Personally, I feel like there hasn't been a good enough track record for people disposing of things properly so I'm still in favor of there being people to check to make sure crap gets disposed of correctly. But more than that, I believe in preventing bad crap in the first place so I'm in favor of rules being in place which require certain standards to be met. You can't keep air pollution on your land, amirite? Better to keep from making as much as possible.
Well yes... That is why we allow them check that we operate to safety standards. Notice I didn't say if he kept them on his land, I said "If he disposed of such hazards properly." Leaving it on your own land was purely your concept. Disposing of it properly would mean in a way condoned by the federal government This would INCLUDE air management. Sure... you can't exactly "dispose" of smoke and smog... but you can operate in the way that produces the least of it. All of that, I believe, would be valid for the government to enforce.
Yet still... you did not answer my question. So long as I followed every guideline that they provided for in terms of a "clean and safe" factory... should it matter what I produce? I mean... so long as I'm meeting the guidelines and dealing about it in a responsible way... what difference would it make what I produce?
And let's say it is NOT a factory. Let's say it is a farm. Two farms, actually. And let's compare them side-by-side. Get up early, work the fields. Tend to the animals, AND the homestead. Harvest your crop(s) after a long, hard season of work and enjoy it. Only... the feds come around and say that the owner of Farm B has to pull all his crops, even though he acted no differently than did the owner of Farm A. The difference, then? Farm B grew marijuana, Farm A grew corn. The only people affected by the choice in crop? The owners of the farm. Farmer B obviously can't go sell his goods like Farmer A could... but the only thing that this equates to is Farmer B not having the money that Farmer A would. But in this instance... neither farmer affected anyone but themselves. No pollution issues, no anything and would it be right, at this time, for the federal government to step in and act as they did?
Being wrong isn't "bad", failing to admit that you are, is.
At this point, his actions affect more than just him... even if they were done on his land. If he disposed of such hazards properly, then it would affect no one. Then the government would have no reason to step in it. The government should definitely be able to step in at the point. But should it matter WHAT I'm producing in my factory? I mean... so long as I manage it properly so that it affects no one but myself? That is kind of what I am getting at here.
Are there any instances of the government saying what can or cannot be produced/sold? Outside of prostitution I guess.
I can think of more example of the government saying how something should produced, but not what should be produced
Going by the "Government should only do what people can't themselves' line of thinking: The funny thing is that the average person can't do much of anything on their own. Gonna be completely self sufficient? Grow your own food? Make your own fuel? build your own transportation? Make your own currency? So where does that put Government control?