CDZ Individual Liberty vs. the Unelected Regulatory Bureaucracy

[Procrustes Stretched]

The OP reads like a twelve year old libertarian wrote it, and the thread title is off base as well.

It's always good to start a critique with a good introduction. Let them know you're serious and thoughtful, right out of the gate. Maybe you should ask a twelve-year old for some tips on persuasive writing.

the peanut gallery is forming

A good introduction is one that entertains and keeps a reader.... this has failed,

look around the trailer park dblack

 

[boedicca]

"Individual Liberty vs. the Unelected Regulatory Bureaucracy"

This fails as a false dilemma fallacy.

There are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures which in no way 'violate' individual liberty; individual liberty and regulatory policy can co-exist in accordance with the law.

Regulatory policies are authorized by laws enacted by the people, at the behest of the people, where the people are at liberty to repeal such measures perceived to be unwarranted, or challenge them a court of law.

The Commerce Clause authorizes government to enact appropriate regulatory measures, and the constitutionality of regulatory policy is supported by that Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

Take this example from the linked article:

“[T]he modern EPA violates just about every one of my suggested bullet points for preserving rule of law in the regulatory bureaucracy, and is ripe for political misuse. Discretion vs. rules, the potential for endless delay, the need for ex-ante permission, and a politicized and partisan bureaucracy are just the beginning.”

Not according to the Supreme Court, which is the only entity authorized to determine whether or not regulatory policies comply with the rule of law, a Supreme Court which has consistently held that the basic mission of the EPA comports with the Constitution and intent of Congress with regard to environmental regulatory policy, where that mission, in addition to being Constitutional, in no way manifests as 'political misuse.' (See e.g. EPA v EME Homer City Generation (2014))

Also from the link:

“Does the regulation, in operation, function as a clear rule? Or is it simply an excuse for the regulator to impose his or her will on the regulated firm or person? Sometimes discretion is explicit. Sometimes discretion comes in the application of a rule book thousands of pages long with multiple contradictory and vague rules.”

The error here is to presume that the people are 'at the mercy' of regulators, or otherwise 'helpless' to respond to regulatory measures perceived to be unwarranted, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Again, the people are at liberty to compel their elected representatives to amend or repeal laws authorizing a given regulatory policy if that policy is believed to be applied capriciously by regulators, or otherwise not in accordance with the intent of the law; and the people may seek relief in state or Federal court, where the court will decide within the context of the law and applicable precedent if the regulator sought to impose his or her will on the regulated firm or person, or if the regulator's interpretation of the statute comports with the will of the lawmaking entity, and by doing so, the will of the people.

Consequently, there is no “4th Branch of Government,” the notion is nothing but an unfounded partisan contrivance.

The premise of the article fails because it's predicated on the errant proposition that regulators function absent oversight, without accountability, and independent of the will of the people – which is factually not the case.

For regulation to be proper and effective, it needs to be in clear language that people can understand. What we have now is ex post facto - bill of attainder regulatory fiats, which are open to abuse by either party in power.

The irony here is that you just used language that most people would not understand. It may be something that actually negates your premise

I am compelled to remain hopeful that Some People are still literate, even in today's dismal educational and cultural milieu.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"Individual Liberty vs. the Unelected Regulatory Bureaucracy"

This fails as a false dilemma fallacy.

There are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures which in no way 'violate' individual liberty; individual liberty and regulatory policy can co-exist in accordance with the law.

Regulatory policies are authorized by laws enacted by the people, at the behest of the people, where the people are at liberty to repeal such measures perceived to be unwarranted, or challenge them a court of law.

The Commerce Clause authorizes government to enact appropriate regulatory measures, and the constitutionality of regulatory policy is supported by that Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

Take this example from the linked article:

“[T]he modern EPA violates just about every one of my suggested bullet points for preserving rule of law in the regulatory bureaucracy, and is ripe for political misuse. Discretion vs. rules, the potential for endless delay, the need for ex-ante permission, and a politicized and partisan bureaucracy are just the beginning.”

Not according to the Supreme Court, which is the only entity authorized to determine whether or not regulatory policies comply with the rule of law, a Supreme Court which has consistently held that the basic mission of the EPA comports with the Constitution and intent of Congress with regard to environmental regulatory policy, where that mission, in addition to being Constitutional, in no way manifests as 'political misuse.' (See e.g. EPA v EME Homer City Generation (2014))

Also from the link:

“Does the regulation, in operation, function as a clear rule? Or is it simply an excuse for the regulator to impose his or her will on the regulated firm or person? Sometimes discretion is explicit. Sometimes discretion comes in the application of a rule book thousands of pages long with multiple contradictory and vague rules.”

