(07-28-2011 04:23 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  Hambone (not going to copy post as it's getting long) - I was just looking for clarification. I know mines are more risky than most. In most cases like this there are probably people complaining about the opening of a plant, mine, etc. I'm sure it's nothing new. So that's why I wondered what's different about this case vs. just about any other industry opening up a mine, plant, etc.

I guess what I was getting at is, what do you do about it? The impression I get is that people (on this board) think the answer is less regulation. Which leads to the very thing that people are whining about - actual pollution that affects their lives. I don't know what's involved in this guy's company getting the permit in the first place.

I think it's more a litigation issue than a regulation issue.

My apoligies for misreading you... MOST jobs/projects only directly involve a few dozen or so people, but indirectly, perhaps thousands. MOST people can't see beyond the immediate hires... and there are usually MANY more people "around" than would be added... and protesting costs nothing. see below for the rest.

(07-29-2011 08:17 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(07-29-2011 01:25 AM)I45owl Wrote:  

(07-27-2011 04:46 PM)NIU007 Wrote:  As for the possible litigation, yes, I can see why he wouldn't want to fight those battles. But that seems to be more a question of problems with the courts accepting cases than with the regulations. If you remove regulations you'll still have people complaining. And you can't remove regulations simply to avoid that.

I'd tend to agree that some regulations are necessary. However, you should recognize that all of these people complaining seek to exploit regulatory power to gain power and achieve their ends. In many cases, those ends include terminating the industry in question. In the case of the nuclear industry, that is precisely the allegation that has been made about the head of the NRC - Gregory Jackzo.

Regulatory agencies provide the means by which industry can be shut down or made prohibitively expensive. They can and do shift the goalposts for industry - even gaining the license doesn't assure an operator of anything because the rules can change with a shift in the whims of the regulators or based on an electoral result.

Conceptually, you may want to separate the roles of cooperative regulation and antagonistic activists, but in practice, political pressure will nearly always work to shift regulatory roles to either (1) entrench corporations and enforce monopoly, or (2) use regulation as a tool to shut down certain industries. While the honest, impartial overseer might be the noble ideal, I thin that in practice most regulations and regulators ultimately do not reasonably advance the public interest.

Back to your point above, there are probably a considerable number or proporion of regulations that also explicitly limit industry liability.

I fully admit that in the past regulatory agencies became necessary to reign in bad actors in the market place...but...

In today's litigious climate with consumers having instant access to information, businesses that choose to practice dangerous and harmful business practices are really taking a giant risk. We are not living in the 1800's anymore. The risk of getting caught using dangerous business practices is really not worth the payoff today.

I have no problem with laws being in place to punish bad actors...I do however oppose the onerous governmental regulatory climate we now have in America. It simply is stifling industry in this country and is responsible for much of our industrial base leaving our soil for more friendly pastures. It also acts in many cases as a barrier to competition by making it almost impossible for new actors in the marketplace to be able to come in and compete with existing companies that are having to meet all these regulations. The start up costs are simply prohibitive and many companies use the regulations to their advantage to protect their markets.

Anyone can sue, and only a fool doesn't hire the best attorney he can afford before heading to court... even if you're looking for a summary judgement/dismissal... You go prepared to do battle because the clock (and the cash register) is ticking... not to mention the fact that "news" sources won't care that the case was thrown out (if that happens).

The PROBLEM we have is that Government is viewed as a deterrent to business rather than a facilitator. In Socialist countries, this isn't the case because they are the same thing, and you can't sue the government... In THIS country, we have a system that not only punishes bad actors, but punishes GOOD actors for unforseen consequences. Government regulations should not only protect consumers, but also companies. What is the point of getting government permissions if it doesn't protect you from things they missed?

I'll give you an example... and I'm not an attorney so I may be off somewhat, but this happens...
The FDA grants permission for a new drug/product. If a doctor prescribes the drug/product as permitted and something goes wrong, the doctor is protected and you can't really sue the FDA. You have to show the doctor DIDN'T use it as permitted, or that the company wasn't forthcoming in their studies or marketing. That doesn't really happen in most industries. Again, this only applies to things not used AS PERMITTED. Bankruptcy laws (not a proper use imo) and insurance (proper imo) protect the company from these other losses. I have no problem with "permits" including some payment to a "catastrophy" insurance fund for unforseen events... at least the cost to the business is then known, and the business and its owners aren't villified in the papers. The GOVERNMENT let them do it. People should be paid for their injuries, but NOT some blank check up to your "bankruptcy" limit if you lose, and some unknown legal expense even if you win.

THAT is regulation, IMO.

I point out that virtually every "mass-tort" claim was originally something ok'd by a Federal agency for its intended purpose. Silicone implants, Asbestos, Coal, Oil refining... you name it. MOST of these companies didn't knowingly or intentionally do anything wrong. The government should decide "this is okay", if you follow these rules... and I can change the rules as more or new infomation is available. If they follow the rules, any litigation should be against the government "insurance fund" and not against the business. The government (or their insurer) now has a stake in ensuring that things "start right" and "go right"... as opposed to politicians realizing that people, and not companies vote.

When the government seeks to engage in social engineering through "regulation", THEY should be on the hook for the consequences and NOT the regulated, provied that they did what they were told to do. Of course, that means the taxpayer is on the hook for the government's screw ups. I'm okay with that because we can vote.