'Revolution The Manifesto' book). Not only that, but there are usually regulations that get in the way of property rights and/or actually unintentionally encourage added risk taking, or in some cases it's more profitable for the company to pollute and pay fines than to be forced to clean up.

You've also got the problem of 'regulatory capture' by the big companies.

Do you think the EPA could have ever 'stopped' the BP oil spill, especially when govt regulations limited their liability, pushed them further and deeper offshore to take more risks, and incentivized drilling in risky waters? Not to mention BPs significant political connections.

[cswake]

Just because the Federal government doesn't have a national agency does not mean that government won't be involved - don't forget that every State has its own accountable environmental department.

[Acala]

As someone who deals with EPA on a regular basis, I can say that I think they are a horrible agency. Heavy-handed, vindictive, irrational, and concerned more about their turf than the environment.

The ultimate answer is a clear recognition of property rights to them be sorted out through civil action. But even if you had "public" resources that you wanted government to protect, the way EPA does it is totally wrong.

The environmental laws were all written to create perpetual employment for government workers and lawyers. Most of them are based on permitting which essentially requires everyone to prove in advance that they won't do anything wrong by begging permission from a giant cadre of smug government workers who routinely extort expensive "mitigating" projects that, among other things, employ friends of the agency. Instead of being based on an almost unbelievable maze of permitting requirements from which there is no meaningful appeal, the laws could have simply prohibited certain specified polluting activities and then prosecuted violations on a case by case basis with due process.

[AuH20]

As someone who deals with EPA on a regular basis, I can say that I think they are a horrible agency. Heavy-handed, vindictive, irrational, and concerned more about their turf than the environment.

The ultimate answer is a clear recognition of property rights to them be sorted out through civil action. But even if you had "public" resources that you wanted government to protect, the way EPA does it is totally wrong.

The environmental laws were all written to create perpetual employment for government workers and lawyers. Most of them are based on permitting which essentially requires everyone to prove in advance that they won't do anything wrong by begging permission from a giant cadre of smug government workers who routinely extort expensive "mitigating" projects that, among other things, employ friends of the agency. Instead of being based on an almost unbelievable maze of permitting requirements from which there is no meaningful appeal, the laws could have simply prohibited certain specified polluting activities and then prosecuted violations on a case by case basis with due process.


But with clear cut or unambiguous laws, the EPA wouldn't be able to wield dominion over private industry nor employ so many bureaucrats. I understand your gist.

[LibertyEagle]

Abolish it.

[Sentient Void]

Just because the Federal government doesn't have a national agency does not mean that government won't be involved - don't forget that every State has its own accountable environmental department.

Yeah, this is another good reason. Good call.

[John Taylor]

Am I in the minority here? Profit incentive doesn't lend one to be environmentally conscious. Obviously. I'm adamantly opposed to carbon credits and other schemes, but would many people have a problem with a regulatory agency prohibiting a private corporation dumping waste material into a public water source as opposed to letting the legal system sort itself post-litigation?

Yes. Abolish it. If we properly define private property rights, and allow for them to be protected in court, then there is no need for an EPA.

[angelatc]

Am I in the minority here? Profit incentive doesn't lend one to be environmentally conscious. Obviously. I'm adamantly opposed to carbon credits and other schemes, but would many people have a problem with a regulatory agency prohibiting a private corporation dumping waste material into a public water source as opposed to letting the legal system sort itself post-litigation?

I am with you, because I believe that because water and air cross state lines the federal government has an interest in protecting it. But I think the constitution needs to be amended to give them the power.

And if you look at Michigan - we're currently fighting for permission to close our waterways to keep some stupid non-native Asian carp from destroying all the native fish, but the government won't allow it.

So really, I can make a case either way.

http://www.southtownstar.com/news/2453052,070110carp.article

YouTube - Asian Carp Invasion Part I (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS7zkTnQVaM)

[ChaosControl]

Am I in the minority here? Profit incentive doesn't lend one to be environmentally conscious. Obviously. I'm adamantly opposed to carbon credits and other schemes, but would many people have a problem with a regulatory agency prohibiting a private corporation dumping waste material into a public water source as opposed to letting the legal system sort itself post-litigation?

I support keeping environmental protections. I think the EPA needs to be reformed, but I support its existence. I think it is acceptable on a federal level since pollution crosses state boundaries. But yes, this view is the minority position here. I support caps on emissions and such, but I think the whole credits of buying and selling pollution rights is screwed up.

[johngr]

I am with you, because I believe that because water and air cross state lines the federal government has an interest in protecting it. But I think the constitution needs to be amended to give them the power.

And if you look at Michigan - we're currently fighting for permission to close our waterways to keep some stupid non-native Asian carp from destroying all the native fish, but the government won't allow it.

