Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Welcome to Slider's Dugout -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pogohere who wrote (18487)	8/6/2009 12:23:44 PM
From: Oblomov	1 Recommendation Respond to of 50070

Agree completely with that statement and the conclusions. You may be familiar with the concept of regulatory preemption. In short, when a regulatory agency says, for example, that a product is "safe", or that a specific level of emitted pollutant is "safe", then it preempts tort claims. A plaintiff might not have standing since an agency engaged in due process. There is much precedent for this in US law. The answer, IMO, is to be very careful and specific about enacting regulations, doing so only when the social benefits far outweigh the costs. Regulations requiring seat belts in cars are an example of this.