As for "moderate," "conservative," "liberal," "extremist," etc., ... have become nothing more than buzz-words
Couldn't agree more. It is not "conservative" to foul the environment. Conservatives, you would think, would want to conserve resources like air, water and forests. What about fiscally conservative, gun-toting, environmentally conscious, social liberals like myself. We are, as X put it, Socialist Libertarians. Her modest proposal seems a bit theoretical and smacks a little of a utopian society. Good intentions, but I think it lacks the chaotic element that a successful governmental system needs. I've always maintained that a benevolent despot is probably the best system, if I'm the despot. But short of that ...
I would favor more "experimentation" in social engineering. Small pilot projects with sun-down laws. Proof-of-principle work. I think most laws and bureaucracies should have to recertify their functions every 5-10 years. Put the burden on those who want to promulgate those functions - the bureaucrats themselves. Why don't they have annual reviews? I have them. Show us how well you have done and we will make a judgement.
IMO, the stewardship of the Department of the Interior has been better than that of the Department of Agriculture as far as natural resources go. The forests are not crops, though some harvesting is possible. They are the property of the State. When the Agriculture department has issued permits, there has always been a wink-wink when it comes to collateral environmental damage. This was not proper cost accounting. Why lay $200k in roads to remove $100k in trees and $50k in salaries. There has been damage and a loss to the environment. Worth more than the trees. And there is a fiscal loss as well. |