The error here is to presume that the people are 'at the mercy' of regulators, or otherwise 'helpless' to respond to regulatory measures perceived to be unwarranted, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Again, the people are at liberty to compel their elected representatives to amend or repeal laws authorizing a given regulatory policy if that policy is believed to be applied capriciously by regulators, or otherwise not in accordance with the intent of the law; and the people may seek relief in state or Federal court, where the court will decide within the context of the law and applicable precedent if the regulator sought to impose his or her will on the regulated firm or person, or if the regulator's interpretation of the statute comports with the will of the lawmaking entity, and by doing so, the will of the people.

Consequently, there is no “4th Branch of Government,” the notion is nothing but an unfounded partisan contrivance.

The premise of the article fails because it's predicated on the errant proposition that regulators function absent oversight, without accountability, and independent of the will of the people – which is factually not the case.

For regulation to be proper and effective, it needs to be in clear language that people can understand. What we have now is ex post facto - bill of attainder regulatory fiats, which are open to abuse by either party in power.

The irony here is that you just used language that most people would not understand. It may be something that actually negates your premise

I am compelled to remain hopeful that Some People are still literate, even in today's dismal educational and cultural milieu.

Yes, some people are. But I think they have been hounded out of the public square. The Sons of Liberty are on the march and beware anyone who dare speaketh up

 

[boedicca]

"Individual Liberty vs. the Unelected Regulatory Bureaucracy"

This fails as a false dilemma fallacy.

There are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures which in no way 'violate' individual liberty; individual liberty and regulatory policy can co-exist in accordance with the law.

Regulatory policies are authorized by laws enacted by the people, at the behest of the people, where the people are at liberty to repeal such measures perceived to be unwarranted, or challenge them a court of law.

The Commerce Clause authorizes government to enact appropriate regulatory measures, and the constitutionality of regulatory policy is supported by that Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

Take this example from the linked article:

“[T]he modern EPA violates just about every one of my suggested bullet points for preserving rule of law in the regulatory bureaucracy, and is ripe for political misuse. Discretion vs. rules, the potential for endless delay, the need for ex-ante permission, and a politicized and partisan bureaucracy are just the beginning.”

Not according to the Supreme Court, which is the only entity authorized to determine whether or not regulatory policies comply with the rule of law, a Supreme Court which has consistently held that the basic mission of the EPA comports with the Constitution and intent of Congress with regard to environmental regulatory policy, where that mission, in addition to being Constitutional, in no way manifests as 'political misuse.' (See e.g. EPA v EME Homer City Generation (2014))

Also from the link:

“Does the regulation, in operation, function as a clear rule? Or is it simply an excuse for the regulator to impose his or her will on the regulated firm or person? Sometimes discretion is explicit. Sometimes discretion comes in the application of a rule book thousands of pages long with multiple contradictory and vague rules.”

The error here is to presume that the people are 'at the mercy' of regulators, or otherwise 'helpless' to respond to regulatory measures perceived to be unwarranted, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Again, the people are at liberty to compel their elected representatives to amend or repeal laws authorizing a given regulatory policy if that policy is believed to be applied capriciously by regulators, or otherwise not in accordance with the intent of the law; and the people may seek relief in state or Federal court, where the court will decide within the context of the law and applicable precedent if the regulator sought to impose his or her will on the regulated firm or person, or if the regulator's interpretation of the statute comports with the will of the lawmaking entity, and by doing so, the will of the people.

Consequently, there is no “4th Branch of Government,” the notion is nothing but an unfounded partisan contrivance.

The premise of the article fails because it's predicated on the errant proposition that regulators function absent oversight, without accountability, and independent of the will of the people – which is factually not the case.

For regulation to be proper and effective, it needs to be in clear language that people can understand. What we have now is ex post facto - bill of attainder regulatory fiats, which are open to abuse by either party in power.

The irony here is that you just used language that most people would not understand. It may be something that actually negates your premise

I am compelled to remain hopeful that Some People are still literate, even in today's dismal educational and cultural milieu.

Yes, some people are. But I think they have been hounded out of the public square. The Sons of Liberty are on the march and beware anyone who dare speaketh up

Really? I haven't seen any Sons of Liberty on the March, just mobs of Anarchists and BlackLivesMatter agitators.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

"Individual Liberty vs. the Unelected Regulatory Bureaucracy"

This fails as a false dilemma fallacy.

There are necessary, proper, and Constitutional regulatory measures which in no way 'violate' individual liberty; individual liberty and regulatory policy can co-exist in accordance with the law.

Regulatory policies are authorized by laws enacted by the people, at the behest of the people, where the people are at liberty to repeal such measures perceived to be unwarranted, or challenge them a court of law.

The Commerce Clause authorizes government to enact appropriate regulatory measures, and the constitutionality of regulatory policy is supported by that Commerce Clause jurisprudence.

