More Republicans for states' rights
 

Maybe there is no right standard. I think there are minimum standards that everyone -- well, all consumers -- should want. In some areas -- say, with fish in California -- perhaps the consumers want even safer food, and are willing to pay the price. So be it. If the federal government is not the captive of corporate interests,* then there's every reason to think that the federal government will get it pretty nearly right, and that you won't see these issues in state legislatures. And you should trust Congress to set minimums because something is better than nothing at all. See Upton Sinclair. Millions of Japanese can't be wrong, can they?

* I know, but please suspend your disbelief until the end of this post.

eta: Sidd has my proxy.

Time to Boycott Dominos (again)?
 

Pfft. Collateral damage.

The idea is to pressure them into telling SD's gov't that their business is being harmed because of their dumbass actions, and they will take their tax payments off somewhere else if the SD gov't continues it's horrible ways, TYVM.

I think it's stupid, but most things like that are stupid. Embargoes against countries we don't like harm the inhabitants more directly than they harm the gov't, but the gov't ultimately wants to keep the inhabitants happy so they don't revolt, so we do it.

More Republicans for states' rights
 

I can't believe you and Sidd are getting into this argument. Of course states can impose stricter regulations, and of course they cannot soften federal regulations. Counties can make stricter regulations, and so can cities. Any other system just wouldn't be practical. New Mexico (or Lincoln County) can't have stricter beef inspection laws because their heat makes beef spoil quicker? Now you have dragged me into it.

th
 

Do you mean the USDA?

It is, FWIW, quite an incredibly untrustworthy department when it comes to food safety/nutritional information.

More Republicans for states' rights
 

Since we are all agreeing with each other (you, me, and Ty -- quite the trifecta), it's not really an argument.

You should argue with Burger. He's one of your co-partisans, not mine.

More Republicans for states' rights
 

I am a big believer in the free market because it does a great job of making markets more efficient (it allocates resources the most efficiently). The best way to provide cheap and quality products to consumers is with a free market. Command economies, and their progency like subsidies and tariffs suck. However, there needs to be regulations to protect health and safety of both consumers and workers, because that is one place the market ain't so great. Free Markets also doesn't address externalities very well. Kalamazoo can elect to protect is citizens more than than the Federal government, but it cannot lessen the federal protections, nor can the federal government stop Kalamazoo from trying to give further protection to their citizens.

That pretty much sums it up doesn't it Sidd?

More Republicans for states' rights
 

1) Try that on the free exercise/establishment clauses.

2) Let's get back to the reality here, which Spanky's post misses. We're talking about labeling requirements for meat and other products in interstate commerce. This is not costless--companies are potentially required to comply with 50 different state laws, even though they have, say, one production facility. Can it be done? Sure, but at rather substantial expense. Why do you think the Clean Air Act contains a provision limiting emissions requirements to either those adopted by California or those adopted by EPA. Do you really want to have cars that you can drive only in Minnesota? It's not an easily dismissed problem. Sounds great to have higher standards some place, but it's not costless.

More Republicans for states' rights
 

Why should 51% of the representative be able to tell Kalamazoo to have at least x level of protection, but 51% can't tell them to have more than x level of protection, particularly when provided x level of protection imposes costs on other people, namely those doing the protecting?

More Republicans for states' rights
 

Um, right, but then the company can choose to sell only in certain states. And I don't think the ban would necessarily be on *using* the products in a particular state -- I think it's more on *buying* the product. I bought my car in Texas and brought it to CA. I'm sure if I brought some canned food with me from Texas, and it isn't labelled in accordance with CA standards, I can still eat it here -- but I may not be able to sell it.

States who have totally wackadoo labeling requirements will find that their consumers face higher prices and have less choice. The market will make the state modify its laws, right?

This is kind of getting similar to the boycott/embargo thing.

More Republicans for states' rights
 

I agree with Sidd (that's what "Sidd has my proxy" means) and I agree with you. However, Burger disagrees with all of us.

More Republicans for states' rights
 

But leaving aside the morality question, his position is totally impractical - let alone the states rights implications.

More Republicans for states' rights
 

Didn't I bring this up as a states' rights issue in the first place? Christ. I believe it was something to the effect of Republicans care more about corporate donors than about states' rights. Someone quote me so Spanky can see.

More Republicans for states' rights
 

Without looking, I think you said, "What about states' rights? Jeebus! Republicans care more about corporate donors than about states' rights." Then there was some witty double-entendre about meat-packing.

More Republicans for states' rights
 

Puh-leaze. (a) I never would have said "Jeebus" and (b) the packing of meat is serious business. I do not joke about it.

Packing veggies, maybe. But not meat. Especially not beef.

Actually, the title (MY title -- mine!) kinda says it all.

I guess Wal-Mart won't be able to have a store in Domino's Pizza Village
 

th
 

It can do so, at least under the prevailing interpretation of the commerce clause, but _should_ is a whole different matter.

There are some good policy arguments for the doctrine of preemption.

S_A_M

th
 

True. But the tricky sales guy has gone the way of large, sophisticated schemes which figure out the demographics on who can most easily be preyed upon. Another reason I'm not sympathetic to companies "unduly restricted" by these laws is because these companies want to do their dirty work and leave behind a bunch of swindled people in the hands of the state, which will have to deal with the fallout, like evictions, welfare, and sometimes a bunch of blue hairs phoning state agencies bitching. The people swindled are dumb and now they have financial problems. Nobody except the swindler benefits from Mr. Trickery leaving a trail of retarded poor people in his wake.

