> if every regulation governing ice automobiles was held up to legally mandated cost-benefit analysis and proof of damages it would be discovered that the activities of german companies and citizens contribute to less than 0.5% of global warming, volkswagen would be made to pay a $1,000 fine and that would be it. the first part is true. i personally dont even care about global warming, its -natural- effects on germany are marginal. your consequence seems rather funny though. why do you assume that judges would have the required technical expertise to make such rulings? judges and politicians are both two sides of the same coin, they simply share power. > but you said that regulations must follow reason and science, things which exist not just in germany. if another country has adopted a lower standard of regulation without seriously upsetting the balance between costs and benefits, corporations should be allowed to operate by the same standards. in representative democracies people vote for politicians to set rules concerning such costs and benefits. and the absolute majority of people are voting for non-neoliberal parties that dont want to turn germany into a second somalia with anything goes policies for corpos. there is science, there is reasons and there are private interests. 90% of the population naturally have different goals than the top 10% that almost own everything and whose income is disproportionately faster increasing than that of the rest. and even the right to property is merely an understanding between the top 10% and the rest of the population that only stays as long in place as the 10% dont completely go nuts with their decadence and greed.
Germany