Plac Ebo, our democracy is already curtailed by a constitution which limits the power of government. Do you consider the US to be a dictatorship? I've already stated what my solution is – a government limited by a constitution which maximizes individual liberty. Unfortunately, opponents of the 16th amendment lost their battle to curb the government's reach and that's how we ended up with a 90% top tax rate (which Kennedy cut to 78% in the 60's). 90% – that's what happens when you you let government run wild.

As people prosper they look to government to improve their quality of life in ways that the private sector either can't or won't and that means more laws, rules and regulations.

Am I to understand from this statement that you finally admit that prosperity leads to more government spending and not the other way round? That's the opposite of what you said on another thread. So the private sector can't or won't improve the quality of life? Then how do you explain that where government was largest – the Soviet Union, China, Eastern Block countries – quality of life was lowest and where government is smaller quality of life is distinctly superior? I hate to answer a question with a question but it seems to be your only method of arguing and I'm quite tired of posting responses when you don't process them at all and don't answer very many questions yourself.

Maybe you can answer these instead:

Can a society prosper long-term, and not just economically, without any environmental regulations?

If environmental regulations are necessary, and we can't trust the "half-wits" in government, then who should make them?

No argument that there are unnecessary rules and regulations- in all areas of life. It's one of the trade-offs of living in a maturing democracy. As people prosper they look to government to improve their quality of life in ways that the private sector either can't or won't and that means more laws, rules and regulations. So, short of curtailing democracy and finding a benevolent dictator what's your solution?

Why don't you tell me how you're planning to live without leaving some kind of mark on the environment. We can't even begin to talk about regulating anything until we define what is acceptable and what isn't. Of course, since laws and regulations are specific, you're going to have to be specific in your answer before I can specifically tell you whether I'm for or against it.

I can't possibly begin to answer a question where what is to be regulated and how much regulation will be required is left up to the half-wits in the government.

I will tell you that I'm whole-heartedly against recycling in the case of paper and plastic – which I'm required to do by law in the Empire State. The environmental damage of recycling those items is far greater than just throwing them away and starting over. Re-using plastic bottles, as a company called TerraCycle does, is far more environmentally friendly AND the company does so without any mandates from regulators. In this case, the government mandate creates more environmental damage (in the name of the environment, of course) while the free market has found a way to re-use the items (by using the used containers to store the fertilizer they sell), reducing environmental damage. And TerraCycle has done so in the absence of any regulations requiring it to re-use plastic bottles.

[note: I'm in no way affiliated with or invested in TerraCycle.]