John Stossel has a great way of cutting through the malarkey about regulations, which supporters of government intervention tell us must be imposed in order to save everything from all of us, and to save us from ourselves. In this piece, Stossel lays out why you can, indeed, love trees and animals but oppose over-regulation. Here’s an example.
Louisiana landowner Edward Poitevent wants to build homes and offices north of Lake Pontchartrain. He could provide safe high-ground housing to people eager to move away from areas that were flooded during Hurricane Katrina. But he is not allowed to build because the government decided 1,500 acres of his land should become a preservation area for a threatened species called the dusky gopher frog. None of these frogs currently live on his property. Poitevent told me, “The Fish and Wildlife Service has certified that the frog has not been seen in the state of Louisiana since 1967.”
Once there is a government rule or regulation, it rarely is rescinded, regardless of how absurd it is or whether there really is an issue to be addressed. Thank goodness, here in North Carolina, legislative leaders are assessing the regulatory web and are working on paring it back.
........As you post your comment, please conform to Right Angles's simple comment policy: we welcome all perspectives, but require that comments be both civil and respectful. If you wouldn't say it to a co-worker in front of your boss, it probably is not civil and respectful. We will delete any comment that fails this test and issue a warning to the poster. A second offense will result in a ban on commenting on this site. In sum, disagreements, arguments even, are welcome; abusive behavior is not. Thanks.
You must be logged in to post a comment.