So really, I can make a case either way.

http://www.southtownstar.com/news/2453052,070110carp.article

YouTube - Asian Carp Invasion Part I (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS7zkTnQVaM)

But don't the Asian carp do the work the native fish don't want to do?

[John Taylor]

But don't the Asian carp do the work the native fish don't want to do?

No, they feed on the plankton which small invertabrates and other fish in the ecosystem live on, thus removing the food supply for other creatures who feed the larger predatory fish, thus destroying the population of game fish (native species etc).

[osan]

Am I in the minority here? Profit incentive doesn't lend one to be environmentally conscious.

This is not necessarily so, but it has been the reality. It's largely a matter of mindset - cultural and personal, and the mindset of the industrialized world over the past 160 years or so, though we should not count that far back because at one time people were not so aware of the damage they did via pollution.


Obviously. I'm adamantly opposed to carbon credits and other schemes, but would many people have a problem with a regulatory agency prohibiting a private corporation dumping waste material into a public water source as opposed to letting the legal system sort itself post-litigation?

I have no problem with this in theory precisely because there is so much abuse. In practice, however, the plan appears to fail in the main. As others have mentioned, one key is the proper establishment of private property rights. The other is the vigorous and righteous enforcement of such rights. Finally, there must the will to be vigilant on the part of the public at large because without active watch dogs, there is no point in any of the rest of it. The question that remains, then, is one of authority to monitor and investigate possible violations. On that account I would say that a government-like agency may be the best solution. The reasoning behind what I suspect is an unpopular opinion is based on the fact that government's sole legitimate role is to guarantee the rights of individual citizens. In order to do this, government officers must have some authority to monitor and investigate possible violations. Dumping violent poisons into the environment constitutes such violation and any company engaging in such activity is certainly not going to roll out the welcome mat to investigators if there exist no legal basis. They will simply smile at the door, tell you to pound salt and have a nice day, then quietly close the door on you.

I may add here that horrifying penalties for such violations should be in place such that nobody in their right mind would want to risk the consequences for the sake of saving a few millions of dollars this way or that. Life prison terms of hard time being possible (even execution in egregious cases? Maybe not) should go a long way toward staunching bad actors. Elimination of the corporate veil in criminal cases where full personal accountability for one's actions becomes the standard. All people proven to have knowledgeably participated in the chain from janitor up to CEO and shareholders stand the risk of life in solitary confinement for breaching the public trust just as would be the case for government agents, were I king.

I must therefore assert that a critical part of all of this lies in the legal status of corporations. I am a firm believer in the need for corporations to enjoy certain right-like privileges in order that they may conduct business unfettered by the whims of government agents and other individuals. That all changes when criminal action is proven. Also, because corporations effectively constitute a "super being" and the fact that they are not actually human beings, I believe that they may be reasonable required to toe a different line than people. In this I believe that corporations must bear certain burdens of demonstrated proof for particular aspects of their operations. Pollution is a great example of one of those, where because the operations that produce poisonous wastes pose a threat to the environment and by extension to other people; and because o the rather spotty history of corporate honesty in this regard, it would seem proper to me that companies should be required to submit to monitoring by some authority, whether governmental or quasi-governmental. In any event, community involvement in such activities would appear to be vital to the goals of keeping things honest. Notice how once again the solution boils down to individual involvement and possibly even volunteerism.

These are just raw thoughts as they come off the top of my pointy little head, so don't excoriate me too harshly. I am only tossing out ideas in hopes that there may be something of value there.

Let us remember that we are "government". Therefore, whether we enforce property rights "privately" or "governmentally", the difference is really quite small because at the end of the day, either avenue is only as good as the people discharging the functions in question. Government is no worse than any other vehicle for certain sorts of functions, but is only as good as the people discharging them and they are only as bad as the rest of is will tolerate. And the rest of us are only as effective as the rules of government will allow. As it stands the prerogatives of the people to rein-in bad actors have been almost fatally curtailed by those in whose interest it lies to curtail them. That is OUR fault because we allowed them to do it. Shame on us and our forebears for having forgotten the lessons of history and the messages about them that the founders left to us in good abundance.


Contrary to the oft-repeated memes about how government ruins everything it touches, government is just another label for "us" - some subset of "us" who assume the mantles of the public trust, for better or worse, and the rest of us set the context for their behavior. If we tolerate corruption, that is precisely what we will get. If we do not tolerate it, we will have little to none. This, in my opinion, is something we all need to take some quiet time to think about and then make a decision on as to how we will stand from that time onward. We have painted ourselves into the corner in which we now find ourselves, and we took generations to get here. Getting out is not going to be easy, so if we really want something better, we're going to have to work hard for is, smartly, and will have to bear some non-trivial risks to ourselves. How many of us are really willing to do this?

Thoughts?