I Didn't say all regulation is bad... just most. Most doesn't imply all...
1. regulations should be made at the lowest level of government for which it's effective. If states make a regulation that cannot be shown to be more effective because it's administered at the state level rather than the county or city or neighborhood level, it should be struck down. This would get rid of a lot of contentious federal regulation which currently polarizes the country needlessly.
2. Regulations should not infringe upon property rights such as the right to build on your property as you please. There's a major differenc between 'this is an eyesore' and 'this produces toxic waste that leaks onto my property'. The former should not be a regulation the government can legally make. The latter can because it impedes property rights of others.
I can go on.
These are the sort of meta-regulations I think we should have. Honestly, just these two would render many existing regulations already illegal, and they would have to be re-implemented at a more appropriate level of government or scrapped altogether for something different (like a land-use process where instead of zoning, certain lists of activities or activities that the developer should reasonably expect to cause pollution to to other properties require special authorization).
But again to be pedantic, my initial response is quite clear that not all regulation should be illegal. If I meant that I would have said 'all regulation should be illegal'. So let's stop putting words in each other's mouths and pretending we have the high ground.
This clarifies your objection to my "all" comment because it is the same type of thinking to which I was referring. You are stating that regulation is assumed to be bad until proven otherwise. Maybe I should have put an "unless proven otherwise" disclaimer after "all regulation is bad" in my original comment, I will grant you that. But I was simply giving you the benefit of the doubt that you wouldn't dispute something that was proven to be true. Until you have that proof, you are seemingly assuming all regulation is bad.
I do not think all regulation is bad until proven otherwise.
I said:
> >If states make a regulation that cannot be shown to be more effective because it's administered at the state level rather than the county or city or neighborhood level, it should be struck down.
So if you have a good regulation that ought to be made, but made it in a terrible way, then that good regulation is bad, because it's made incorrectly. This does not mean every regulation is presumed bad. Just that regulation should be questioned.
What is the alternative? We accept all regulation without any criteria as to whether it's effective, correctly made, or minimal in scope? Is that really the level of apathy I have to descend to in order to not be accused of calling all regulation 'bad'? That's a bit much.
I propose we create federal legislation that food companies need to label their food with their exact ingredients. According to this comment, this regulation will be struck down until it can "be shown to be more effective because it's administered at the [federal] level rather than the county or city or neighborhood level". How is "it should be struck down" different than "it is bad"? Because I read it as you saying this regulation is bad until I can prove it is necessary to happen at the federal level.
>regulation should be questioned... What is the alternative? We accept all regulation without any criteria as to whether it's effective, correctly made, or minimal in scope?
I'm not arguing that regulation needs to go unquestioned. I said in my first comment that there is both good and bad regulation. The alternative approach is that we don't have some universal rule like you are suggesting and instead judge regulation on a case by case basis. Like I said in my first comment, the answer to bad regulation is good regulation. Your stance still seems to that the answer to bad regulation is no regulation.
Okay, suppose such legislation is created at the federal level. Now, someone disagrees, and sues. The courts will examine the question if the legislation could achieve the same purpose if enacted on the state level. Since food can be imported, my guess would be imported foods could be regulated by the feds, since states don't handle importation processes.
On the other hand, foods produced and consumed in the same state would be up to state regulation. This would be good, since some states have very different food cultures (Louisiana, for example), and it's not really clear to me why voters in Minnesota should have a say in how those local foods are produced and consumed.
As for food commerce between states, I'm not sure, I would think that states could handle that via inter-state compacts and trade agreements.
In this particular case, I don't think counties or municipalities would be a good level of government, since most food is not produced and consumed in the same city or county.
> judge regulation on a case by case basis
Oh so you agree with me? How can such regulation be 'judged on a case by case basis' without meta-regulations of the kind I mentioned? It seems to me that today, anything goes, and there's nothing you can do when such rules are enacted. Also, if such rules are being 'judged on a case by case basis' (presumably for each piece of legislation), then presumably you too judge each new regulation to be bad, since it is apparently in need of judgement (and presumably being made illegal if the judge decides so... or do you advocate judgement with no repercussions?). Honestly I'm very confused over why you disagree with me.
But nothing I said in my comment related to "different food cultures" any more than regulation to not put poison in food. There are some standards that we can all agree on and we might as well define those standards at the highest level they are applicable since we all agree on them.
>Oh so you agree with me? How can such regulation be 'judged on a case by case basis' without meta-regulations of the kind I mentioned? It seems to me that today, anything goes, and there's nothing you can do when such rules are enacted. Also, if such rules are being 'judged on a case by case basis' (presumably for each piece of legislation), then presumably you too judge each new regulation to be bad, since it is apparently in need of judgement (and presumably being made illegal if the judge decides so... or do you advocate judgement with no repercussions?). Honestly I'm very confused over why you disagree with me.
Do you know one of the main differences between criminal trials and civil trials? Criminal trials grant the defendant innocence until proven guilty while civil trials do not grant this presumption of innocence and instead rely on a preponderance of the evidence.
You are basically asking for a presumption of guilt for regulation. I am saying there should be no assumptions. Another way to restate that presumption of guilt would be to say "all regulation is bad until proven otherwise".
So in my experience as a right-leaning person who lives in a lot of left-leaning areas (due to career trajectory and family, blah blah blah), my experience with statements like this is that these regulations are things that 'we' all agree on where 'we' means 'people just like me'. Actually, there are quite obviously to me a lot of regulations in this country where we don't all agree on, and it would be much better for these to be left to local municipalities, counties, or states.
It is too common that both parties attempt to enact legislation 'we' all agree on at the federal level, and cause the other side to get upset and this just makes polarization worse.
> Do you know one of the main differences between criminal trials and civil trials? Criminal trials grant the defendant innocence until proven guilty while civil trials do not grant this presumption of innocence and instead rely on a preponderance of the evidence.
Oh yes, government should always be presumed guilty, because governments have no innate right to exist (unlike humans) and governments have absolutely no right to be free of coercion (voting is the ultimate form of coercion). Since governments derive their right to exist solely from the consent of the governed, yes, a government should be scrutinized. Governments are even more subject to scrutiny than private organizations who derive their right to exist from the human rights of the individual members [1]. If enough members of a government's population decide to abolish it, then the government cannot claim some right to exist.
So yes, all government actions ought to be scrutinized immediately. There is no reason to give the government the benefit of the doubt. Such things are reserved for actual people.
> You are basically asking for a presumption of guilt for regulation. I am saying there should be no assumptions. Another way to restate that presumption of guilt would be to say "all regulation is bad until proven otherwise".
Regulations aren't people. People are. Of course regulations should be presumed guilty. Regulations have impacts on actual people, whereas people cannot meaningfully 'harm' enacted regulation (what does that even mean?).
[1] of course, this doesn't really matter as private orgs can't really 'regulate'.
And that they shouldn't really have the benefit of the doubt.
I know i don't totally agree with that but i used too, and i found it funny.
Also, private orgs do regulate, it's called lobbying, and it's a feature of our best power distribution system yet (capitalism) where power is derived from wealth and not bloodline or other extremely stupid stuff.
You are basically an anarchist to me. I mean, all ancaps/Ayn Rand fans are once they understand positive and negative freedom/rights and push their reasonning on power structure far enough.
I'm sadly not an anarchist anymore, but 'autonomy is in our hearts' is a great way of reading about an existing society with humans in the center without regulations and basing most things on common decency. There is also a lot of analytical philosophy papers on this particular subject of inherent right (or freedom), mostly from your country.