The EPA&#x27;s a good example, I think, because it&#x27;s the big businesses that continually lobby <i>against</i> it.  Where are the big industrial players that sit back and laugh at how pollution restrictions are benefiting them?<p>Because it <i>seems</i> like the big businesses always complain about the EPA as an emblem of government overreach, even though getting rid of it would be good for them and bad for everyone else, especially the people in the community suffering from the pollution!<p>And your answer is, &quot;let them (all the people suffering from the effects of the pollution) all file lawsuits in state&#x2F;local courts&quot;?<p>If that wasn&#x27;t working out before we had an EPA, why would it start working out now?  And how would it be better&#x2F;more efficient&#x2F;an improvement to move from a condition of &quot;pollution is limited&quot; to &quot;pollution is limited, but only after people file and win lawsuits&quot;?<p>I mean, I&#x27;m really trying to see how we&#x27;d be better off if you took away the EPA, but wanted to keep pollution restrictions in place by this other, far more elaborate and far less accessible means.  Hey, if really you just don&#x27;t want pollution restrictions at all, then let&#x27;s talk about that, let&#x27;s ask, would we be better off without pollution restrictions?<p>Trying to say &quot;no, the EPA is bad, but what they do is good and let&#x27;s get to the same place through a complicated and lengthy process of local lawsuits&quot;?  Again, that don&#x27;t make sense.