zlacker

>>geox+(OP)
In my opinion it is obvious and should be uncontroversial that some environmental regulations work and are great and should if anything be reinforced, while other environmental regulations do more harm than good and need to be reigned in or eliminated.

Turning "environmental regulation" into a unified bloc that must be either supported or opposed in totality is a manipulative political maneuver and it should be forcefully rejected.

Regulations are not people, and they don't have rights. It is fair and reasonable to demand that environmental regulation justify its existence with hard, scientifically verifiable data or else get chopped. Clearly, banning leaded gasoline has that kind of justification, and therefore I'm strongly in favor of maintaining that ban and extending it wherever it isn't in place yet. The same reasonable standard should be applied to other regulations across the board.

>>cfigge+7B1
Basically everybody agrees with what you're saying which is what makes this an insidious comment.

In general the pressure against regulation comes from narrow winners (oil industry for instance) whereas the pressure for regulations generally comes from people focused on the greater good (even if they are misled by other narrow winners, for instance compliance firms).

>>AdamN+WB1
There are valid reasons to oppose regulations. They can be used to create barriers of entry for small businesses, for example. They constantly affect the poor more than the middle class.

>>gosub1+oD1
> They constantly affect the poor more than the middle class.

That’s a very broad statement. I expect there are many cases where that is not true.

>>sunshi+hG1
"greater good" is arguably the most broad statement with a large history of hurting many people based on the "greater good".

>>abfan1+qI1
For each instance did it help more than it hurt?

Not to simplify but if you have to make a decision shouldn't you always decide to help the most people?

>>Braxto+GZ1
> shouldn't you always decide to help the most people?

no.

>>lowdow+E82
Why?

>>Braxto+6F2
Hundreds of book on utilitarianism have been published since Bentham (ca 1800) first argued 'why'. They argue the matter from evey perspective ad nauseam.

Check your public library.