How to stop the government from regulating

Travis

Misanthrope of the Mountains
Travis
Joined
Mar 31, 2007
Messages
24,133
It seems that some people just can't stand the EPA telling billionaires to stop putting their barrels of toxic waste in trees near children's playgrounds. They just don't care about the squirrel/frogs it creates that shoot off acorns with their laser eyes. And while that incident was solved by building an ill advised monorail numerous other billionaires still suffer! So much so that Charles Murray, who wrote The Bell Curve, has devised a strategy to end government regulation. Sue it into obsolesce.

Yes, he has created a plan called the Madison Fund. This fund would then subsidize the legal costs for untold numbers of Americans to launch lawsuit after lawsuit at the EPA, FDA, OSHA, EEOC, USDA, ATF, etc until they can no longer function and would have to fold up and stop.....er EPAing. “Even the largest government agency cannot afford to carry a large number of small legal cases that are strung out for as long as the law permits. Goliath cannot win against hundreds of Davids.”

So, who will pitch in to try and stop the EPA from keeping Americans from attaining prosperity? Why billionaires of course.

Who pays for all this? Pointing to the emergence of “many billion-dollar-plus private fortunes over the last three decades,” Murray suggests that the Madison Fund could get started “if just one wealthy American cared enough to contribute, say, a few hundred million dollars,” or if “a dozen wealthy Americans cared enough to share the initial costs among themselves.”
Click to expand...

That's right. This act of civil disobedience to try and make it so people can finally make money in America will be subsidized by billionaires who presumably made all their money in freetopia libertarian paradises like Sweden and Germany. Certainly not in America, land of the oppressive EPA, FDA and USDA.

Oh, and there is more. He also sees as a side project the creation of “occupational defense funds” where trade groups would pool resources to serve as insurance against regulators. In the event of a federal inspection of a business establishment, such funds could cover the fines when they are found to not be meeting codes.

If this sounds like an end run around democracy, well it is. But that is okay because, says Murray, business will just police its own. Because that always worked in the past!
 
No, unelected regulators passing laws like dictators (go to jail for violating their dictation) is the end run around democracy. So sayeth those who support it!
It's good precisely because the direct politics, i.e. democracy, is removed as a concern. "We don't (i.e. no longer) have to consider other impacts!" squealeth one such regulator, after Obama was elected.
 
Last edited:
Interesting that a conspiracy to stop government from doing what we elected it to do is not generating much chatter.
 
Travis said:
Interesting that a conspiracy to stop government from doing what we elected it to do is not generating much chatter.
Click to expand...

If you elect to create an apparatus that cannot survive people pursuing legal remedy than you get what you deserve.
 
So the right has finally found its solution to the evils of government, in the form of a strategy spearheaded by a dangerous religious cult and co-opted by the author of a book that advances racial theories of intelligence.
 
BobTheCoward said:
If you elect to create an apparatus that cannot survive people pursuing legal remedy than you get what you deserve.
Click to expand...

Which apparatus would survive this technique? It's exploiting the system.

maxpower1227 said:
So the right has finally found its solution to the evils of government, in the form of a strategy spearheaded by a dangerous religious cult and co-opted by the author of a book that advances racial theories of intelligence.
Click to expand...

Indeed. Following Scientology in blackmailing government agencies with the litigious version of a DDoSA is asking for serious backlash on top of being morally and intellectually bankrupt.
 
BobTheCoward said:
If you elect to create an apparatus that cannot survive people pursuing legal remedy than you get what you deserve.
Click to expand...

How do you deal with an unelected apparatus circumventing the government regulations set by the people's government?

I work within a legal office - the costs of litigation are large, and would likely exceed the costs of either paying the fine or complying with the regulations the litigants are trying to circumvent.

The other bit is simply, how do you spin the lawsuits in the court of public opinion so that you're the good guy? "Sure, the toxic waste we stored got into the ground water, contaminating the aquifer and rendering three states without a safe source of drinking water, or water for farmers, but Company X was able to hire 10 more people and made record profits! What are you? Some sort of left wing, commie tree-hugger?"
 
Moral and ethical issues aside...you've got to admit it's actually a fairly brilliant bastardization of the system as a means to an end. Points for creativity if nothing else...scary that it could work.
 
BobTheCoward said:
If you elect to create an apparatus that cannot survive people pursuing legal remedy than you get what you deserve.
Click to expand...

They are not seeking legal remedy. They are seeking to overwhelm the system with BS lawsuits they don't even plan on winning.
 
maxpower1227 said:
So the right has finally found its solution to the evils of government, in the form of a strategy spearheaded by a dangerous religious cult and co-opted by the author of a book that advances racial theories of intelligence.
Click to expand...

It's ironic that the "evils of government" means "we're not in charge" to the Repressives. If they were running things they'd be pitching a major hissy fit about this.
 
Travis said:
They are not seeking legal remedy. They are seeking to overwhelm the system with BS lawsuits they don't even plan on winning.
Click to expand...

Lawyers can get disbarred for doing this. If its part of a known conspiracy, that disbarment will happen quickly.
 
Travis said:
It seems that some people just can't stand the EPA telling billionaires to stop putting their barrels of toxic waste in trees near children's playgrounds. They just don't care about the squirrel/frogs it creates that shoot off acorns with their laser eyes. And while that incident was solved by building an ill advised monorail numerous other billionaires still suffer! So much so that Charles Murray, who wrote The Bell Curve, has devised a strategy to end government regulation. Sue it into obsolesce.

Yes, he has created a plan called the Madison Fund. This fund would then subsidize the legal costs for untold numbers of Americans to launch lawsuit after lawsuit at the EPA, FDA, OSHA, EEOC, USDA, ATF, etc until they can no longer function and would have to fold up and stop.....er EPAing. “Even the largest government agency cannot afford to carry a large number of small legal cases that are strung out for as long as the law permits. Goliath cannot win against hundreds of Davids.”

So, who will pitch in to try and stop the EPA from keeping Americans from attaining prosperity? Why billionaires of course.



That's right. This act of civil disobedience to try and make it so people can finally make money in America will be subsidized by billionaires who presumably made all their money in freetopia libertarian paradises like Sweden and Germany. Certainly not in America, land of the oppressive EPA, FDA and USDA.

Oh, and there is more. He also sees as a side project the creation of “occupational defense funds” where trade groups would pool resources to serve as insurance against regulators. In the event of a federal inspection of a business establishment, such funds could cover the fines when they are found to not be meeting codes.

If this sounds like an end run around democracy, well it is. But that is okay because, says Murray, business will just police its own. Because that always worked in the past!
Click to expand...

It worked for the Co$ against the IRS.
 
Wouldn't openly stating their purpose in this fashion make it simple to have them found to be vexatious litigants, and force them to get court approval before they could bring any more suits?
 
TragicMonkey said:
Wouldn't openly stating their purpose in this fashion make it simple to have them found to be vexatious litigants, and force them to get court approval before they could bring any more suits?
Click to expand...

That would have to be found of thousands of people. In this plan, the suits are brought by a huge number of people individually, simply bankrolled by this fund to do so.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom