In 1998 David S. Landis published “The Wealth and Poverty of Nations, Why Some Nations are so Rich and Some Nations are so Poor”. I recommend it highly. There-in he notes that at one-point China was 500 years ahead of the rest of the world technologically. What happened? It’s not an easy answer since hundreds of years passed before they were completely overtaken by western technology, but there were some fundamental paradigms that caused it.
One, the government was foundationally tyrannical. Whether the leader is called a dictator or an emperor is immaterial. Tyranny is tyranny. They eschewed they idea of a “free market and institutionalized property rights. The Chinese state was always interfering with private enterprise - taking over lucrative activities, prohibiting others, manipulation of prices, exacting bribes, curtailing private enrichment.” (1)
He went on to say: “Bad government strangled initiative, increased the cost of transactions, diverted talent from commence and industry.” Quoting who he calls the “Great Hungarian-German-French sinologist, Etienne Balazs”, he says:
“ ……..if one understands by totalitarianism the complete hold of the State and its executive organs and functionaries over all the activists of social life, initiative, no expression of public life that can escape official control……No private initiative, no expression of public life that can escape official control. There is to begin the with a whole array of state monopolies, which comprise the great consumption stables: salt, iron, tea, alcohol, foreign trade. There is a monopoly of education, jealously guarded. There is practically a monopoly of letters (I was about to say, or the press): anything written unofficially, that escapes the censorship, has little hope of reaching he public. But the reach of the Molock-State, the omnipotence of the bureaucracy, goes much farther. There are clothing regulations, a regulation of public and private construction (dimensions of houses); the colors one wears, the music one hears, the festivals – all are regulated. There are rules for birth and rules for death; the providential State watches minutely over every step of its subjects, from cradle to grave. It is a regime of paper work and harassment, endless paper work and endless harassment.” (2)The point he makes later on is the danger of this creating an “atmosphere of routine, of traditionalism and of immobility, which makes any innovation suspect, any initiative that is not commanded and sanctioned in advance, is unfavorable to the spirit of inquiry.“ In short, people give up and give in to consensus. Admittedly all the points he mentions aren’t applicable, but that’s not the issue. The issue is the societal acceptance of tyranny by bureaucracy, and their abuses.
Let me tell you about the Sacketts.
The Sackett’s bought a lot in a residential area near Priest Lake, Idaho with the intention of building a home. They conscientiously acquired the necessary permits and not one person said anything to them about that property being a “wetlands”.
After they started excavation the EPA came in and issued “a "compliance order" that required them to undo the excavation and restore the "wetlands." What were their options? “After three years they could seek a "permit" that could cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Or they could wait for the EPA to prosecute the alleged Clean Water Act violations, which could result in penalties of $32,500-plus per day.” Worse yet, according to the EPA they weren’t even allowed to challenge their order in court until EPA started enforcement actions. In short – EPA bureaucrats can steal your land, make you pay for it and you’ll like it or else.
Two federal courts agreed with the EPA sending this to the Supreme Court, who unanimously agreed that it was unconstitutional for the government to believe there could be no judicial review of an EPA compliance order. This clearly repudiated the idea that "efficiency of regulation conquers all’.
However, the Sacketts still don’t have a home because the issue didn’t resolve whether or not this was a wetland, and the EPA apparently has other means at their disposal, and unless something has changed, the EPA isn’t backing away. And this is by no means an isolated case, or with just one abusive agency that believe environmental regulations and the capricious interpretation of those regulations by out of control unaccountable bureaucrats can trump the Constitution and your rights.
No matter what happens now we have to ask this one over-riding question: Who makes whole those who’ve been abused by the EPA and other tyrannical government agencies?
Given the nature of the EPA, why would the NPMA ask the membership to support increasing the EPA’s budget tens of millions of dollars over the last two years when there finally is an Administrator who wants to cut their budget? An administrator who is unjustifiably under attack by the left, even threatening his life.
Are we making an attempt to let Congress know our industry supports Pruitt? Do we support Pruitt? Do we believe ending Sue and Settle was a good thing? Do we believe ending the EPA's scheme of creating new regulations and rules via Secret Science was a good thing? I certainly do, but I have no idea what our national leaders think, other than being concerned whether or not the EPA trusts us. And that really matters why? Our character as an industry doesn't make us the issue over trust. Can we really say that about the EPA?
As far as I can tell there are around 15,000 pest control companies in the nation, although I'm sure there's more, and perhaps there's less, but no matter the number, the principles are the same.
It's been noted that over ninty percent of the companies have ten or employees or less. I'm probably way underestimating, but let's make some broad assumptions here. Let's speculate there's approximately 150,000 applicators out there, making at least 100 applications a month. That's 15,000,000 (fifteen million) applications a month, and let's say they work 264 days a year. That means they've made 3,960,000,000 (Almost four billion)applications a year.
How many people have been sickended or died? Over the last 35 years I've been in pest control that number has been miniscule compared to the number of applications made. Some of those cases have been tragic, but assuming my figures are accurate, that means in 35 years there's been 138,600,000,000 applications made in structural pest control alone, and very, very few tragedies.
That's a remarkable safety record. Yet, the EPA is directly responsible for possibly as many as 100 million unnecessary deaths and billions of unnecessary cases of malaria as a result of the ban on DDT. Who needs to earn trust?
If we're so concerned about attaining trust, perhaps we should be more concerned about attaining the trust of Administrator Scott Pruitt and the man who appointed him - and is in complete harmony with his views - President Trump. At least we know they're on our side. Do we know what our side is?
But I do have one idea I really like and I'm sure the Administrator likes it also.
If we and our manufacturer "friends and allies" are so worried the EPA has insufficient funds to carry out one of their legitimate core responsibilities, let’s work at making sure the EPA has adequate funds by going up to the Hill next year and asking Congress to eliminate every one of the regional offices, which could be done via a budget initiative. I would imagine that would be an amazing savings and that would be a grand start!
Bureaucrats with nothing really important to do can always find new interpertations of law to create rules for "a regime of paper work and harassment, endless paper work and endless harassment.” Fire them and watch that problem go away. After that - watch that almost 2 trillion dollars it costs the American public to meet federal regulatory standards start to melt away into something worthwhile.
One more thing. We might think it's a good idea to ask them to insist something be done about the potentially treasonous and illegal activity of the environmental movement by finding out where their money's coming from and what they're doing with it.
NPMA: To Win We Must First Define Our Enemies and Our Allies, Part I
- Wealth and Poverty of Nations, Page 56
- Wealth and Poverty of Nations, Page 57
No comments:
Post a Comment