Marokai, one quote you neglected to pull from that article was:
So in other words, new Federal regulations appear to be in the pipeline (pun intended) regardless of whether or not a bill passes.
[Paul is] opposed to something in the abstract even if it makes perfect sense and has near-unanimous consensus on policy in the specific. He's opposed to it purely out of principle regardless of whether or not it's a good idea. There is nothing excusable about that, it is simply shortsighted and stupid. Debates on policy should be focused on their benefits and their effectiveness. Certainly, there are exceptions for particularly overreaching legislation, but I sincerely doubt gas pipeline safety regulation will forever infringe our core freedoms and end liberty as we know it.
As we know it? No, but as it should be, perhaps. Yes, pipeline safety is important, but I still l don't see any reason to make a Federal issue out of it. This topic is analogous to building codes and could be handled in the same manner as building codes are without centralizing power. What Paul is pedantically opposing is the itch to define everything as a Federal issue first and require opponents of centralized bureaucracy to come up with arguments why it should be left to the States or even private companies, organizations, and/or individuals. It really should be the other way round. Start with the presumption that government involvement is not needed, and then if it is determined that government involvement is needed, start off with the presumption that the States should handle it, not the Federal government until proven otherwise.
Ideally the threat of having to pay for the damages when pipeline incidents occur would be sufficient to prompt companies and individuals to do what good regulations would require them to do anyway, but we've had ample examples of the 'it won't happen here syndrome' to demonstrate why that doesn't always work. So, the case for government regulation of pipelines can be taken as a given.
The limited liability of corporations and corporate employees also plays a part. If a pipeline executives and investors had to pay part of the cost of any damages out of their own pockets, they'd have a much stronger incentive to care, but they'd also have a much stronger incentive to find something else to do.What hasn't been shown is any need for pipeline regulation to be done at the Federal level instead of the State level. Indeed, the failure of existing Federal pipeline regulations to prevent serious problems from occurring in multiple locations suggests that State regulation that has the potential to be more responsive to observed problems could be superior to Federal regulation.
