And yeah, there's where you and I differ. Given the breath of the Commerce clause, and the overall improvements to-date we've seen from regulation based in part upon it, I do not think the concept of regulating industries for issues and problems is inimical to the American experiment.

Given that the breadth of the Commerce Clause is more a wholesale invention of ideological jurisprudence, however, you'd have to admit that you're not going to win many people over with that argument.

After all, the struggle on regulating Commerce for reasons other than raw financial issues goes all the way back to the decision to forbid banning slave importation until 1808, showing that there was, and always will be, a balance -- and that's what the Founding Fathers intended.

Which shows, also, a flaw in the Founders thinking, that people would actually take the government's foundational document seriously. That we're still making those same errors in modern times is disheartening.

I think starting from the premise that I sense from you, that nearly all regulation is bad (what stands in it's place? Market forces?), is ultimately self-destructive to any form of government.

That's not my position, for the record. I do, however, think that if we're looking to regulate more, we need to actually be able to articulate why such a regulation is favorable to allowing people to decide. I think the argument against lead paint is much stronger than the argument against light bulbs, for example - not that I necessarily buy into either of them, but...

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)