Fine, lead was the first thing to come to mind, we can use any one of a hundred different ones, what is the rocket fuel that is pluming into hundreds of wells in California and contaminating the lettuce which is being shipped all over the country? (before you start, yes, it was not private industry)
So you trying to tell me that only the FEDERAL government could make a regulation for building construction and that the local or state government could not? I have no problem with the State of California stipulating earthquake resistant construction methods, but i would sure be worried if they also had to be applied to the state of Maine. That would only cause the houses being built in there to Cost people more for no discernible benefit.
No, we feel the states or local governments can regulate these things, no need for a big mommy to be in charge of everyone everywhere.
This is happening according to who? Why haven't I read this in my California Farm Bureau publication? Or anywhere else for that matter.
I am quite sure there are FEDERAL regulations that make pumping rocket fuel into the aquifer illegal, doesn't seem to stop the behavior though. Perhaps if the local or state government had some kind of jurisdiction it all could have been avoided? Tough to call, that federal government hardly ever makes mistakes eh?
You're the one telling me the EPA has confirmed toxic dumping and is doing nothing about it. WHy should I want the EPA...
I am speaking on the value of regulation in general. Those that claim that it is regulation that is stifling productivity and job creation do not stipulate federal regulation. It stands to reason that local regulation would, to their logic, be just as stifling. I agree that in cases of building and such local regulations make sense, federal ones do not. However, consider regulations on concrete and buidling materials, now consider that each state has its own, wouldn't 50 sets of regulations be far more inhibitory on a multi state manufacturer?
I am quite happy with states rights when states rights are adequate to the situation. Medical marijuana, assisted suicide, gun control (or lack of it), death penalty and more, all easy state's rights issues and all easily enforced by the state. But place a mulitnational corporation against RI for example or place a polution situation that involves several states in the discussion and I can't see this as an issue of state's rights so much as the rights of the individual against those of corporations. I believe we have the right to the commons and I state that there is more than once source of tyranny.
no, most states would come to a consensus on things like that, kind of like how we have the Uniform Commercial Code. If a certain state wanted to have something totally different then they would invite a new company to begin to supply them with what was needed.
While it may be misconstrued, most people are condemning FEDERAL regulations, but are actually in favor of STATES having much more control than they currently do.
The government can and has bankrupted companies for less...
Please explain then how local regulation would not stifle the local economy but Federal regulation would?