When is Enough Government Enough?A Day in the Life of the Regulatory State

-By Warner Todd Huston

The Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) has a great video starring my pal Lee Doren — OK, I met him at a bar once but we do write for some of the same blogs. It is a stark reminder of the overweening regulations that every day oppress us and the businesses we all work for.

And Obama/Reid?Pelosi want more of this?

cei.org

www.openmarket.org

CEI @ Twitter

Comments

Leave a comment
  • Sounds pretty wild to me dude.

    Lou
    www.being-anonymous.at.tc

  • Yes, lets get rid of regulation so we can go back to the tasty days rats in our meat. Yes, lets get rid of regulation because markets self regulate...right? Yes, lets get rid of regulation so we can have cars without seatbelts. Who knows, maybe even someday we can get cigarette vending machine in schools! Think of the profitability that would bring. How great a world that would be!

  • Sorry, I felt like I must present some snark to counteract the snark of this post. You can't really believe that no federal regulation is good regulation? Sure Big Brother is feared antagonist that every conservative fears, but why can you not draw parallels that a corporate big brother is just as bad? Let's give power to a private entity motivated purely by profit, or give power to a government established by the people and democratically maintained. But then again when have people like Sarah Palin in your party claiming that the problem with the oil spill is that we trusted foreigners, I guess you have bigger problems than just the inability to draw parallels.

  • In reply to RyanJustice:

    And if you could ever find a post of mine where I said "no federal regulation is good regulation" then you'd have a point. Unfortunately for your wild-eyed assumptions, you can't find such a sentiment expressed by lil' ol' me. So, I guess I should counter that YOU want government to regulate walking down the street, breathing, using your eyes to see.... why oh WHY do you think government should regulate every second of our lives??? Maybe there should be a government officer sitting patiently in your bathroom to make sure you urinate properly and fining you if you forget to put the set down for your wife? There, see. I can make idiotic assumptions of the arguments in question, too.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    Fair enough. If I misinterpreted, I apologize. But riddle me this, where is there evidence that Pelosi/Obama are seeking any kind of regulation beyond trying to prevent what de-regulation has caused. You have the oil companies fighting safety regulations that could've saved 11 lives and prevented this ecological disaster we have on, not to mention the financial industry (mostly the big banks that failed and took bailout money) fighting current regulations proposed to prevent another similar economic crisis.

  • In reply to RyanJustice:

    There is enough evidence to show that it was the regulation we had that caused the economic collapse. Democrats in Congress led the housing bubble with the bad lending practices that they forced on banks and lenders, for instance. But, as I intimated above, I am not against ALL regulation (the meat regulations you mention, for instance, were and are a good thing). However, there comes a time when there is too much and it stifles business, kills creativity in the market, and makes business cost so much that it makes it harder on the public to afford every day expenses.

    On top of that, we rarely seem to get rid of regulation. We just pile it on top of everything existing.

    As to "deregulation" using it as a boogyman word as you did tends to obscure the debate. SOME regulation is good. Some deregulation is also good.

    What I advocate is a more creative look at regulation instead of simply assuming all regulation is god's work and piling today's big government heavy hand on top of yesterday's.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    Ok, thats a valid point, and I can live with that. On a side note, though, I would assume based on that "creative" look at regulation you advocate, you are against the standing filibuster the GOP has on even debating the issues at hand?

  • In reply to RyanJustice:

    I can't comment on that particular filibuster as I am not well enough informed on it to offer comment. But suffice to day that I am not against the filibuster per se. It can be a useful tool especially if you are in the minority.

  • In reply to RyanJustice:

    I agree. I'm not talking about any specific issue. I'm not against the filibuster either, and that wasn't my question. The question, in other words, was whether you agree with how the GOP is using the filibuster to block debate on a majority of issues presented? If you are in favor of a "creative" look at regulation, I'd hope you would not agree with one side blocking debate on an issue that is of pressing importance.

    By the way, how can you not be well enough informed on the filibuster, but claim that there is a potential for over-reaching regulation with the current administration? Its like saying "I don't follow what is going on in congress (despite me being a political blogger), but I sure as hell have an opinion on it." I'm not trying to be overly critical, as I'm sure it sounds that way, but I would just hope that you are more well informed on politics before you blog about them. Especially when you use such strong language that enflames passions and opinion.

