Thursday, August 26, 2010

One big argument, coming right up!

What do the American Bird Conservancy, the Center for Biological Diversity, the Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, the Association of Avian Veterinarians, and Project Gutpile have in common? They are the groups that have petitioned the EPA to forbid the manufacture of firearms ammunition containing lead.You can read the petition here . This is the result of "special interest groups" having access to regulatory bureaucracies that must justify their existence by the production of regulations. Historian Forrest Mcdonald talks about it here and Thomas J. DiLorenzo describes bureaucracy here. If a body is created to perform a function, that is what it will do. The personnel in that body will always be looking for opportunities to expand their scope of operations because to do so will increase their funding and staffing and raise the rating and salary of the present staff and make the body itself more powerful and important.

The EPA is a classic example of this phenomenon. Richard Nixon established the EPA by executive order in 1970, it has since grown to over 17,000 employees and a 2010 budget of $10.5 billion, a 34% increase over the previous year. And it's not enough that these busybody government appartachiks arbitrarily determine the parameters of water and air quality, automobile fuel efficiency and emissions, pesticides allowed in the steadily growing battle against bedbugs, laundry detergents, and just about everything else that physically enters our lives. Now, on the basis of concern for birds, they are considering a ban on lead ammunition which will basically be gun control through environmental regulation. Public comment on this subject will be accepted until late October. While these bureaucrats are in no way under the control of Congress, it can't hurt to make your opinion on this matter known to your senator or representative. This is another example of the nanny state attempting to regulate our lives without the inconvenience of republican process.

No comments: