Deregulation and the Texas fertilizer plant explosion

[Skomoto]

I never said "since we dont have the law" blah blah blah. I'm saying that if the law isn't there, it can't be blamed.

Hold the people (ALL THE PEOPLE) accountable for their (in)actions. Have them serve as a warning. If Texas wants to enact regulations to prevent future incidents that's TEXAS' concern. Not a New Jersyan's, not a Californian's... a Texan's.

I'm sure there are people in New Jersey and California that have family members that live in Texas. Why would they not be concerned about their health?

[Naxere]

Tasteless cartoon, but they have every right to publish it.

[Laize]

What's the point of having a unified republic, in your mind?

Could probably ask the same of the European Union.

In my mind the federal government exists to facilitate interstate commerce and protect the interests of the American people. Things like pollution and transportation of hazardous materials clearly fall under that sphere. It is not, however, the place of the federal government to dictate what the individual states do for their own populace. There are far too many variables and while a state like California may believe X law is to the benefit of everyone (and it very well may be so), such a law still infringes on another state's (like Texas) right to self govern.

Things that, when performed in one state, cannot affect multiple states should not be considered the domain of the federal government.

---------- Post added 2013-04-29 at 06:53 PM ----------

I'm sure there are people in New Jersey and California that have family members that live in Texas. Why would they not be concerned about their health?

I think the better question is why the family members who live in Texas allowed this thing to happen. For a state so insistent on state's rights, they sure refused to exercise their right to self legislate.

[Daelak]

Could probably ask the same of the European Union.

In my mind the federal government exists to facilitate interstate commerce and protect the interests of the American people. Things like pollution and transportation of hazardous materials clearly fall under that sphere. It is not, however, the place of the federal government to dictate what the individual states do for their own populace. There are far too many variables and while a state like California may believe X law is to the benefit of everyone (and it very well may be so), such a law still infringes on another state's (like Texas) right to self govern.

Things that, when performed in one state, cannot affect multiple states should not be considered the domain of the federal government.

---------- Post added 2013-04-29 at 06:53 PM ----------



I think the better question is why the family members who live in Texas allowed this thing to happen. For a state so insistent on state's rights, they sure refused to exercise their right to self legislate.

Now I don't know all the details to this explosion, however whenever you are dealing with hazardous materials such as this, the ramifications of a spill, explosion, poisoning can definitely go beyond a state's borders.

I just heard their last OSHA or similar agency inspection was in 1986, which was 26 years ago...

[Grizzly Willy]

Could probably ask the same of the European Union.

In my mind the federal government exists to facilitate interstate commerce and protect the interests of the American people. Things like pollution and transportation of hazardous materials clearly fall under that sphere.

Like fertilizer and fertilizer related explosions?

[Laize]

Now I don't know all the details to this explosion, however whenever you are dealing with hazardous materials such as this, the ramifications of a spill, explosion, poisoning can definitely go beyond a state's borders.

I just heard their last OSHA or similar agency inspection was in 1986, which was 26 years ago...

Like I said, if something has the potential to have ramifications across state lines, that's one thing. In this case it would fall under the ATF to regulate the transport of hazardous materials and the EPA to ensure that there were no environmental risks posed to interstate bodies of water.

[Elegiac]

Could probably ask the same of the European Union.

In my mind the federal government exists to facilitate interstate commerce and protect the interests of the American people. Things like pollution and transportation of hazardous materials clearly fall under that sphere. It is not, however, the place of the federal government to dictate what the individual states do for their own populace. There are far too many variables and while a state like California may believe X law is to the benefit of everyone (and it very well may be so), such a law still infringes on another state's (like Texas) right to self govern.

Things that, when performed in one state, cannot affect multiple states should not be considered the domain of the federal government.

And we've seen just how "successful" that model of government is. Most of the south remains stricken by socioeconomic troubles and underfunded and crumbling infrastructure. Worse, states' rights are used as justification for legal discrimination.

The Federal model of government is, at best, a transitional one; once the back of local intransigence is effectively broken as it has been for the most part in the United States, a move should be made towards an increasingly unitary government.

[Laize]

Like fertilizer and fertilizer related explosions?

Well that depends. They weren't in the business of transporting hazardous materials and unless they sat on a river, aquifer or other body of water that had potential ramifications to Oklahoma or other border state there would be no reason for the federal government to bring the hammer down. If Texas' reckless behavior poses a threat to neighboring states that's one thing... but if they want liberty at the expense of safety and it doesn't affect anyone but Texas... that's their prerogative.

[Elegiac]

Well that depends. They weren't in the business of transporting hazardous materials and unless they sat on a river, aquifer or other body of water that had potential ramifications to Oklahoma or other border state there would be no reason for the federal government to bring the hammer down. If Texas' reckless behavior poses a threat to neighboring states that's one thing... but if they want liberty at the expense of safety and it doesn't affect anyone but Texas... that's their prerogative.

It's not. The people that suffered as a result were not just citizens of Texas, they were citizens of the United States. The Federal government has a vested interest in protecting its citizens from practices which result in foolishness like this.

[Laize]

And we've seen just how "successful" that model of government is. Most of the south remains stricken by socioeconomic troubles and underfunded and crumbling infrastructure. Worse, states' rights are used as justification for legal discrimination.

The Federal model of government is, at best, a transitional one; once the back of local intransigence is effectively broken as it has been for the most part in the United States, a move should be made towards an increasingly unitary government.

