LawTalkers - The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

Originally posted by Spanky
I am a big believer in the free market because it does a great job of making markets more efficient (it allocates resources the most efficiently). The best way to provide cheap and quality products to consumers is with a free market. Command economies, and their progency like subsidies and tariffs suck. However, there needs to be regulations to protect health and safety of both consumers and workers, because that is one place the market ain't so great. Free Markets also doesn't address externalities very well. Kalamazoo can elect to protect is citizens more than than the Federal government, but it cannot lessen the federal protections, nor can the federal government stop Kalamazoo from trying to give further protection to their citizens.

That pretty much sums it up doesn't it Sidd?

Yes, it does. We are in agreement. It's unclear why you are trying to argue with me, when that is so obvious.

Sidd Finch

03-03-2006 10:22 PM

More Republicans for states' rights

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Um, right, but then the company can choose to sell only in certain states. And I don't think the ban would necessarily be on *using* the products in a particular state -- I think it's more on *buying* the product. I bought my car in Texas and brought it to CA. I'm sure if I brought some canned food with me from Texas, and it isn't labelled in accordance with CA standards, I can still eat it here -- but I may not be able to sell it.

Have you had to get your car smog-checked yet?

And yet, Honda manages to stay in business.

Sidd Finch

03-03-2006 10:23 PM

More Republicans for states' rights

Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
But leaving aside the morality question, his position is totally impractical - let alone the states rights implications.

Unfortunately, the House appears prepared to enact precisely Burger's position. Did you not realize?

Sidd Finch

03-03-2006 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
It can do so, at least under the prevailing interpretation of the commerce clause, but _should_ is a whole different matter.

There are some good policy arguments for the doctrine of preemption.

S_A_M

I knew that there was a reason I used the word "should," rather than "can."

And certainly there are policy argument for preemption -- but there are very good arguments against it, too. It's a doctrine to apply carefully and conservatively.

Sidd Finch

03-03-2006 10:27 PM

More Republicans for states' rights

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
How is it impractical to create one federal rule to which everyone trading in interstate commerce in a particular good must comply? The opposite is impractical. Even the EU realized that.

I wonder if you would feel that way if the federal government had decided to take the strictest state standards and apply them nationwide, as opposed to doing the opposite.

Which is sometimes what they do in the EU, and not something many people are particularly happy about.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

03-03-2006 10:52 PM

More Republicans for states' rights

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
I wonder if you would feel that way if the federal government had decided to take the strictest state standards and apply them nationwide, as opposed to doing the opposite.

If they did, would you be equally supportive of allowing states to opt out of those standards and enact lower ones?

And, fringey:

1) If the market can penalize states for enacting overly aggressive regulation, why not let the market do the regulating in the first place? If people don't want to buy meat without labels, they don't have to.

2) I never argued everything should be federalized. I asked why if you entrusted congress to enact federal standards do you not trust them enough to enact the right standards. There aren't national building codes, but if you have them, why would you automatically also want local building codes? Why have so many layers. Decide whether you think local regulation or federal regulation is better (and it varies depending on the subject matter), and stick with it?

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

03-03-2006 10:53 PM

More Republicans for states' rights

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Which is sometimes what they do in the EU, and not something many people are particularly happy about.

The Germans weren't so happy when they were told they couldn't enforce the Reinheitsgebot.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

03-03-2006 10:53 PM

More Republicans for states' rights

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Unfortunately, the House appears prepared to enact precisely Burger's position. Did you not realize?

Well, wait until he gets done with DeLay.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

03-03-2006 10:58 PM

I guess Wal-Mart won't be able to have a store in Domino's Pizza Village

Quote:

Originally posted by ltl/fb
Wal-Mart to carry Plan B.

Time for a boycott. Baby-killers. And slut-inducers.

Spanky

03-03-2006 11:17 PM

More Republicans for states' rights

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Yes, it does. We are in agreement. It's unclear why you are trying to argue with me, when that is so obvious.

I wasn't arguing with you. It was a statement for my fellow Republicans, that I thought you wanted me to proffer.

Tyrone Slothrop

03-03-2006 11:25 PM

More Republicans for states' rights

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
I asked why if you entrusted congress to enact federal standards do you not trust them enough to enact the right standards.

If you think that this Congress is captive to corporate interests, then you can trust it to adopt standards that are south of where you'd want them, and you'd want the states to be able to require more in the way of health and safety.

ltl/fb

03-04-2006 12:29 AM

More Republicans for states' rights

Quote:

Originally posted by Sidd Finch
Have you had to get your car smog-checked yet?

And yet, Honda manages to stay in business.

I got it checked, and I didn't even have to give it to them. Apparently it is a recent enough model of its type of car that it doesn't emit huge amounts of smog. Or, they fucked up, but I think it's the former.

Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)

03-04-2006 10:49 AM

More Republicans for states' rights

Quote:

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If you think that this Congress is captive to corporate interests, then you can trust it to adopt standards that are south of where you'd want them, and you'd want the states to be able to require more in the way of health and safety.

Sure, but why isn't it a two way street? In general, not specific to this Congress.

Take speed limits. Congress set it at 55 for years. Maybe that's fine in urban/built-up areas, but why shouldn't Montana, or Texas, or Wyoming be able to set a higher speed limit, given that (with the exception of parts of Texas), the costs of a higher speed limit are minimal compared to the benefits?

Tyrone Slothrop

03-04-2006 12:24 PM

More Republicans for states' rights

Quote:

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Sure, but why isn't it a two way street? In general, not specific to this Congress.

Take speed limits. Congress set it at 55 for years. Maybe that's fine in urban/built-up areas, but why shouldn't Montana, or Texas, or Wyoming be able to set a higher speed limit, given that (with the exception of parts of Texas), the costs of a higher speed limit are minimal compared to the benefits?

With speed limits, I think you're right. (OTOH, the federal government is only involved because its sending funds to the states, and wasn't the 55 mph limit only for interstates -- federal highways?)

With food safety, maybe it tells you something that the states have only wanted to get into the act recently.

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:01 PM.

Page 293 of 334

293

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page