Forum Post: more regulation for corps, less for humans
Posted 12 years ago on Nov. 27, 2011, 8:24 p.m. EST by warriorjoe7
(232)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Why can't we have a system where federal government gets both bigger and smaller at the same time.
Less regulation on humans... that should be up to the states and more local governments. It makes sense because individual's decisions have more impact on the people that are closer in proximity to them. If you want to live in an area where there is no alcohol or abortions then move to an area where these are illegal. If you want to live in an area where you can (or can't) have gay marriage then move to that area. If you want to live in an area where marijuana is legal then move to that area.
More regulation on corporations. This makes sense because corporation's decisions largely impact everyone in the system. IE the environmental protections needs to be regulated and anything else that is subject to tragedy of the commons.
You do realize that there are already many, many more regulations on businesses than on individuals?
That is exactly how the system was set up to start off
Until the corporatiosn figured out how to get their people in office... Clarence Thomas, formerly of monsanto, allows living things to be patented (GMO foods.) Dick Cheney of Halliburton pushes for war (and his company gets the most lucrative contracts that benefit from the war.) The list goes on and on.
It seems like that would be getting back to the basics of what our forefathers were talking about. The concept of letting the states take care of what they can or should, and the federal government would handle the bigger issues, like foreign relations and protecting our borders. I can agree on that.