Looking for facts about regulation Republican vs Democratic administrations, also hilarious RW rant

[DaveinJapan]

So I'm involved in a "discussion" with an old college friend who's gone completely teabag crazy. Without cut/pasting the entire thing, below in quotes is the last blast he wrote to me. What I'm wondering is if anyone can direct me towards some facts regarding just how much (or how little) regulation actually goes on, particularly in the oil industry but others are fine too, and how it changes from administration to administration. Thanks in advance!

"Since when has a strict libertarian outlook failed? You got it backwards, dude. Your socialist/crony capitalist ideas are the ones that are proven as failures throughout history. How many environmental disasters have there been throughout this country even with regulations? Look at the BP leak- oil companies can't even pee without the government's permission and that particular rig was even given a safety award from the government last year! Regulations do nothing but create more revenue for the government and drive up the cost for companies to do business. The environment is no better off due to any regulations. However, the environment would do much better if companies were compelled to protect it by an individual desire to do so as stewards. If they lack that desire in a free market, unregulated system, they will pay for their mistakes by loss of business and exposure by a free press.

I don't understand why you continue to put such faith in our government to regulate and enforce anything on the private sector. If Bush was our President still I'm sure your attitude would be much different. The federal government is not permitted by the Constitution to regulate any business.

You need to do your homework, dude. You obviously don't know the Constitution, you don't know history, you don't know economics and you don't even know the implications of current legislation; you said the new finance reform bill doesn't create new government agencies? The Consumer Protection Agency (CPA) is just one out of many which you ignored that this bill creates. I understand your wanting to defend your position, but in order to do that as aggressively as you do you really should have a much better grasp on the fundamentals of both positions rather than going off talking points and revisionist history. Maybe you do know these things, but are just ignoring them, I don't know, but everything you suggest, especially it's effectiveness, is fundamentally un-American and unconstitutional. I'm not saying that all our history prior to 1900 is perfect, nor is the free market or the constitution, but the alternatives are devastatingly unsuccessful and do nothing but hurt regular people like you and I. I don't care how rich a corporation or person becomes, the richer he gets without the government breathing down his neck the better it is for everybody. The more the system is based on merit the better it is for everybody and the better it is the more charitable people become as well. These are proven things."

[gratuitous]

1. Your friend is a nitwit

And perhaps beyond recall at all. In the time that the Invisible Hand of the Free Market finally gets around to working to put a malefactor out of business, millions of square miles of ocean (owned by nobody) can be irretrievably fouled. Or, on a slightly more comprehensible level, by the time word gets around that a local restaurant is poisoning people (because there are none of those niggling governmental safe food handling procedures or health inspectors), hundreds of folks could be sick, and dozens dead. Sure, the restaurant will eventually go out of business, but wha't the cost to the community? Isn't it better for all of us to contribute a little money to promulgate standards, pay inspectors, and enforce regulations, instead of letting rogue operators do business to contaminate a whole bunch of people?

If your "friend" sticks to his anti-governmental stance, I'd say he gets points for ideological purity, but loses all humanity points.

[muntrv]

2. "..The federal government is not permitted by the Constitution to regulate any business"

Commerce clause? Anyone?

[Atticus]

3. This is "word salad". Did your "old college friend" graduate? Did he major in meaningless

and inaccurate snark?

I'd tell him the Bush Administration is over. They no longer get to create "truth" by simply announcing it. Trying to convince him of his errors would be a waste of time: he doesn't really want to know. He's comfortably ignorant.

[Bitwit1234]

4. I read some place that BP had not done any checking

or repairing of the wells for ten years. I don't remember where. Maybe here.

[DaveinJapan]

5. This was my reply (hopefully it got to the core of the matter, though I doubt it sunk in)...

Me: "What you advocate is nothing short of corporate anarchy. I don't think you fully realize how horrific your libertarian dreams would truly be (but you always accuse ME of not knowing history, etc., check up on some history yourself if you think sweat-shops, unchecked corporatism, and a world where the people have no voice in the political process are the way to go. Or just wait a while, the ultra-right-wing Supreme Court has just made that scenario far more realistic and we might just see it come down (on our heads).

The funniest part of your rantings, I think, are the parts where you decry the "evil government" as something to be feared, and yet in practically the same breath you claim that all those benevolent corporations would act as "stewards" for the environment (or the workers, or the world in general), as though THEY are to be trusted while the government (ANY government) is not.

Why do you put so much faith in these ginormous entities who are just as soulless (if not more) than any government entity or religious entity or, heck, ANY big entity that has roamed the planet wreaking havoc?

I, for one, don't trust ANY of them. And if we can put some regulations in place to check their enormous powers, I'm totally down with that.

And by the way, YES the federal government is most certainly permitted by the Constitution to regulate businesses.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:
To REGULATE Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes

And before you go all constructionist on me, I realize that is subject to interpretation, and I'm sure your interpretation will differ from mine so I'll see your Antonin Scalia and raise you a William J. Brennan. Care to check?"