Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
Deregulation in the name of less Government influence on industry has more often than not led to more problems for the average person. Sure we hear all the promises of lower rates, cheaper goods and more options for the consumer. The reality tends to be just the opposite.
Certainly regulation can go to far, but the notion of removing Government and leting market forces take over would destroy our way of life as we know it. Sure, it makes for a nice talking point come election time, but that's about it.
This is a muddy topic and I don't necessarily agree with your premise. When courts deem matters such as State limitations on civil unions or gay marriage to be in violation of the Constution (often State), they are deemed to be "activists" primarily because there's a large idiological block who don't agree with their findings regardless of the Constitution's intent.
The amount of legislation via the courts (ala Roe) is really very, very small, and had we not have had liberal courts...we'd still have segregation etc...The Constitution shouldn't be taken lightly, but it's also not perfect.
-spence
|
Lower prices and more options are not usually due to government influence but to private innovation and competition. The reality of government overregulation tends to raise prices and decrease options--e.g. price controls. And who is talking about removing government? Obviously, without government, there would be no market, indeed, no constitution--just chaos. Government is as natural as two people getting along. Human cooperation IS govenment. It's the UBERgovernment that over-restricts how we can get along.
The Constitution doesn't INTEND. It SAYS, and specifically what government CANNOT do, not what it can. If the PEOPLE, by election or amendment choose, so be it . . . the judges must abide that. But THEY are NOT the ones to choose.