07-19-2015, 02:45 PM
(07-19-2015, 01:52 PM)SunsetBengal Wrote: I completely understand your reasoning, though I see that logic as a bit imperialistic. When decisions that effect a great number of people, are made behind a veil of secrecy, it leads to the question of why. And if we're talking about putting additional restrictions on industries that employ many people, it can lead to a strong feeling of resentment toward the government. Especially if those industries simply pack up, and go to another country.
Then what? The environment is still being damaged, maybe even more so, in an unregulated manner, and lots of Americans no longer have jobs..
I get the argument being made here, but I have two problems with the argument. One is that it sounds very much like the "it's too difficult to do so we shouldn't even try" stance. I'm not much for that attitude. The other problem I see with this is the argument of "no one else is doing the right thing so why should we?" Leaders take appropriate risks. Leaders do what needs to be done, not what everyone else is doing. Leaders are those that do the thing that may not be the most comfortable. If we are truly going to be leaders in the world, if we want to walk the walk of being the best country on earth, then how can we submit to that argument?
I know, and indeed subscribe to, many viewpoints against the hyper-regulatory stance that the government has taken on some things. I believe the private sector should be taking these actions on their own and the government, instead of making laws about it, should incentivize the innovation and implementation of solutions. But the arguments you provide are, to me, not the arguments of leaders.
