1st point is weak, 2nd is undeniably true, but the 3rd point is so lackluster it almost works against them

That axis is really filled to the brim with retarded dichotomies tbh

"plus this era's economy is so much more complex than the 1940s that federal agencies and their massive bureaucracy is almost completely necessary for proper regulation of our markets"

T. Has never read an economics book not given by his professor

Whatever you do, dont do anything crazy and build something like renewable energy and fast, efficient public transport trains

Also the first point in your above statement on climate change is undeniably true

Coal is a virtually limitless resource and the earth is currently carbon starved

Co2 causing emmisions is the exact opposite of the truth

Higher temperatures cause burn offs which release co2 as is attested to by co2 following rise in temp and not preceding it

Co2 thereby creates higher rates of plant growth which slowly cools the planet via absorbing energy from sunlight and transmuting it into calories

Global warming is propagandistic excuse to pull on the empathy of whites in a manner that convinces us to artificially cripple our industry capacity

Furthermore public transportation would not be an issue without zoning laws

@Major Slow its more about law than economics, but i appreciate the attempt to disregard federal agencies

Congress isnt specialized enough to be able to make nuanced regulation like the FCC, USDA, FDA, DT would be able to

Plus federal agencies are *technically* constitutionally sanctioned through the interstate commerce delegation

Not to mention how hard it is to measure the impact of certain agencies or policies like NEPA since it would, by nature, disuade certain other damaging policies

And the first point in the climate thing wasnt my response, it was the EPA's response in the supreme court case

Which generally gets countered with "our tech has gotten better over time so we cant necessarily trust temp. Readings in records pre-(whenever the manometer and thermometer were invented)"

Im not specialized in climate science though so im not gonna act like an authority on the subject

That would be for... federal agencies <:smugpepe:619749634402942998>

I dont necessarily disagree with any of this, but I think its quite apparent that these agencies take shits frequently.

And can just be bought out (e.g. EPA FDA)

The State Department (Jews), the CIA

They're hardly monitored for conduct, they'll go ob reckless spending adventures (Pentagon)

A lot of shit needs to be thrown out (and people hung, tbh)

I dont disagree with having federal agencies, I disagree with how they're run and who runs them. I think everyone, to a certain extent, is of this opinion.

definitely, federal agencies get away with congressional-level legislation while under the control of the executive branch

it's unconstitutional, and more checks and balances need to be put in place

maybe a new constitutional amendment dedicated to setting up a new branch of government to regulate federal agencies?

right now their de-facto check are US district courts, but they generally defer to the expertise of the federal agency, and are only reachable after their long, annoying ajudication process

that being said, things like the VA are necessary federal agencies

the FBI, although corrupt in a lot of cases, is pretty effective at handling interstate crimes

@El Julien

<:que:619647864817057832>

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2018/01/11/publics-globally-want-unbiased-news-coverage-but-are-divided-on-whether-their-news-media-deliver/

john stossel actually does a great breakdown of how overregulation kills us from the perspective of a libertarian business owner

let me see if i can find the vid

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TnfbcTzpaI

@Major Slow youd like this too

john stossel is one of my favorite journalists next to tim pool