Retarted poor people. Just what we need more of. (Possible board motto?)

More Republicans for states' rights
 

How is it impractical to create one federal rule to which everyone trading in interstate commerce in a particular good must comply? The opposite is impractical. Even the EU realized that.

th
 

Maybe we should encourage extreme swindling to people below child-bearing age? And cut off aid. So they starve to death, and don't breed and stuff.

Because that might benefit society -- weeding out the stupid.

When it's old people, it just increases costs for everyone.

More Republicans for states' rights
 

Under that rubric, we should definitely federalize all insurance law. And all health and safety laws -- businesses operate in more than one area, guy. And building codes -- keeping up with all the state and local ones is burdensome for large builders. And tort liabilities as applied against companies, as well as individuals who travel a lot. Actually, criminal liabilities there too -- I mean, I fuck a 14-y-o in CA, and it's statutory rape, but in TX, it's not? How the hell am I supposed to keep track of that stuff? And what happens if I go to, like, Florida? I think we have a facility there. And maybe Connecticut. Totally impractical. I need uniformity.

And for much the same reasons (i.e., my convenience), abortion law should be federal. And marriage. Who knew some places you have to get blood tests, but other places not? Jeez.

Are you, like, not at all supportive of states' rights and a libertarian? Interesting mix.

Oh, he's just stirring the pot, isn't he?

More Republicans for states' rights
 

Yes, it does. We are in agreement. It's unclear why you are trying to argue with me, when that is so obvious.

More Republicans for states' rights
 

Have you had to get your car smog-checked yet?

And yet, Honda manages to stay in business.

More Republicans for states' rights
 

Unfortunately, the House appears prepared to enact precisely Burger's position. Did you not realize?

th
 

I knew that there was a reason I used the word "should," rather than "can."

And certainly there are policy argument for preemption -- but there are very good arguments against it, too. It's a doctrine to apply carefully and conservatively.

More Republicans for states' rights
 

I wonder if you would feel that way if the federal government had decided to take the strictest state standards and apply them nationwide, as opposed to doing the opposite.

Which is sometimes what they do in the EU, and not something many people are particularly happy about.

More Republicans for states' rights
 

If they did, would you be equally supportive of allowing states to opt out of those standards and enact lower ones?

And, fringey:

1) If the market can penalize states for enacting overly aggressive regulation, why not let the market do the regulating in the first place? If people don't want to buy meat without labels, they don't have to.

2) I never argued everything should be federalized. I asked why if you entrusted congress to enact federal standards do you not trust them enough to enact the right standards. There aren't national building codes, but if you have them, why would you automatically also want local building codes? Why have so many layers. Decide whether you think local regulation or federal regulation is better (and it varies depending on the subject matter), and stick with it?

More Republicans for states' rights
 

The Germans weren't so happy when they were told they couldn't enforce the Reinheitsgebot.

More Republicans for states' rights
 

Well, wait until he gets done with DeLay.

I guess Wal-Mart won't be able to have a store in Domino's Pizza Village
 

Time for a boycott. Baby-killers. And slut-inducers.

More Republicans for states' rights
 

I wasn't arguing with you. It was a statement for my fellow Republicans, that I thought you wanted me to proffer.

More Republicans for states' rights
 

If you think that this Congress is captive to corporate interests, then you can trust it to adopt standards that are south of where you'd want them, and you'd want the states to be able to require more in the way of health and safety.

More Republicans for states' rights
 

I got it checked, and I didn't even have to give it to them. Apparently it is a recent enough model of its type of car that it doesn't emit huge amounts of smog. Or, they fucked up, but I think it's the former.

More Republicans for states' rights
 

Sure, but why isn't it a two way street? In general, not specific to this Congress.

Take speed limits. Congress set it at 55 for years. Maybe that's fine in urban/built-up areas, but why shouldn't Montana, or Texas, or Wyoming be able to set a higher speed limit, given that (with the exception of parts of Texas), the costs of a higher speed limit are minimal compared to the benefits?

More Republicans for states' rights
 

With speed limits, I think you're right. (OTOH, the federal government is only involved because its sending funds to the states, and wasn't the 55 mph limit only for interstates -- federal highways?)

With food safety, maybe it tells you something that the states have only wanted to get into the act recently.

Time to Boycott Dominos (again)?
 

Or, just consider the possibility that it provides an incentive for these companies to leave South Dakota. Such an exodus would create considerable unemployment, a massive drop int he tax base, and other hardships for both the government and the people who elected it. Wouldn't the hardships create an incentive to elect officials who would change the State's laws and policies.

More Republicans for states' rights
 

Yes -- I think that the federal government should set minimum standards, but should not take the most restrictive standards from any state and impose them nationwide.

Now, you want to answer my question?

More Republicans for states' rights
 

Ah. My bad. I thought you were just raising me when you really had nothing in your hand. You can understand the source of my mistake.

More Republicans for states' rights
 

Actually it is all highways. The deal was these states didn't get the funds unless the maximum speed limit on everything was 55. Of course that law was dropped.

It is the evil insurance lobby that keeps the speed limits down. According to their in house stats the lower the speed limit the less death and injury and therefore the less cost to them.

Time to Boycott Dominos (again)?
 

I belive you need to target the guilty directly. You shouldn't attack innocent people to get at the guilty. It is like murdering innocent American civilians to get at the US government. I also think the direct route is more effecitve, in addition to being more ethical.