Hacker News Reader

Comment by gtowey | Hacker News Reader

Because for the last 50 years or so there has been a vast effort to erode the regulatory power of our government. From the FDA and EPA, to the education system and more -- these institutions have either been captured by industry or starved for funding.

The result is that business can do pretty much any ani-consumer thing they want and there is nobody to stop them.

View on HN

Much of the federal government's regulatory authority shouldn't exist in the first place, and stems from an overly broad interpretation of the Commerce Clause. Hopefully we will see Supreme Court decisions which overturn those precedents and eviscerate the power of most federal agencies. Most issues should be left to the several states, or if federal authority is really needed on certain issues then let's pass narrowly targeted Constitutional amendments to that effect.

So when companies are dumping so much hazardous pollutants into local water so that the river catches fire[1], who's responsibility is it to deal with that?

https://case.edu/ech/articles/c/cuyahoga-river-fire

If the problem is contained within one state then the state government can deal with it. If there are significant levels of pollutants flowing downstream to another state then that would be a federal issue under even a very narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause.

So most major waterways affect and are affected by interstate issues, especially when you take into account watersheds that feed into them. And anything you put into the air by definition is going to be impossible to contain within just one state. And the ocean is by definition an interstate issue by default.

So maybe we need some kind of federal agency to, you know, protect the environment.

And since 90% of these issues affect the nation as a whole, and this agency would have the most data, maybe it could, like, set some rules for everyone to follow so we have consistency. That way you don't have to figure out 50 different sets of rules to do business in this country. And 50 states wouldn't have to spend all their money just to re-learn the same lessons independently.

And then we are right back at the issue that strong federal regulation is the only efficient and effective way to run things.

All of those agencies have larger budgets and more power than they did 50 years ago.

I haven’t looked it up, but is that true on a population percentage and inflation adjusted basis?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com