It depends on your definition, I assume. To the extent that it refers to the division of power between the Feds and the States, I believe in doing that in a manner that makes sense. Individual States imposing different regulations related to the air, in a place like Four Corners, makes little sense to me. Just as most States largely conform their tax law to federal law, there can be a benefit from having a single rule book. Do we really need a fed EPA, a state EPA, and reitional EPAs?
Do you think the voters shouldn't have the latitude to cut their economic throats?
No. But I don't think Austrian socialist State dictators should be allowed to cut the throats of nationwide industries.
Do you believe in one-size-fits-all regulations?
Of course not.
reitional EPAs s/b regional.
So does every regulatory power freak in every single bureaucracy in the country. "Makes sense" according to whom?
Car companies? People with asthma? Government employee unions? Car buyers? Activists? Corporate foundation gamesters? Every one of those groups has a different idea of what constitutes "makes sense." The problem with Federal determination is that it precludes both optimization by niche marketing and natural law competition among control points.
Individual States imposing different regulations related to the air, in a place like Four Corners, makes little sense to me.
That's because you haven't considered transfer functions as a market-based metric (it's in that book you didn't finish :-).
But I don't think Austrian socialist State dictators should be allowed to cut the throats of nationwide industries.
As you know, I despise Austrian socialist dictators too, but I have a lot more respect for the capability of engineering technology to mass-produce vehicles that can deal with trade-offs like differences in local conditions, whether political or technical. We're not in the early 20th Century any more.