[ QUOTE ]
The problem here is that the people doing the analysis (the regulators) are not the ones that bear the costs or reap the benefits (or suffer the downsides) of their regulations.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nor should they be. The regulator's goal should not be to decide private disputes. The regulator's goal should be to account for society's broadest interests, which include everything from the specific rights at issue, to collateral consequences like economic efficiency, economic growth, implications for employment, prices to consumers, etc.

[ QUOTE ]
I can't see how bureaucracy is more efficient than litigation - even litigation in state-run courts (of course, the efficiency of litigation can be further increased by moving out of state-run courts into true private arbitration). I'm interested in hearing more, though.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you dont understand why litigation is more expensive than bureaucracy, it is because you have never been involved in a lawsuit. Hiring a competent lawyer costs a minimum of $300 per hour, and in some cities like NYC, probably $800 per hour. Add in associate & paralegal time, expenses, etc., and it is easy to hit an even higher blended rate. It doesnt get more expensive than litigation. Bureaucrats are much cheaper.

[ QUOTE ]
Why doesn't the threat of "very very expensive" private enforcement of rights have the same deterrent effect of encouraging "voluntary compliance"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Because the plaintiff must spend lots of money to enforce his rights. Most plaintiffs will not/cannot do this. Therefore, the pricing on litigation favors the status quo.

[ QUOTE ]
The private lobbying function is merely an extention of the democratic process. It is the way in which legislatures (and rulemakers) are influenced. I much prefer this approach than a tyrranical government that cannot be influenced by its constituency.

False dicotomy. Come on

[/ QUOTE ]

Not really. You are the one who complained about the corruptibility of government. All I am saying is that those with money necessarily have a greater ability to exercise influence--they can hire lawyers, file lawsuits, gain access, make campaign donations, etc. Money necessarily equals power, always has, always will. As I said, lobbying is just an extension of democracy, and there is no way to get rid of it. The best we can do is to put reasonable limitations on it--such as prohibitions on giving "things of value" to government agents and decisionsmakers. Despite what most people think, lobbying is an inherently helpful activity. Lobbyists are advocates--they frame the issue, and marshal the facts for the decisionmakers. Granted, that process is always self-serving for the lobbyist, but stuff like "white papers" etc are very helpful to decisionmakers. They help the decisionmaker precisely understand the arguments and trade-offs they are being asked to make.

[ QUOTE ]
No, we shouldn't all walk. You're implicitly making an assumption that IF we could perfectly determine damages from small-scale polluters and issue judgements with little or no overhead, such that anyone damged from car pollution could and would pursue damages, that people would decide that internal combustion engines are not economically feasable (which is certainly possible) and, once that became evident, would simply give up and not use mechanical transportation, and never devise any other method.

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not assuming anything. You were the one taking issue with cars because they have emissions. Im saying something else--pollution is not bad per se. It should not always be "minimized." Pollution is simply the byproduct of the post-industrial society we live in.

Everything you and I take for granted--the food we eat, the water we drink, the electricity that runs the air conditioning in summer, and the natural gas that heats our homes in winter, the fact that society has time for arts and humanities instead of hunting & gathering--everything we do do requires that natural resources be consumed and pollution be created.

The United States is the wealthiest country on earth. I like this. I am willing to despoil the environment (within limits) to achieve this. Most people agree with me.

[ QUOTE ]
Additionally, we know there *are* zero emission power sources (solar, hydroelectric, geothermal). The fact that they aren't developed enough to provide all power we need *right now* is merely an artifact of the regulatory environment that encourages (or doesn't discourage) pollution-generating energy sources.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're talking about something different. You're talking about technology development, not whether gasoline cars are bad.

Im all for market-based technology development. I even support limited subsidies for the most promising technologies. Energy independence would be a wonderful thing for this country, if for no other reason than it would allow us to get of the Saudi/OPEC tit.

I noted that you neglected one of the provably cleanest fuels of all--nuclear power. Since the 3MI incident, not a single nuke has been built in this country. All development on reactor design is being done in other countries.

Properly designed reactors are safe. They create hazardous byproducts, however even those byproducts can be safely disposed of (either by sinking them in the sea bed, or in seismologically quiet areas).

The greens in this country dont like the idea of nukes, because--well, Im not really sure why, probably just a general suspicion that the radioactive fuel is highly hazardous. Of all the power sources out there, nuclear power is the most readily available, cleanest, power source available. We should be investing in nuclear power well before we look into stuff like geothermal, wind, or solar.
(Hydro is pretty good, but most rivers that can be dammed for hydro already have been. There are almost no "wild" rivers left in this country, and frankly, the EPA/Sierra Club process for damming rivers is very very difficult to overcome.)