Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
What concrete facts? Your paranoid libertarian fantasy that ignores the negative effects that pollution has on other people?
Whose freedom? The freedom of people to poison the air? Or the freedom of people to breathe clean air?
Your notion of freedom is ridiculous. What you propose is not freedom, but tyranny via capitalism.
I am thinking Canada gets fallout from American pollution and if situation is worse in USA situation will be worse in Canada?Pollution is not just a state issue, it is not even a national issue. It is now an international issue.
Pollution is not just a state issue, it is not even a national issue. It is now an international issue.
I have only see one person here that advocates Anarcho-capitalism. Let be fair here and try not to resorts to generalizations.
Great! It sounds like you're ready to live under my dictatorship then, as I deem my rational thought and full knowledge as superior to yours. Your "wants" are irrelevant.No, individuals "wants" in the absence of rational thought and full knowledge do NOT control in this case. There are a lot of Americans who don't know the first foreign thing about global climate change, environmental science or coal. It is not up to them anymore than it is up to them to freely traffic in heroin.
No, I'm suggesting that probably most federal regulations are unlawful under the Constitution.Are you seriously of the opinion that there are no federal regulations? Really?
No, the Constitution allows federal regulation of interstate commerce "among the several States", not all commerce, e.g. within a State. Air pollution does not involve interstate commerce, referring to the trade or traffic of commodities between States.Air pollution in this context is a byproduct of a commercial activity. The removal and treatment of industrial waste is an example of commerce. The treatment of medical conditions resulting from contact with those waste products is also an example of commerce. Externalities such as pollution are also facets of commerce, and in order for markets to operate efficiently, the government often has to step in to mitigate them.
No, the Constitution allows federal regulation of interstate commerce "among the several States", not all commerce, e.g. within a State. Air pollution does not involve interstate commerce, referring to the trade or traffic of commodities between States.
Second, if we run with your example, virtually everything can then be regulated.
The reasonable conclusion is that the commerce clause is meant to be far more restrictive than it is interpreted today.
Surely mostly in the areas that voted for it?.
That's terrible, because it affects other states. We've been getting pollution from Pennsi coming over here for years despite having strict regulations on it.from me.
This is returning power to the states, where it belongs. If a state decides to enforce Obama-era type rules, then more power to them.
Pollution is not commerce, nobody is trading or trafficking pollution.Air pollution floats across state borders. Power plants source their fuel across state borders and often sell their products across state borders. What about the process of generating and distributing power is restricted by state boundaries?
rightly so
Even assuming that's true, I fail to see how airborne pollution that quite easily crosses state boundaries fails to meet this standard.
Make Americans Gag Again.https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/21/climate/epa-coal-pollution-deaths.html
#prolife
#maga (Make Asthma Great Again)
Pollution is not commerce, nobody is trading or trafficking pollution. The commerce clause does not give the federal gov't authority to regulate it.That's terrible, because it affects other states. We've been getting pollution from Pennsi coming over here for years despite having strict regulations on it.
Pollution doesn't suddenly stop when it hits a legal boundary. You need to have a federal body to oversee it for that reason.
What is your experience consist of? I just recall another user who left this forum years ago, who pretty much advocate Anarcho-capitalism. That bring my total up to two.IME, his claim is fairly accurate, even though there may only be one or two examples in this thread. Libertarians and libertarian-leaning conservatives make a lot of these same arguments, fantasizing that each man is an island and that his actions have no consequences outside himself.
Remember, the actual question is whether it is lawful for the Federal government to establish minimum standards for states, and give them incentives to follow those standards in their state regulations. Note by the way that there are limits to the level of incentives that can be used before it is considered coercion of the states.Until then, whether or not "it should be regulated at the federal level" is a separate question from "is it lawful for the federal government to regulate it".
IMO it is unlawful ... as no State, to my knowledge, engages in pollution commerce.Remember, the actual question is whether it is lawful for the Federal government to establish minimum standards for states, and give them incentives to follow those standards in their state regulations. Note by the way that there are limits to the level of incentives that can be used before it is considered coercion of the states.
Pollution is not commerce, nobody is trading or trafficking pollution.
What is your experience consist of? I just recall another user who left this forum years ago, who pretty much advocate Anarcho-capitalism. That bring my total up to two.
IMO it is unlawful ... as no State, to my knowledge, engages in pollution commerce.
I did not bring up libertarianism at all.Yes, pollution is part of commerce and yes, they are trading or trafficking pollution (illegal dumping is a form of trading).
Waste management is commerce. The impacts of waste byproducts (including the costs of proper disposal and exposure) are parts of the cost of providing electricity. If the provider of a product/service has to bear all of the expenses of providing that product, then the provider will adjust the price upwards to cover those expenses. Likewise, if the purchaser has to bear some of the expenses, then they will negotiate the prices downward to compensate for that added expense. If, however, one or both of the parties find a way to offload some of those expenses onto a third part, then they can both come out ahead - the provider can lower prices due to lowered costs, while the purchaser benefits from lowered prices. Meanwhile, the third party gets stuck footing part of the bill despite not being a party to the transaction.
This offloading of expenses is called an "externality" (Specifically, it's a negative externality. Positive externalities do exist as well.) and it's economics 101. Within a market economy, even for libertarians, government regulation is a perfectly legitimate remedy for market-distorting externalities.
Libertarian ideology is something of a continuum and IME LOTS of folks like to use "freedom" and "constitutionality" as simple-minded, kneejerk justifications for reducing federal regulation, despite federal oversight being perfectly legal and appropriate. They don't have to exist way on the fringes, arguing that federal law == dictatorship, in order to exhibit some of the same ideas.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?