NC
The Government can (and does) set regulations BEFORE they occur. These regulations can be enforced BEFORE they cause damage.
Yes if there are victims they need money but the point of regulations is to prevent victims
I don’t understand your next paragraph.
Under your proposal I can dump toxic substances into local drinking supply. Until someone is harmed (and knows they are) cand can prove that my substance caused their harm i’m good. It might ne worth taking that risk.
Even if you know I’m polluting your water supply. The only way to stop me is to get haarmed.
That doesn’t seem like a good approach.
Yo usay “If a big company wrongs people living in upstate NY…” The idea of regulation is to stop them before the people are harmed.
Maybe I’m not being clear,
Drunk driving probably doesn’t fall under “public health” (or does it?)
Should there be a law banning drunk driving?
I say yes. The idea is to stop the drunk driver BEFORE he hurts someone. Sure he can be sued if/when he hurts someone. but a. That is still tru with government regulation, and 2) that is too little too late once the damage has been done.
Same thing here it wouldn’t suffice to let the private sector sue companies AFTER thyeve committed damage ( and is known and can be proven) the idea is to stop it before
AAQ
“I am not saying I am against all regulation,”
Then we agree!
“This may be a silly argument when you are suggesting full gov regulation v. full lack of it”
I agree completly
Though at no point did I say “full gov regulation”
NC did say full lack of it whci hsurprised me “I don’t public health should exist as a concept.”