The very end of what Henry quoted.
Bludg's idea that the northern part of the state would somehow prosper in the timber industry if "freed" from the so-called fetters of regulation is a temporary illusion which has almost nothing to do with reality.
Several reality checks:
Most of the loggable acres most likely belong to large timber companies with no vested interest in the state or its citizens. They will clear cut their acres while paying as low a wage as they can manage to local residents and when the trees are gone, so are they. And during the time that they are pillaging the landscape, such companies will not only probably get tax payer-subsidized incentives for "creating jobs", they will also manage to pay little to no taxes to the state via several well-established loop holes and deductions. Because while they are paying minimum wages to the locals, they are paying top dollar to those tax attorneys and accountants who find ways for them to avoid paying any taxes to the state. Then, when the landscape is bare and subject to massive erosion, they will be gone because one of those "onerous" regulations that was eliminated was planting back those acres. Why should a "job-creating" company have to be subject to that
expense? It's not "their" problem
. Which is the poster-child reason why eliminating rules/regulations and going to a system of "self-regulation" will never work.
And then once the North woods have run through one main resource, I'm sure they will look around and start the mining. Once the mining companies have left their devastation behind, but not any of their money and none of those low wage no benefit jobs, what is left? Not even tourism because who wants to visit a barren moonscape.
This brings me in a roundabout way to saying that while the idea of dividing geographic areas into ever dwindling political/social boundaries seems
attractive, there is a point beyond which the surgically separated areas simply cannot survive due to a lack of natural and other resources which come with ever smaller populations and geography.
I am sympathetic to some of what Bludg says and have come to that view as the country, the state, the county (pick your political unit) have become more and more philosophically divided. No one has a lock on the best ideas or even all of the good ones: there is absolutely a dialog to be had on how to help our fellow citizens attain a decent job with good wages and benefits by using our state's resources (I'm still going with Bludg's example here). In order to do this, we ALL have to look out for each other and not allow our neighbors to be taken advantage of by corporate interests nor by squeezing every last possible resource out of the ground/earth/water/etc no matter what the cost. At the same time, we have to acknowledge that if companies are making the investments, they need to get a decent and reasonable return on that investment. If they don't profit, none of us do. But suitable investment return does not automatically equate with obscene profit. And it shouldn't be obscene profit with no regulations or nothing because that is what the situation is these days.
Citizens and corporations should be able to have some respect for each other. But they don't and I don't know how to start getting that back. Listening would sure help, but if everyone is shouting, how can we hear? Giving a little here & there would be a biggie, but if everyone is completely dug into their trenches, how do we get there? Playing "gotcha" and "dropping bombs" will never get us anywhere. When I grew up, that behavior was called bullying and gloating.