Environmental regulations and individual rights
Majority rule is legitimate only within the boundaries of an individual’s natural rights. The government may properly legislate on whether cars should drive on the right or left side of the road. But few would view the government’s commands as legitimate if it allowed only those who voted for it in the last election to drive.
Is it any different with environmental regulations? Some say there should be a special rule in that context: A collectivist we-are-all-in-this-together approach that gets honor roll grades in theory but often fails in practice.
Just as it is elsewhere, environmental regulations force everyone to adopt one view among many reasonable ones. It matters not that people have different views on economics, development, and so on. When government legislates on a matter, it has the final word.
And, just as it is in other areas, politically powerful insiders with the incentive to establish barriers to entry may well do so under the guise of protecting the public health. As Professor Todd Zywicki recounts, the Occupational Health and Safety Administration’s promulgation of cotton dust standards for textile mills effectively prevented the creation of new smelting plants. This led to increased profits for existing plants—and higher costs for everyone else.
Thus, even in the arena of environmental regulations, one should be wary of the dangers of government overreach. Often times, the best way to protect the environment is by respecting individual rights.
What to read next
Shed a (crocodile) tear for Luke Skywalker today, as Mark Hamill’s much ballyhooed Autograph Law is set to be undone and reformed by the same California officials who made the mistake to pass it in the first place. AB 228 has arrived at the Governor’s desk, and in all likelihood will be signed into law any day.
Our new flagship publication, Sword&Scales, offers 16 pages of news and information to bring you up close to the vital work of our legal team. Our ardent defense of the right to own and use private property takes center stage in the inaugural issue. It’s at the core of our mission in the nation’s courts.
On Thursday, in Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Mansky, PLF filed this reply brief in support of its cert petition to the Supreme Court of the United States. In this case, we’re representing Minnesota voters in a First Amendment challenge to a ban on political apparel at polling places.
The Daily Journal published my column on California Cannabis Coalition v. City of Upland, recently decided by the California Supreme Court. As the op-ed points out, the ruling undermines Proposition 218’s requirements that all new taxes at the local level need voter approval.
Minnesota bans political apparel at polling places across the State. The government interprets “political” broadly: the ban applies to shirts with classic American phrases such as “Liberty” or “Don’t tread on me,” as long as those phrases appear alongside a tea party logo — no matter how small.
Sunday marks the 230th anniversary of the signing of the Constitution of the United States. Pacific Legal Foundation celebrates Constitution Day this year with a column about a Founding Father and signer of the Constitution who now stars in the Broadway hit musical, Hamilton. We also use the opportunity to remind our federal legislators about the importance of the separation of powers outlined in the Constitution. The opinion piece will run in newspapers from coast to coast this weekend.