Take this example from the linked article:

“[T]he modern EPA violates just about every one of my suggested bullet points for preserving rule of law in the regulatory bureaucracy, and is ripe for political misuse. Discretion vs. rules, the potential for endless delay, the need for ex-ante permission, and a politicized and partisan bureaucracy are just the beginning.”

Not according to the Supreme Court, which is the only entity authorized to determine whether or not regulatory policies comply with the rule of law, a Supreme Court which has consistently held that the basic mission of the EPA comports with the Constitution and intent of Congress with regard to environmental regulatory policy, where that mission, in addition to being Constitutional, in no way manifests as 'political misuse.' (See e.g. EPA v EME Homer City Generation (2014))

Also from the link:

“Does the regulation, in operation, function as a clear rule? Or is it simply an excuse for the regulator to impose his or her will on the regulated firm or person? Sometimes discretion is explicit. Sometimes discretion comes in the application of a rule book thousands of pages long with multiple contradictory and vague rules.”

The error here is to presume that the people are 'at the mercy' of regulators, or otherwise 'helpless' to respond to regulatory measures perceived to be unwarranted, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

Again, the people are at liberty to compel their elected representatives to amend or repeal laws authorizing a given regulatory policy if that policy is believed to be applied capriciously by regulators, or otherwise not in accordance with the intent of the law; and the people may seek relief in state or Federal court, where the court will decide within the context of the law and applicable precedent if the regulator sought to impose his or her will on the regulated firm or person, or if the regulator's interpretation of the statute comports with the will of the lawmaking entity, and by doing so, the will of the people.

Consequently, there is no “4th Branch of Government,” the notion is nothing but an unfounded partisan contrivance.

The premise of the article fails because it's predicated on the errant proposition that regulators function absent oversight, without accountability, and independent of the will of the people – which is factually not the case.

For regulation to be proper and effective, it needs to be in clear language that people can understand. What we have now is ex post facto - bill of attainder regulatory fiats, which are open to abuse by either party in power.

The irony here is that you just used language that most people would not understand. It may be something that actually negates your premise

I am compelled to remain hopeful that Some People are still literate, even in today's dismal educational and cultural milieu.

Yes, some people are. But I think they have been hounded out of the public square. The Sons of Liberty are on the march and beware anyone who dare speaketh up

Really? I haven't seen any Sons of Liberty on the March, just mobs of Anarchists and BlackLivesMatter agitators.

They are a modern day equivalent of the bullies of the colonies

 

[boedicca]

For regulation to be proper and effective, it needs to be in clear language that people can understand. What we have now is ex post facto - bill of attainder regulatory fiats, which are open to abuse by either party in power.

The irony here is that you just used language that most people would not understand. It may be something that actually negates your premise

I am compelled to remain hopeful that Some People are still literate, even in today's dismal educational and cultural milieu.

Yes, some people are. But I think they have been hounded out of the public square. The Sons of Liberty are on the march and beware anyone who dare speaketh up

Really? I haven't seen any Sons of Liberty on the March, just mobs of Anarchists and BlackLivesMatter agitators.

They are a modern day equivalent of the bullies of the colonies

Who is?

 

[jwoodie]

The OP reads like a twelve year old libertarian wrote it, and the thread title is off base as well. Regulation is an elected entity, it is what our elected officials promote or ignore. I think anyone would know the difference between FDR and Reagan Clinton Bush? Regulation kept the American economy stable till imaginary economic euphoria decided regulation didn't matter till the great recession shouted 'control me, my individual liberty needs more funds or you'll all die.

The piece is too weak for much comment, but consider food without the FDA, air quality without the EPA, and Citizens United ended campaign reform, maybe the author sleep through our recent history. We live in a litigious society, the first time someone gets sick the same whiners will be suing government. Too funny. The Koch brothers puppet is not worth further consideration.

Perhaps you don't understand the difference between "regulation" and "regulatory bureaucracy?"

 

[boedicca]

The OP reads like a twelve year old libertarian wrote it, and the thread title is off base as well. Regulation is an elected entity, it is what our elected officials promote or ignore. I think anyone would know the difference between FDR and Reagan Clinton Bush? Regulation kept the American economy stable till imaginary economic euphoria decided regulation didn't matter till the great recession shouted 'control me, my individual liberty needs more funds or you'll all die.

The piece is too weak for much comment, but consider food without the FDA, air quality without the EPA, and Citizens United ended campaign reform, maybe the author sleep through our recent history. We live in a litigious society, the first time someone gets sick the same whiners will be suing government. Too funny. The Koch brothers puppet is not worth further consideration.

It's not at all surprising that you don't understand it.

Just sayin'.

 

[boedicca]

We have watched this dog and pony show before and it sucks. We need regulations or we become a third world hell hole of a small super rich and a huge poor population.

Do you know of a nation or society that became great with no regulations or with little regulation?

Not all regulations are beneficial, bub.

Case in point: The Epic Fail of the EPA.