In an America without government regulation, our lakes and rivers would undoubtedly be far more polluted; our forests, if they still stood in the absence of logging restrictions, would be devoid of wildlife for hunting quotas would not exist; air pollution would be prevalent since there would be no such thing as emission standards.

The objective of most businesses, be they locally owned small businesses or billion dollar corporations, is to make a profit. Without profit there can be no growth. Businesses have shown that they will go to great lengths to ensure that they make a profit and will invariably seek the cheapest means to this end.

One only has to recall the British Petroleum [BP] Oil Spill that occurred in the spring of 2010 in the Gulf of Mexico to see the possible consequences of a corporation attempting to save money by cutting corners.

The cheapest path to profit isn’t always the ethical path to profit, and it is for this reason that governmental regulation is a necessity.

GOP candidates, most notably Congressman Ron Paul, are advocates for less governmental intervention in our daily lives. Paul’s rationale for the abolition of governmental regulation is that the regulators themselves aren’t aware of every single endeavor businesses undertake, and as a result, the regulator’s job is an impossible one.

Paul opines that it is infeasible for the government to observe every action a business takes. Additionally, Paul states that government regulation is a massive hindrance to small businesses, for unlike large corporations – who can hire attorneys and lobbyists to aid them against restrictions – a small business does not have the resources required for the attorneys and lobbyists necessary to find loopholes in regulation. Government regulation, according to Paul, makes it far more difficult for a small business to compete.

Initially, Paul’s position on governmental intervention seems like a decent one, but if one thinks about how his beliefs could play out in the long term if made into policy, especially with regard to environmental protection, the possibilities are frightening. What is truly alarming is the notion that Paul, if elected president, would do away with the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which is the arm of the government responsible for creating many of the regulations on pollution and wilderness preservation.

By doing away with the EPA, Paul would be exposing citizens to unethical business practices of large corporations. In “The Moral Hazard of Regulation,” Paul states that the laws that protect an individual’s private property would in turn protect them from potential harm a large unregulated business could cause.

As Brian Merchant writes in his column on the “Treehugger” website titled “On the Environment, Ron Paul is Even Crazier Than Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry,” Paul states that property laws would protect an individual if a corporation “dumps toxic sludge on your lawn,” but these laws would not protect someone who becomes sick from polluted air due to their no longer being any government regulation on the emission standards of factories and automobiles. Merchant goes on to state that it would be impossible to lay the blame for the polluted air on any one company if all businesses were contributing.

It is for that very reason regulations and restrictions on emissions and air quality exist: they are preventative measures.

It is correct to assume that these regulations cost businesses money, but businesses have proved, as BP and its affiliates showed with the 2010 oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, that they will choose the option that is the least expensive, despite any possible risk to the public and the environment.

That oil spill crisis occurred despite governmental regulation; imagine the frequency and magnitude of these disasters if all businesses were left unrestricted, as Paul would have it. The safety and well-being of American citizens, wilderness and wildlife justify the price of regulation businesses must endure.

Paul makes the mistake of putting faith in the unregulated free market. Large corporations looking to cut costs and increase their profit in the most efficient manner possible will do so despite any risk to the environment and public.

Businesses have proven, as shown by the BP oil crisis, that they are not nearly as concerned with ethics as they are with profit, and a government that places no restrictions on these businesses is leaving the public vulnerable. In an ideal world, Paul would be correct in that there would be no need for governmental intervention, but in the current state of things, it is clear that that is not where the world is today.

Jeff Bagdigian can be reached at [email protected].