> Here's a town, Cambria, where building a pipeline to the ocean was stopped by environmental nazi's
Is that what was said? I don't think it was. Unless you want to just assume the Coastal Commission and "other regulatory bodies" are "environmental nazi's [sic]". The laws and/or regulations causing problems here may or may not be originally linked to environmental efforts, but either way, blanket sentiments that regulation is bad, or good, don't really help and just add to the rhetoric noise that detracts from people getting the useful information needed to institute change, whther that be small scale and local, large scale and federal, or somewhere in-between.
There are of course many instances where regulations have become too complex and rigid and actually are detrimental to the public or environment, even if that's what they were meant to protect, but there are also many cases where the lack of regulation causes severe problems. Noting the cases that affecting you or that you've been exposed to and extrapolating a pattern exposing a problem with regulation or lack of regulation as a whole for the nation is rarely useful.
Such organizations tend to be populated with people aligned with extreme ideological positions. And so, yes, I think it is fair to characterize them as the extremists they can be.
The proof is in the trees. Nobody could see past the rules/ideology to focus on the damage that would ensue from not finding a solution to the problem.
There's nothing wrong with regulations. Nowhere did I say that regulations are bad. It's more about being sensible about things.
Again, today, you could not build San Francisco. Period. You couldn't even start. Think about that for a moment.
We have allowed things to devolve to the point where we are damaging our ability to function and drive progress.
Take the Hyperloop as and example. Even if it is shown to work I'll bet it would be almost impossible to build because some group or agency is going to take extreme environmental positions. And so, instead of having a more efficient alternative system of transportation we will be stuck with freeways full of cars and trucks polluting our air.
We have become neutered as a society to the point that nobody wants to fight for anything. The most comfortable position to take is "hakuna matata", play some background music and let the extremists (from all ideological angles, BTW) take over.
> Such organizations tend to be populated with people aligned with extreme ideological positions.
I think you need to start backing up your rhetoric with facts. As it stands, you are just spreading innuendo and FUD. Anecdotes about lifelong Democrat parents and a table full of relatives talking up Donald Trump are great stories, but that's all they are. It's obvious Trump has people interested, the polls show that. But if they are seriously considering Trump and his non-plans as a viable future after being Democrats, in what way are they not the exact people that caused the problems you seem to be railing against here?
> The proof is in the trees. Nobody could see past the rules/ideology to focus on the damage would ensue from not finding a solution to the problem.
You mean the trees, which as the OP mentioned, are having problems due to beetle infestations caused by drought? In what way is the drought the fault of environmentalists? Do you think a water plant in Cambria will somehow make the area no longer susceptible the massive ecological ramifications of a state-wide drought?
> There's nothing wrong with regulations. Nowhere did I say that regulations are bad. It's more about being sensible about things.
No, you just jumped from regulatory agencies preventing something to saying environmental Nazis prevented it. Perhaps you think the people at the agencies have the ability to ignore the law and carry out their own agenda, and there's no recourse? Forgive me if I'm having trouble parsing what your intention was with the original statement, the logic didn't seem sound to me, so I had to assume the point you were trying to make.
> Again, today, you could not build San Francisco. Period. You couldn't even start. Think about that for a moment.
Even if I accepted this completely unsubstantiated statement as truth, have you bothered to think about what it means? Since when do we just build cities like San Francisco? San Francisco is the way it is because it was built up over a couple centuries. Would we want to build a city with portions of it built to the standards of the 19th century? Even if we could build a large city to current standards, why would we? Why not build something better?
> We have allowed things to devolve to the point where we are damaging our ability to function and drive progress.
At some point you should really try backing up these expansive statements about the state of country with actual evidence. It might go over better.
> Perhaps you think the people at the agencies have the ability to ignore the law and carry out their own agenda, and there's no recourse?
You obviously haven't dealt with government enough then. I've done a ton of business with multiple government agencies over the last 30 years or so. My father for about 70 years and on three continents. Thinking that government agencies do not behave badly and above the law is, I am sorry to say, a really naive position that can only come from a lack of experience (and, in that case, understandable). Government agencies are people, not machines, and we are flawed in a million different ways.
If you don't think government agencies don't behave unethically or badly, just read this:
People at any company have the ability to ignore the law just the same. But the law is the recourse. If you think a government agency is acting outside their purview, sue.
Is that what was said? I don't think it was. Unless you want to just assume the Coastal Commission and "other regulatory bodies" are "environmental nazi's [sic]". The laws and/or regulations causing problems here may or may not be originally linked to environmental efforts, but either way, blanket sentiments that regulation is bad, or good, don't really help and just add to the rhetoric noise that detracts from people getting the useful information needed to institute change, whther that be small scale and local, large scale and federal, or somewhere in-between.
There are of course many instances where regulations have become too complex and rigid and actually are detrimental to the public or environment, even if that's what they were meant to protect, but there are also many cases where the lack of regulation causes severe problems. Noting the cases that affecting you or that you've been exposed to and extrapolating a pattern exposing a problem with regulation or lack of regulation as a whole for the nation is rarely useful.