Well none of that is even slightly correct.

Senior members of executive branch bureaucracies are appointed by the President of the United States, with the advice and consent of the United States Senate. Both of those are elected officials. If you don't like who is running these branches, then don't vote for a President or for Senators that approve them. They are as such accountable to these individuals and can be impeached the same way anyone else in a senior position can.

"Collective group think" is a meaningless propaganda statement to demonize the left. The complaints mentioned about those departments show a failure to understand what the executive branch is actually tasked with doing. That is, to enforce the law. Back in 1789 with a much smaller area and population, it was perhaps conceivable that the President of the United States could single-handedly enforce the laws, though even Washington began the executive branch system by appointing secretaries, so he wasn't stupid enough to try to do it alone. With 333 million people and a continent-and-ocean-spanning nation, with a presence all over the world, the idea of it being handled by a single person is laughable. The Department of Education's job has never been to educate people, that is the job of the fine teachers and professors at our local schools. Rather, it is to ensure that schools and other institutions of education are in compliance with Federal Law. Similarly, the Department of Energy's job is to ensure that energy production is in accordance with federal law. The EPA's job is to protect the environment so that environmental impacts do not diminish human quality of life in the United States -- a far cry from "viewing human beings as the enemy!"

So perhaps your issue might be with Federal Law itself. To which I find little to say. Governments have laws. The alternative is anarchy. Perhaps you might then counter and say that laws should be minimalist and not "regulate business". At which point, we must come to the realization that everyone sort of agrees with you -- that is, I don't think anyone is in favor of unnecessary law. But we disagree on what that entails. Rather than rage about a law that you think is hurting people, or hurting business, or whatnot, it helps to ask "What is the point? Why would someone want to put in this law? Where is the HELP?" Now, you might disagree that the help is more important than the hurt. There are several laws, such as most of our war on drugs, that I file under this category, that is, that I agree hurt far more than they help. However, all laws are written for a purpose, and to jump to a cynical "want to control people" is not helpful. Understanding all sides of an issue is important.

For obvious reasons, I can't discuss every law or type of law. But I can give a few examples. For instance, I'll remind you that the reason the area you're in doesn't have smog ten times worse than it is now is because of the Clean Air Act. Without the Clean Water Act, business would dump pollutants into the river to such an extent that we go back to the infamous days when the rivers could be put aflame. The reason that we aren't working 12 hours a day 6-7 days per week is because of labor regulations -- federal and state law! -- that workers fought and died to attain. The reason that we don't have 10 year olds working these long days is much the same. And business has survived and thrived through every one of these, because it is adaptable, and because the human condition and respect for humanity has improved living conditions, which thus raises the economy, which thus benefits business and humanity alike.

Very, very well said. and you dig baseball, too!   Bravo!

Now, IF we could just get the "elected" officials to use that kind of sense, and demonstrate it with their leadership, and in who they appoint heads of all these "enforcement" agencies, so that those folks use such sane thought and good sense when enacting their "regulations"----then we could all sing .......... whatever you'd like.

Problem is, we end up with non-sensical regulations admittedly designed to "control" the abhorrent behaviour of those among us who have no sense themselves, at the expense of the rest of the citizenry----magnified by decades and decades and decades of failed and flawed leadership bereft of the sense with which you spoke.

For just one example, Try and figure out what to do with your four footed friend (pet dog for example) when on Nationally owned land, like a National Monument or Park?
Regulations make it basically impossible for your "friend" to be there, and therefore effectively bans anybody traveling with pets.  Why?

Because, (quite obviously) SOME members of the public are irresponsible about control of their "friends" as well as their "friends " needs and behaviours.
It's easier to manage to the lowest common denominator of public behaviour. Any park superintendent will tell you that. So, that's what they do. Enact regulations for the worst among us, at the expense of the responsible.

It happens in all areas of public control wherein government functions.
We can't really be trusted to act responsibly, can we?  Your freedom might be too much for someone else to handle. Besides, I don't like dogs.
So.............. we get what I call trickle down behaviour regulations, little by little, day by day, each and every hour someone comes up with a NEW regulation meant to restrict somebody's idea of free behaviour.

Just wait til the water runs dry and see what kinds of regulations get advanced in California to control people's use of water.

The whole concept is way way beyond my pay grade.
I mainly just want to be left alone, like anybody else with some sanity leftover.

And float in my Olympic size swimming pool in the desert's dry breeze.

Ahhhhhhhhhhh,    Freedom.
Got any Gum?

Well, you tried uncleal, but alas, today what we used to call "law" is now called "Government mandates" and what we used to call "social order" or "community" is now called "totalitarian collectivism". 


So after thousands of years of civilization and hundreds of years of a mostly successful experiment in social order and constitutional self-government, we are going to descend into anarchy in which individuals armed to the teeth to go to the supermarket because the idea that maybe some combination of a strong sense of community combined with law-abiding police to enforce the laws is considered completely insane, and the idea that not just letting the strong and economically savvy prey on the rest of the community or what's left of it is considered socialism. 

See Jane Jacobs' book "Dark Age Ahead !" which lays out how we got here and where we are headed. 

The Roman wealthy did not want to pay taxes either, armed themselves and their retainers, moved out to the suburbs into gated communities (latifundia) where everything was privatized and waited for the inevitable which they had brought on themselves. At least this time it will be on TV. 

Excellent discourse!!  For the few of you that might be sarcasm challenged.  My post was indeed intent on a turn to the sarcastic (or at least ironic?). 
I have no swimming pool, just a bathtub, but I do occasionally drive past Scottsdale. 

Great stuff, italyprof!

I enjoy your posts that much more when you're slightly ticked off (or at least appear to be)...

Well, you tried uncleal, but alas, today what we used to call "law" is now called "Government mandates" and what we used to call "social order" or "community" is now called "totalitarian collectivism". 

IP arguing for smaller, less intrusive government?  What am I going to argue about?

Oh, history.  Cannot accept your analogy to ancient Rome.  In the latter days of the Empire, new regimes would pass retroactive laws directed at a block of patricians - sometimes just one or a handful of wealthy individuals - confiscating their property and banishing them to the outskirts of the Empire.  That's why patricians fled the city, to stay out of the limelight (they had no political influence anyway) and had armed retinues (to protect them against 'overzealous' government enforcers).  On rare occasions the small sign of armed resistance was all that was needed to dissuade the ruling regime from continuing the persecution and find another victim.

I'm glad tea party's post has been corrected