I’m arguing with a statist over the EPA. I tried a quick search but couldn’t find anything.
My reasoning goes: government agencies are insulated from profit/loss, competition, and are therefore more likely to be corruptible than a private agency. With the power the EPA has, there has to be some corruption there.
The EPA is trying to impose a carbon tax; perhaps that is not what your statist will see as “corruption,” but you should be able to make a good argument with that information. Maybe you should try to argue against corrupt taxation, and instead for voluntary action against polluters: http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/air-pollution.html
*Here is the article from which I am citing the EPA’s desire to carbon tax, which may itself have bias: http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0311/0311epacarbontax.htm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zvl961uDoEg
It’s not about corruption and it’s not about the EPA, so apologies if it is irrelevant for your purpose. But it touches on a similar idea. It’s about the department of energy creating restrictions on the light bulbs, toilet bowls and other appliances that are allowed to be purchased by consumers / sold by producers. I think it’s safe to assume that if this were proposed as a responsibility of the Department of Energy on the day it was created, it would have been laughed at.
And I would say the department’s arbitrary and extraordinary growth is a direct result of its isolation from profit/loss & competition.
http://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/the-peter-schiff-show-5-20-11/id404963432?i=94189715
John Merline interview
Thanks for the replies. I should have changed the title to “Permanent EPA is useful/necessary refutation thread”