I think that's a far lesser problem than having un-elected individuals making and enforcing the same laws. Congress hasn't just abdicated a power, they've abdicated a responsibility. You're worried about bad lawmakers, but that's a problem orthogonal to the issue and how we ended up with such a structure in the first place.

How can they be making and enforcing laws? Doesn't that violate the separation of powers? Where do they get their authority to enforce laws precisely and by what means?

It’s more obvious with a specific example.

Write a law that makes penalties for speeding without directly defining the speed limit on every road. Then write a law giving the department of motor vehicles the ability to define a different speed limit for each stretch of road.

As such government agencies aren’t actually creating laws, but the laws are written to give their choices legal weight.

Think of it as a separation of powers issue itself.

Assuming agencies only have advisory capabilities and that regulation itself is handled by lawmakers directly. The determination of what is safe or not becomes a matter of who has the best lobbyists; any actual damages will occur years down the line, will be visible only in statistical terms (i.e. a higher rate of leukemia), and will only affect people without significant political power. This is a textbook description of an issue which democratic institutions are spectacularly bad at handling: expert knowledge is required to understand the issue, there is no immediacy, and the consequences are delayed while the costs are up-front. Consider climate change---it will cost a shit-ton of money, cause a crap-load of damage, and yet humanity has collectively done essentially nothing to prevent it in something like 40 years.

Now, it's possible that legislative regulation could work, if the legislators essentially rubber-stamp the advisories from the agency, but still allows political influence in the issues. Consider PVC and cigarettes.

The approach, then, is for the legislature to delegate authority for regulation, within specific parameters, to an executive agency. The agency then sets the regulations, which the legislature can override with exactly the same ease as they would regulate them in the parent's model.

I am unaware of any country that relies on legislative regulation and is regarded in any sense as successful. In fact, political interference in regulations is almost universally regarded as a bad thing.

Anybody have a specific example of regulatory excesses?

[At one point I got trapped in a conversation with a cousin's husband, who had recently gotten fined by OSHA or the state equivalent because he had diesel stored in the correctly color-coded container, but it did not have "diesel" written on it. I thought about mentioning people who didn't know the color codes (Red = gasoline, yellow = diesel, blue = kerosene, and green = oils) or about the color-blind, but I prefer to avoid arguments.]

Yes, but how much pollution to accommodate is a decidedly political question. Science cannot answer how much is too much. If your answer is that no pollution is acceptable, that's not science either (frankly, it's more akin to an ideological position). But presuming you're willing to admit that the benefits of certain activities outweigh their impacts to the environment or human health, particularly when our information is imperfect, then the question becomes how much is too much. And every human has their own utility curve and risk preferences. Science cannot answer those questions. Like the parent, I agree that this is decidedly a question for policy makers (preferably accountable to the electorate) informed by science.

> How can they be making and enforcing laws?

The Administrative Procedure Act of 1946

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Administrative_Procedure_Act...

Science (besides political science) is not about politics or policy making. Science is about earnestly seeking reliable knowledge. By placing scientists in political roles where they may need to “play the game” to get results, it makes the advice they give less reliable due to compromises or political pressure, and makes people trust science less as a side effect. Not that scientists shouldn’t be in office, just that acting in both roles at once is complicated

"Science" as a pursuit of knowledge is.

Technically, in the US, executive branch agencies do two things: (1) sponsor actual science (either directly by employees, or by grant to third parties), (2) decide on how to apply scientific results.

"The EPA" is more of a body concerned with "What do we do about scientific results?" than "What is scientific truth?"

It often conducts research, usually in areas where private industry has no incentive to do so, but that's not why it exists.

And historically the dichotomy between science and policy has been reflected in the organization: scientists were highly discouraged from advocating policy positions in their research results, and policymakers were highly discouraged from influencing science.

Both norms are rapidly changing.

> Science (besides political science) is not about politics or policy making. Science is about earnestly seeking reliable knowledge.

You are talking about the scientific method.

Science is generally used as a broader term that includes how practice of the scientific method relates to society.

Going further, if enforcement is separate, I predict hearing from the FBI, "we have enough money to catch polluters or murderers, which do you prefer?" My state (Wisconsin) has largely de-funded enforcement of environmental laws, with predictable effect.

>"we have enough money to catch polluters or murderers, which do you prefer?"

If the rest of law enforcement is any indication then this should work out quite well and align the enforcers with what people actually want.

Look at poor city police departments. This is basically what they do. They prioritize the crimes that get their bosses yelled at by the politicians. It certainly isn't great for the officers who have to work in it but it's a great way to ensure resource allocation at least kinda sorta reflects the will of the people.

The FBI and EPA have no shortage of "you spent your resources doing what?" themed missteps. There needs to be some way to get them to do what people actually want them to do.

"...what people actually want them to do."

Which is ... nothing, in regards to regulatory matters, at least. Until it begins to affect them, in which case it becomes a crisis requiring immediate and massive changes, if the people in question have enough political clout.

Didn't we just have a significant amount of protesting against city police departments that would strongly indicate a massive disconnect between policing and the community?

>we have enough money to catch polluters or murderers

Mass marginal murderers versus highly concentrated murderers. ;)