To partially answer the question of why some people want smaller government, here are two examples.
Indiana Supreme Court: citizens have no right to resist unlawful police entry Short version: A police officer is within his rights to enter a home for any reason or no reason at all, while a homeowner is powerless to block or interfere in any with
(
Read more... )
On the cleaning claims: I'd have to investigate it more. Unfortunately neither article examines the environmental impacts of what was done before (the one about the TSP most glaringly, as it makes a fire-and-brimstone speech about the destruction of specialized labor and the fall of living standards back to pre-Industrial Revolution levels, while sneering with derision at the idea that "the environment" is more important than white shirts). Nor do they cite to a statute or regulation enforcing these changes.
Moreover, this doesn't necessarily answer the whole question. In fact, it beggars the question entirely. The posts you link presume an unstated conclusion - the environment is less important than thoroughly clean clothes, ergo regulators siding with the environment are bad. You'd have to demonstrate why clean clothes > environmental impact of cleaning clothes to prove that those regulations are bad. I think that's what the last post about what freedoms we protect was about - does freedom have inherent value, even if the outcomes it produces are bad?
Reply
Reply
Reply
Yes.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment