Good. Keep the EPA out of everyone's business. In fact get rid of it entirely as it is unconstitional in the first place.

Since the rise of the neocons, I too have noticed a trend of farmers (like labor) voting against their best interest. I call it the "gay marriage is icky, and killing babies is bad" effect. They vote based on the ick factor issues, and not on whether or not their rep is really helping them out on issues that affect their lives every day. Case in point: Charlie Stenholm, voted out by the very farmers he saved with a huge, comprehensive federal farm bill the year before. Go figure.

jd0505,

Protecting you from yourself by means of theft and brute force is in your best interest?

He doesn't care about black puppets either.

Yeah, see, Mike N. - this is where I fall off the bandwagon with the Libertarians. I'm all for leave me alone and I'll leave you alone. By the way - that's not what the neocons stand for. They're more in the "leave us alone, and we'll tell you what to do" category. However, I think that a hands-off policy falls apart when it comes to environmental protection.

If the welfare system disappears, private organizations can step up and take over. If public schools no longer exist, private schools can step up and take over. But, if the government leaves the arena of environmental protection (kinda like they are, bit by bit), no one can step in and take over. Everyone just does what's best for them and their profit margin, and screw the guy on the next parcel of land over. Pretty soon no one has clean water, no one has clean air, but everyone's just a few cents richer. Yay.

That's why I can't support the libertarians on environmental protection. I don't see it as the government protecting me from myself (an argument I can believe for other social programs like welfare) - it's the government protecting me from the greedy, thoughtless people who are focused on the short-term gain, at the risk of long-term overall societal loss.

It's a tragedy of the commons thing.

*jumps off soapbox*

jd0505,

Libertarians believe in property rights. If you pollute my property (land, body, etc), you have violated my rights and therefore you are liable. The EPA and government regulation in general do more to make the problem worse. For a more thorough explaination, go here:

http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/pollution-solution.html

Mike - that's the problem. What you do on your land affects my land, sometimes in long term, irreversible ways. While it's great that I can sue you, you could declare bankruptcy and end up never making restitution. SO, I need the EPA to make sure you don't do something stupid in the first place.

As for your argument that the EPA is unconstitutional, it's nonsense. Sorry. It's almost, but not quite, as dumb as the arguments of the nutters who think the US is a Christian Republic.

The only constructive science respected by the Bush administration is intelligent design...which isn't science. Oh, yeah, I forgot political science, but that isn't science either. Destructive science is well funded, however.

original TREY,

How do you explain the fact that we have the EPA now and pollution only continues to get worse? Believe it or not, legislation and regulation isn't the solution to all problems.

Read the following:

http://www.isil.org/resources/lit/pollution-solution.html

original TREY said:

"SO, I need the EPA to make sure you don't do something stupid in the first place."

That is about as absurd as saying you need the DEA to prevent you from smoking pot.

"As for your argument that the EPA is unconstitutional, it's nonsense. "

Really? Show me where, specifically, the US Constitution mandates, even permits, the EPA.

Mike

1) Pollution gets worse... OK, here's the thing. We can have the agency and we can have the reg's. However, if you don't enforce them you might as well be pissing into the wind. Bush has relaxed the regs for a number of polluters and has killed EPA actions. So, pollution gets worse in some areas (coal fired electric plants for example). However, the auto and most industrial standards have helped... air is cleaner in LA for example now than it was in 1970 (or at least it was when Clinton was in office).

2) Again, enforcement of the regs. If it's not done then the reg is useless. As a side note, if the regs aren't enforced than having an agency is pretty moot as far as your concerned. You should be thrilled with all the pollution.

3) You're obviously a strict constructionalist which makes you mindnumblinging mentally inflexible. For one thing, the Constitution is a document that's open to interpretation of the judiciary. Secondly, the Congress has the power to enact laws that are specific implementations of items within the Constitution. I'm not an attorney so I can't tell you the specific linkage used to create the EPA. Possibly the ICC?

Are we done?

original TREY,

What is boils down to is you seem to think that everyone is dumber than you and therefore they need the nanny state to tell them what to do (by means of theft and force by the way). That has to be the most morally incomprehensible, egotistically evil mindset around.

You really do not understand economics or property rights... or even the constitution. Once you educate yourself, get back with me.

Mike - no, what it boils down to is that you're wrong. That's all. And yes, some people (not pointing fingers) DO need to be told not do certain things because their actions can cause harm to people they don't even see or care about. That's reality. MOST people don't think about how their actions may effect others.

While I don't think you're particularly bright or imaginative, I do think you could be once you pull the blinders off and quit thinking the world should be the way you want it to be SIMPLY BECAUSE YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE THAT WAY.

As for my understanding of the Constitution, I'll grant you I've not spent years studying it. However, from what I've seen of your opinions, I'll bet that Madison would give me the gold star over you in Constitutional Law 101.