  • In reply to RyanJustice:

    I am not saying that only Obama is regulating us. In fact, Bush was bad in many ways. I am aiming my criticism against government (all government, local state, federal) not necessarily just Obama/Pelosi/Reid. But as it stands now THEY are the ones in charge and pushing higher and higher regulations on everything we do. Above I said "And Obama/Reid?Pelosi want more of this? " but that doesn't necessarily follow that I am saying "And only Obama/Reid?Pelosi want more of this and Republicans are innocent."

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    You're still dodging my question. You clearly advocated the need for a creative look at regulation (in any industry, forget whether its financial, healthcare, etc.). So, I asked if you agreed with the GOP's actions of filibustering debate on an issue. Based on your previous statement, I would think the answer would be clear, as debate is necessary to take that creative look. So yes or no? Do you agree or disagree.

  • In reply to RyanJustice:

    You see, you assume talking for the sake of talking is productive. I, on the other hand, do not. Especially when the Dems don't want to talk, they just want to ram through all their pet issues with NO GOP assistance or involvement. You are operating under the false assumption that dealing with Democrats is in and of itself an even playing field of debate on an issue. As we have seen with Obama/Reid/Pelosi they have no interest in bipartisan anything. So far in the last year almost NO bipartisanship on anything has occurred and it isn't the GOP's fault alone. In fact, you can go back to Obama's Ill. State Senate career and easily put the lie to his claim to want to work with the other side. He's never done it in his life. This being the case, the GOP has little choice but a filibuster to put breaks on Democrat arrogance. They are in the minority and this is about their only chance to influence the debate.

  • In reply to RyanJustice:

    Before you respond, I do know that you did not blog on the filibuster, I said that incorrectly and apologize. I do think everything other than the "be more informed before you blog about them" is still relevant to ask. Especially the fact that you aren't informed enough regarding the current issues in Congress.

  • In reply to RyanJustice:

    Seriously, you attack me for not knowing about something I didn't write about and then you claim that I should shut up because I am "not informed" about anything. I mean, what SPECIFIC issue are you on about? My post was about regulations of business in general. I was not talking about a specific regulation, but the whole idea of over-regulation. Are you telling me it is illegitimate to talk about a general issue? I have to say I don't know what you are trying to get at other than you just don't like anything I post about... which, believe me, is fine. But at least be honest that you just hate what I post. We can both part agreeing to disagree that I am a worthy blogger, but otherwise it seems we are just going in circles here.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    I know, and I did retract that after I realized it. I never said shut up, I'm trying to debate you just like you are doing with me. I'm trying to tell you that I'm not talking about a specific issue. I truly respect your opinions, I just want to engage them. I wouldn't read your blog as much as I do if I didn't, I'm a total liberal, you're a total conservative. I find that to be one of the strengths of this country, in that we CAN have different opinions.

    I just have trouble believing you are uninformed about the top issue going through congress right now, thats based on an assumption that a political blogger would know that, so I accept that. You can't just revert back to the argument that I'm attacking you when I make a valid point/question. I seceded my argument when you made a great point, did I not?

    The moral of the story is that we have a become a nation of "my team versus your team." If we can't recognize other people's points as valid, what are we even debating for?

  • In reply to RyanJustice:

    Also, I did say to forget about a specific issue. Do you think the filibuster should be used, by either party, to block debate on nearly every piece of legislation presented.

  • In reply to RyanJustice:

    Yes, I think the filibuster is a valid tool. It's been used for hundreds of years.

  • In reply to RyanJustice:

    Yours..."The moral of the story is that we have a become a nation of "my team versus your team." If we can't recognize other people's points as valid, what are we even debating for?"

    Interesting. can you point to a time in U.S. history when it wasn't "my team vs yours"? In fact, can you point to any time in human history when it wasn't like that?

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    This is true to an extent. I was more referring to people standing on one side of an issue simply for the sake of standing with their party.

  • In reply to RyanJustice:

    Got ya. Well, since I was the guy that said "I resign from the Ill. GOP" not long ago, I'd say I am not one of those that support my party no matter what it does.

  • In reply to publiusforum:

    Good to know.

Leave a comment