Why can't President Obama regulate guns, or ban them altogether, under an executive order?
I recently heard a lecture from a retired law professor and he explained the executive order in a way that I understood. He said that it basically falls under prosecutorial discretion. Think of a cop stopping speeding cars. He/She can't possibly stop every speeder. There aren't enough cops in the world and there isn't enough time to ticket every infraction. Police officers choose to ticket the worst offenders instead of the car that is going just over the speed limit.The same rule applies to prosecutors. They might get 1000 cases a month but they only have the time to try 100 a month so they will naturally try the best cases and the worst offenders.Executive order is just prosecutor discretion. Obama famously made some executive orders about immigration. He knows that there are 11 million illegal immigrants in the US and congress has only given him the budget for so many immigration agents. He is telling those agents who they should focus on. The controversial part is that he also told the immigrants who he would have his agents focus on and that if they weren't a focus, they could get a drivers license and a work permit for a certain number of years.All of this shows that the president can't ban guns on his own. If the congress banned guns, then the president can choose who his agents will focus on prosecuting. However he can't make laws just like the police officer can't choose the speed limit on the road he/she monitors.
Is more government regulation of business a good idea?
In general I think the answer is "yes". It seems that the rich in this country have convinced a lot of the poor that less regulation and taxes is "good for them". Which is totally insane if you think about it. A large part of what caused the 2008 financial collapse and recession is lack of government regulation over banks. That's not to say it's 100% "the banks fault either". There's a lot of fingers to be pointed around at this last recession. People got loans that had no right to be getting them. Then were house flippers and other clowns we could point our fingers at. The long and the short of it though is BANKS played a huge role in the collapse. Why/how you might be asking? It was a lovely system based on greed as far as the banks were concerned. Banks would loan out money to people with little to no money (sometimes people that they knew couldn't pay it back just with their income alone). Why did they do this? For years the real estate market was going up, so people would simply sell the house for 20, 30, 40 50 thousand plus more than they bought it for a couple years later. The person that bought it would pocket a nice 20 thousand and the bank would pocket money too all on the expectation that the real estate market would "never go down". The banks and everyone involved in housing were all getting rich off a bubble that would someday collapse. Of course regulations needs to be placed on banks so this kind of thing won't happen again. Of course the housing market debacle is just one example of businesses getting away with way too much. Food as you point out is another issue. Companies seem to be able to do all kinds of sick things with our food and then without very much accountability.
Does it go against the Second Amendment that automatic weapons and grenades are banned?
Does it go against the Second Amendment that automatic weapons and grenades are banned?A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. -2nd Amendment to the US ConstitutionAutomatic weapons and grenades are Arms. Yes, it’s unconstitutional.Though technically, they are not banned. NFA 34 limits access through paperwork and taxing. This allows astute banners to claim “They’re not really banned”, while ignoring the fact that excessive regulation and fines are used to enforce a de-facto ban.This is a favorite tactic of Banners. If they can’t ban something outright, they’ll restrict, register, and tax it so heavily that the item is functionally impossible to own for normal people.
Why does the government regulate health care?
The traditional answer by economists is that the market outcome is inefficient due to adverse selection and moral hazard, and therefore government regulations can improve market outcomes. These issues were first brought up in 1965 in a paper by Kenneth Arrow on Uncertainty and the welfare economics of medical care, now one of the most widely cited papers in economics.[1]Moral hazard means that that people's behavior changes when they become insured because they don't pay the full costs. They may take more risks and opt for pricier medical treatments. This means that the market outcome will lead to inefficient over-consumption.Adverse selection means that if insurance companies are unable to distuingish high-risk consumers from low-risk consumers, low-risk consumers will be left without insurance. Because both low-risk and high-risk clients will pay the same premiums for insurance, insurance will be too expensive for the low-risk clients, who will cancel their policies. As more and more low-risk consumers cancel, insurance premiums will rise higher and higher, until only high-risk consumers are left insured. The market outcome will be inefficient, because low-risk consumers will be left without insurance. Government regulations can improve this market outcome by requiring everyone to be insured, or by providing insurance or medical care directly.Not all economists agree with these justifications:The critique of the moral hazard argument is that government regulations generally don't reduce moral hazard: "Almost no one even pretends that governments do anything to mitigate it."[2]There are several critiques of the adverse selection argument: Empirically, there is evidence that selection is actually advantageous, rather than adverse, because risk-averse people tend to buy more insurance.[3] In addition, some economists believe insurance companies can in fact discriminate based on risk, with medical histories, genetics, and medical examinations. By banning discrimination based on risk, some government regulations can bring about adverse selection when it otherwise would not exist.[1] krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/28/health-care-is-not-a-bowl-of-cherries/[2] econlog.econlib.org/archives/2009/07/a_closer_look_a.html[3] healthcare-economist.com/2008/01/30/insurance-markets-and-advantageous-selection/
Why do government allow some monopolies to exist?
Governments allow monopolies in situations where competition would lead to ruinous competition, extremely inefficient duplication, massive confusion or highly undesirable social outcomes. Common examples include:Taxation - although Mafia-style organizations do try to run in parallelPolice - although private security companies do existMilitary - although private security companies can mess around in other people’s countriesElectricity transmission cables - but not the power stations themselvesRail transport networks - but not the trains themselvesPost - nobody would serve remote populations if profit was the only motiveWater supply and sewage networks - but not the water supply itself, where fake “competition” often leads to bad outcomes anywayRadio frequency spectrum allocation, street naming, internet address allocation, land zoning and allocation - because otherwise there would be chaosIssuing of licenses for driving and certain professions - because quality control is critical for some tasksOfficial communication with other governments
Does the Government have any control over the economy?
People blame the President (Bush this time) about a slow economy, but is there anything he can really do, either to change it, or to have caused it in the first place? I thought the economy was just about how much we as citizens buy and sell products.
Why is collecting rainwater illegal in some states?
I was kind of shocked at the number of Internet articles I've found (having just googled it) claiming that rainwater harvesting is "illegal." But on closer inspection, I find they are mostly repeats of each other, all making the same exaggerated claim, without citing any facts. Rainwater harvesting is not illegal. It was heavily restricted in Colorado, Washington and Utah until 2009, but all three states have since relaxed their bans. In six or seven other states, rainwater harvesting is regulated -- you have to obtain a permit, which is in most cases is about making certain that your harvesting equipment doesn't contaminate groundwater -- but not illegal. (You have to obtain permits to construct houses or drive automobiles, but that doesn't make people claim such activities are "illegal.") The guy in Colorado who was jailed for 30 days in 2012 had been denied his permit, but went ahead and built three giant reservoirs anyway -- in other words, his real offence was defying the state regulatory agency. Anyway. The theory behind regulation of rainwater harvesting is simple: water falling from the sky is public property, not private property, and belongs in the water table where it can restore diminished streams and reservoirs. Those who collect it privately are "hoarding" it. Of course the opposite theory is: a person who uses rainwater first is consuming less public water. The Internet, not being subject to any kind of screening or editing, is a great place to plant and spread misinformation for political purposes. Re-read any of those "rainwater collecting is illegal" articles and you'll note the political spin, which is a first hint that the article is exaggerated. Here is a link to one of the more balanced ones: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/...
Liberalism? Conservative? What do these really mean?
Wow...good job! Pretty much sums it up and yeah...prepare to be attacked with namecalling. I'm sure they are on their way!