the grubbermint problem

"The heart of the problem is this: while the purpose of every local, state and federal environmental law is to protect natural resources, nearly every law has also provided authority to the agencies to permit, in their discretion, the very pollution or land damage that the statutes were designed to prevent. Of course, the permit systems were never intended to subvert the goals of environmental statutes. But most agencies today spend nearly all of their resources to permit, rather than prohibit, environmental destruction. Essentially, our agencies have taken the discretion in the law and have used it to destroy Nature, including its atmosphere."

Kelpie Wilson at Truthout quotes Mary Wood of University of Oregon Law School concerning environmental agency regulation philosophy. As an ardent conservationalist and a property rights advocate - it seems to me that most environmental laws are totally absurd and not under the purview of the people enforcing such laws. Just because we put together an agency in Washington that has blended american living standards into a coerced mush where the system allows violators to buy their pollution. Slick - makes money for regulators by creating make work.

Now the group of high honcho lawyers weighs in by five to four majority that the government coercion must be ramped up. Is this theory of unitary execultive like the commissioner of a sports league? If so, let's divide the country into many separate jurisdictions and play each other off for the best living standards. My guess is that regions would define 'best' differently. The best government to me is that which governs least. I would like to see EPA declare the Formosa Mine a Superfund site - the situation is beyond the Oregon DEQ to repair.