And what of the myriad of different cultures in the United States? How can you possibly say, with a straight face, that what's good for a heavily populated state like California is ubiquitously good for Alaska or Wyoming? Do you mean to suggest that everything that's good for Texas is good for New Jersey?

We may be a single nation of 320 million, but from coast to coast we are vastly different people with different ideologies, values and beliefs. You cannot claim that what is good for one group is good for another. That is why I support states' rights.

Imagine what would happen if someone went and told Italy "No no no you're doing it all wrong. Here, forget about everything you've done, you suck at it. Take Sweden's laws. They're MUCH better for you."

It's insulting as fuck, not to mention just plain wrong.

[Payday]

And what of the myriad of different cultures in the United States? How can you possibly say, with a straight face, that what's good for a heavily populated state like California is ubiquitously good for Alaska or Wyoming? Do you mean to suggest that everything that's good for Texas is good for New Jersey?

We may be a single nation of 320 million, but from coast to coast we are vastly different people with different ideologies, values and beliefs. You cannot claim that what is good for one group is good for another. That is why I support states' rights.

Not even in regards to safety regulation?

[Laize]

It's not. The people that suffered as a result were not just citizens of Texas, they were citizens of the United States. The Federal government has a vested interest in protecting its citizens from practices which result in foolishness like this.

And Texas doesn't have a vested interest in protecting Texans?

[Reeve]

Texas also had two major Texas City disasters in the last century that killed bunches of people.

[Kujako]

And Texas doesn't have a vested interest in protecting Texans?

Depends on the Texans you're talking about. James Richard "Rick" Perry seems concerned about the companies more then the citizens.

[Laize]

Not even in regards to safety regulation?

While it may be true that ANFO is just as explosive in Texas as it is in California, it still (in my mind) falls upon Texas to make sure its citizens are safe from companies that use it.

I'm simply hard pressed to to agree that it's the Federal government's job to concern itself with the everyday regulatory affairs that only affect a single state.

[Reeve]

I live in Texas, there is a Elementary School sandwiched between two liquor stores, with another across the street and an adults only store beside that.

While there is (little) danger of them exploding, I feel that they are more damaging to elementary schoolers over a longer period of time than this one off incident.

There are no zoning restrictions at all in Houston, which makes for some very strange neighborhoods.

[Elegiac]

And what of the myriad of different cultures in the United States? How can you possibly say, with a straight face, that what's good for a heavily populated state like California is ubiquitously good for Alaska or Wyoming? Do you mean to suggest that everything that's good for Texas is good for New Jersey?

From a legal and socioeconomic standpoint? Yes.

In the former case, the only time "culture" comes into conflict with the law is when local regions try to use "culture" as a means of perpetuating a myriad of stupid traditions, most of which involve discrimination. This is not, nor should it ever be acceptable.

In the latter, the cultural differences are not so great as to preclude generalizations based on anthropological and socioeconomic analysis.

We may be a single nation of 320 million, but from coast to coast we are vastly different people with different ideologies, values and beliefs. You cannot claim that what is good for one group is good for another. That is why I support states' rights.

Realistically the only time law and culture conflict is, generally, in cases where the latter is at fault.

Imagine what would happen if someone went and told Italy "No no no you're doing it all wrong. Here, forget about everything you've done, you suck at it. Take Sweden's laws. They're MUCH better for you."

Which is a vast oversimplification since under a unitary republic, both Sweden and Italy have input into the creation of that legislation.

[Laize]

Depends on the Texans you're talking about. James Richard "Rick" Perry seems concerned about the companies more then the citizens.

That may be true, but don't act like he's the only asshole politician that's ever lived. Texas always has the option of simply not re-electing him or (if he's bad enough) recalling him.

If they keep re-electing him, I fail to see why it should be our job to protect them from their own stupidity.

[Elegiac]

And Texas doesn't have a vested interest in protecting Texans?

Yeah? And what steps are they taking to solve it?

Other states and the Federal government are intelligent enough to understand that the inconvenience to business created by zoning laws and regular auditing and inspection is vastly outweighed by the reduction in risk and damage if the unthinkable occurs.

[Lenonis]

I don't think this is going off-topic but we'll see...

I think fundamental to this whole debate about regulation is whether or not you think business is inherently benevolent, malevolent, or neutral.

I, personally, view business in a pure form to be inherently malevolent. Sociopathic is more appropriate. Business has no ethics -- it exist solely to make a profit. If that profit making is done at the expense of the environment, or the people, then so be it. The only times business engage in "charity" is to fundamentally make profit. Whether that is in tax deductions, goodwill, brand recognition, etc. The only times business don't completely decimate their surroundings (whether that is people or the environment) they only do so because they want to keep making profits in the long term. To me, a completely free market is a living nightmare where business destroy everything around them to make a quick buck and jump ship when they've gotten all the blood from the stone.

Now, to others, like Laize, business are either inherently good, or if nothing else neutral. Perhaps a product of their environment. Perhaps they look at them solely as employers and drivers of the economy while completely ignoring their fundamental goal of making profits. I don't know -- I don't subscribe to this viewpoint so I can hardly articulate it.

If you view business as I do, you view regulations as necessary to protect society from the sociopathic nature of business. IF you view business as good/neutral, then you view regulations as bad things that just hamper a business' ability to exist and grow.

It's a debate that is likely to never be solved.