Rand Paul opposes pipeline safety

[Paul Kemp]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

http://news.yahoo.com/senator-blocks-pipeline-safety-bill-principle-070809432.html

OMG NOT DA FEDURAL GOVMENT!11!!!!1

[Jacobtm]

Wild fckin west

[Likely Voter]

If you are killed by a pipeline exploding you should feel honored that you have been blessed by the the invisible hand of the market.

[Marokai Backbeat]

The fact that a Senator can single-handedly block anything is the real issue here.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

While I don't know the particulars of the bill, the fact that the pipeline companies are in favor of it doesn't necessarily mean that it is a good bill, or even one that doesn't not impose a burden.  Established businesses have been known to support government regulation as a means to make the entry of a competitor into the market less likely.

[memphis]

The fact that a Senator can single-handedly block anything is the real issue here.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

The Senate is so screwed up.

[Kung Fu Kenny]

Oh God Rand...

[greenforest32]

The fact that a Senator can single-handedly block anything is the real issue here.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

The Senate is so screwed up.

[tpfkaw]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The fact that this doesn't raise red flags with you people speaks to the intellectual bankruptcy of your ideology.

[Hash]

This is basically the standard position of the Canadian government, so...

[Phony Moderate]

Rand Paul is just another Establishment Hack anyway.

[Sbane]

While I don't know the particulars of the bill, the fact that the pipeline companies are in favor of it doesn't necessarily mean that it is a good bill, or even one that doesn't not impose a burden.  Established businesses have been known to support government regulation as a means to make the entry of a competitor into the market less likely.

This is a very valid point....though the devil is in the details I suppose.

[Paul Kemp]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The fact that this doesn't raise red flags with you people speaks to the intellectual bankruptcy of your ideology.

Business is the good guy, no?

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The fact that this doesn't raise red flags with you people speaks to the intellectual bankruptcy of your ideology.

Business is the good guy, no?

You're assuming the libertarian philosophy is to favor one side over the other. As far as I understood it, it is to be just plainly not involved. Not to favor business in regulations, not to favor unions in regulations, not to favor consumers in regulations, just to let things pan out as they will without regulations. You seem to assume it's part of economic libertarianism to christen a "good guy".

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The fact that a Senator can single-handedly block anything is the real issue here.

It seems that only Republican Senators have that power.

[tpfkaw]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The fact that this doesn't raise red flags with you people speaks to the intellectual bankruptcy of your ideology.

Business is the good guy, no?

Nope, almost never.  Certainly not the ones who want competition-busting regulations.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Yes, if business supports something it's automatically bad. That's totally mature and sensible.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Yes, if business supports something it's automatically bad. That's totally mature and sensible.

As opposed to if business supports something it's automatically good?  I suspect one thing this bill will do is preempt any relevant State legislation.  Since the pipes in the pipelines themselves aren't going to cross interstate borders once they've been installed, I fail to see where pipeline safety needs to be a federal issue in the first place.

[patrick1]

Yes, if business supports something it's automatically bad. That's totally mature and sensible.

As opposed to if business supports something it's automatically good?  I suspect one thing this bill will do is preempt any relevant State legislation.  Since the pipes in the pipelines themselves aren't going to cross interstate borders once they've been installed, I fail to see where pipeline safety needs to be a federal issue in the first place.

A general problem is that at a state level some industries have an even greater, disproportionate influence than on the federal level. West Virginia and their tragic history with the coal industry being an example.

[Phony Moderate]

Yes, if business supports something it's automatically bad. That's totally mature and sensible.

As opposed to if business supports something it's automatically good?  I suspect one thing this bill will do is preempt any relevant State legislation.  Since the pipes in the pipelines themselves aren't going to cross interstate borders once they've been installed, I fail to see where pipeline safety needs to be a federal issue in the first place.

A general problem is that at a state level some industries have an even greater, disproportionate influence than on the federal level. West Virginia and their tragic history with the coal industry being an example.

And California and Hollywood?

[Paul Kemp]

I don't care whether big business and corporations support such initiatives; I only care about measures to ensure that things are being done safe and properly.

The philosophy of Rand Paul and other libertarians seems to be that we should let private industry determine what is safe and proper, when really it usually results in cutting corners to save costs. Ideally this should work but it has not as we have seen time and time again.

My problem here is with Paul and individuals voting for this based on the fact that   its action from the federal government and ignoring what apparently is for the common good.

I await responses that I probably won't reply to any time soon. 

[Napoleon]

I don't care whether big business and corporations support such initiatives; I only care about measures to ensure that things are being done safe and properly.

The philosophy of Rand Paul and other libertarians seems to be that we should let private industry determine what is safe and proper, when really it usually results in cutting corners to save costs. Ideally this should work but it has not as we have seen time and time again.

My problem here is with Paul and individuals voting for this based on the fact that   its action from the federal government and ignoring what apparently is for the common good.

I await responses that I probably won't reply to any time soon. 

Seems like your philosophy is the one which wants private industry to determine what is safe and proper. Why else would you mention "even the industry supports it" in your OP? Regulations should be implemented after a thoroughly cost-benefit analysis and by states or local governments if that is proper. It isn't anything that should be libertarian vs. Non-libertarian. Ernest makes good points as always. I'm not going to judge this particular piece until I know the specifics but a lot of regulations are designed to help corporate America stifle innovation and competition.

[Paul Kemp]

Why else would you mention "even the industry supports it" in your OP?

Because it was included in the original two paragraphs of the article which is what I copied and pasted as a preview? I don't selectively edit articles when I post them.

[Napoleon]

Why else would you mention "even the industry supports it" in your OP?

Because it was included in the original two paragraphs of the article which is what I copied and pasted as a preview? I don't selectively edit articles when I post them.

Fair enough it seemed like that was the emphasis of the argument though.

[Paul Kemp]

Why else would you mention "even the industry supports it" in your OP?

Because it was included in the original two paragraphs of the article which is what I copied and pasted as a preview? I don't selectively edit articles when I post them.

Fair enough it seemed like that was the emphasis of the argument though.

My problem with the whole thing is that Paul's argument with this, like most other issues, is that he opposes this based on the grounds that it involves government action no matter the issue.

The argument that yourself and Ernest raised is certainly a valid one and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with it should the facts line up.