Stossel reports on the economics of the federal minimum wage.
Posts Tagged ‘Federal regulations’
The United People firmly hold that the government needs to protect peoples’ lives, property, and freedom from one another. In order to do that, the government must regulate the environment. However, though it is very easy to draw the line of lives over property, drawing the line between environmental groups’ freedom and someone else’s property rights is a different matter. Let’s illustrate with a few examples.
There is a village in China, called the ‘Cancer Village’, because 73.1% of deaths are caused by cancer. The village’s main source of water, the Laza River, is polluted upstream by a government owned mining corporation, the Dabaoshan Mining Company. This leads to a shortage of water for the villagers to drink, and poisonous crops for the farmers.
The United People would solve this type of problem by regulating air, land, and water, with the guideline of protecting one person’s life over another person’s property. In this case, scientific evidence clearly shows that many of the deaths in the village are caused by cancer, and can be linked to the cancerous river. The United People would then place limitations on the offending company, and enforce those limitations by taking away the company’s land if it fails to cooperate.
However, in cases such as the Clean Air Act, the United People would require extensive research and double blind experiments from multiple private institutions over several years to prove that such an act is necessary. Also notice that in the Clean Air Act, research was proposed with restrictions at the same time – educating and deciding in the same piece of legislation. Such an approach is both naive and counter intuitive. The United People firmly hold that such decisions hurt the economy and American lifestyles(as they require private institutions to allot more resources to processes that do not earn either the consumer or the producer any profit), and should only be made after extensive research, or during a national emergency. Since neither situation had arisen prior to the passing of the Clean Air Act, the United People oppose it.
Another reason the United People oppose over-zealous environmental regulation, is that we as a nation simply do not have enough information to make such large decisions. Several examples illustrate this point. As recently as the 1990s, scientists believed in global cooling, but now they believe in global warming. Proponents of the global warming movement cite things such as ‘scientific consensus’ as basis for their argument… but so did global cooling proponents. The problem is that human beings have just not been recording data long enough to make any sort of regulatory decision yet. The United People does not oppose regulation in and of itself – but it does oppose blind regulation, such as what is going on today.
Another case of human failure in environmental knowledge are Biosphere 2 and BIOS-3. In both cases, humans attempted to create a miniature environment on a small scale, and to regulate it themselves. In the case of biosphere 2, the experiments were failures. The first mission lasted two years, but only with oxygen injections from outside, and the humans inside constantly reported hunger due to scarcity of food. The second mission dissolved prematurely due to management conflicts.
In BIOS-3, the longest experiment was only about half a year, and dried meat was imported from the outside to support the inhabitants.
So to conclude; mankind is simply not prepared to regulate or understand a small environment, much less the global environment. And because of this, the United People is extremely skeptical of environmental regulations without scientific evidence that provides a direct link between cause and effect.
Affirmative action and hate crime legislation are both designed to eliminate racism and discrimination, and they both fail.
Affirmative action essentially means forcing a business to hire party 1 instead of party 2 for the job, even if party 2 is more qualified for the job, simply because party 1 is in a minority group. People may think this will eliminate racism in the business world, but it does not. Not only does this type of law interfere with the rights of the employer, it interferes with the rights of the employed.
If you think about it, it’s just creating a new racism, only instead of the racism being against minorities, it is against majorities. So if you are a majority class person who has worked hard at a business a long time, and your employer was planning on promoting you to a supervisor position because of your qualifications, he could potentially be forced to promote a less qualified minority class person instead, due to affirmative action. Affirmative action does not eliminate racism, it promotes racism.
Hate crime legislation allows a party 1 to be punished more severely if the person he commited the crime against a party 2 that is part of a minority. This is supposedly designed to prevent crimes against minority parties. However, a person cannot be tried for motivation. Not only does it waste tax dollars to try to ‘percieve’ party 1’s motiviations; it is also immoral. A person should not be tried for their motivation, they should be tried for their crime. If party 1 is thoroughly convicted of killing someone in cold blood, then party 1 should be given the appropriate penalty. The fact that not all party 1s who are convicted of this crime are given the appropriate penalty shows that something is fundamentally wrong with our judicial methods.
The fundamental flaw with this type of legislation is that it treats American citizens with different levels of care, which actually causes the very thing it is trying to prevent. This unequal treatment is not only immoral, but is also unconstitutional: “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States(…) nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” And that is why the future United People party will not support any hate crime or affirmative action legislation.