Libertarian Environmental policy

[Parker2112]

Because RG is a liar and spreads misinformation.

Enforcement of private property rights. Liberty is the measuring stick. Duh.

Libertarian policies hold that no one has the right to obstruct your liberty to own and enjoy your property. If they do, they are liable for the trespass. So big corps would no longer receive the favoritism they enjoy currently under a bought and paid for govt.

sTr50dREplg

[scott]

Thread is easily summed up by two philosophies:

Tradable Emmissions Credits: what conservatives have traditionally supported as a free-market solution to pollution control.

Cap-and-Trade: what liberals have recently supported as a solution to pollution control.

Of course they are actually the exact same libertarian idea that neither side supports when suggested by the other team.

[scott]

Also, self proclaimed libertarians lose credibility when the can only post Ron Paul videos and quotes. The "Ron Paul Only" Libertarian ranks slightly above the "Wild Cobra I Don't Actually Know What Libertarian Means" Libertarian in terms of credibility.

[boutons_deux]

Ron Paul, spewing fantasies with no chance of being put into practice, and RP having never the responsibility to try because he won't win anything.

easy examples of my land and air being "trespassed":

coal-plants spewing methyl mercury, sulfur, cadmium, lead, etc.

BigAg polluting ground and surface water with animal shit, with x-icides, with fertlizers,

BigOilGas polluting ground/surface water with fracking liquids.

RP wouldn't/couldn't touch any of those trespassers.

[RandomGuy]

Because RG is a liar and spreads misinformation.

Enforcement of private property rights. Liberty is the measuring stick. Duh.

Libertarian policies hold that no one has the right to obstruct your liberty to own and enjoy your property. If they do, they are liable for the trespass. So big corps would no longer receive the favoritism they enjoy currently under a bought and paid for govt.

sTr50dREplg

1) All I heard there was a bunch of vacuous "you don't have the right to pollute" platitudes, but no real policy solutions.Tell me how anything in that video shows how to overcome resource asymetry in a court between a BP and any group of land owners.

2) You can't call me a liar, if I give my best interpretation from memory of what your ill-formed, semi-intelligible position is. If you can't clearly explain what your position/plan is, then you don't have one, and don't have the right to get all huffy when someone does a good faith effort to fill in the blanks.

Do you have anything on environmental policy other than empty platitudes from some politician?

Feel free to enlighten me/us.

[RandomGuy]

Thread is easily summed up by two philosophies:

Tradable Emmissions Credits: what conservatives have traditionally supported as a free-market solution to pollution control.

Cap-and-Trade: what liberals have recently supported as a solution to pollution control.

Of course they are actually the exact same libertarian idea that neither side supports when suggested by the other team.

The thing that such schemes never seem to address to me is what do you do for really toxic shit?

How much of a "right" do you have to dump heavy metals into a water table? How would the "free market" price that?

http://img.izismile.com/img/img2/20091008/toxic_lakes_07.jpg


In fact, it’s the Berkeley Pit, a former open pit copper mine located in Butte, Montana, USA. It is filled to a depth of about 900 feet (270 m) with water that is heavily acidic. The pit is laden with heavy metals and dangerous chemicals, including arsenic, cadmium, zinc, and sulfuric acid. When the pit was closed, the water pumps at the bottom were removed, and groundwater from the surrounding aquifers began to slowly fill the pit. Since the pit closure in 1982, the level has risen to within 150 feet of the natural groundwater level.
In 1995, a large flock of migrating snow geese landed in the Berkeley Pit water and died, with 342 carcasses recovered.

How then does one deal with this, if the company that created it goes bankrupt, i.e. the defunct corporation that produced this monster?

Kinda hard to enforce property rights against a dead "person".

What is the libertarian solution to things like this, that are likely beyond the financial ability of the locals to handle?

Unless of course one thinks that the 34,000 people of Butte Montana have the financial wherewithal to clean this up?

I am genuinely curious as to how the Revlovelution would handle this.

(other than throw a youtube video at it)

[boutons_deux]

RP talks (it's cheap), but can't walk, because he can't/won't win.

His fans are as deluded as he is.

[RandomGuy]

RP talks (it's cheap), but can't walk, because he can't/won't win.

His fans are as deluded as he is.

Wait, are we talking about Mavericks fans or Ron Paul supporters?

[RandomGuy]

I see Parker is ringing the doorbell and running away. Give it another day or two.

Jeez, could it get any more allegorical?

A: "Here is a great example of libertarian environmental policy."

B: "Well that really wasn't very specific, my problem is that was long on rhetoric, but short on specifics, can you flesh it out?"

(crickets)

[Wild Cobra]

If libertarians actually got in places to make public policy, they would soon find out that the required policies would be upsetting to others. You all have called me an authoritarian for pointing out fixes. It's one thing to agree or disagree on how we accomplish something, but another to call any libertarian an authoritarian who isn't an anarchist.

[RandomGuy]

Still nuthin' I see.

I don't want to assume he read it but didn't respond, he might have missed it. I will keep bumping this till he notices. Surely he can come up with a plan that will address my question. Right?

[Parker2112]

Still nuthin' I see.

I don't want to assume he read it but didn't respond, he might have missed it. I will keep bumping this till he notices. Surely he can come up with a plan that will address my question. Right?


Its already been discussed between you and I on a long thread. I will let you do the search.

Hint: Laws as currently written (by lobbyists) allow huge corporations to utilize the full advantage of their resources to crush the "lil guy," individual rights be damned.

What I told you before was that civil litigation procedural laws would have have to be rewritten to even the playing field. Swift justice. Limit discovery. Limit appeals. N more ten and 15 year "last man standing" litigation. No more burying the little guy in discovery requests, causing them to fold early. no more endless appeals and retrials, making the suit moot by the time a verdict comes down. No more judicial findings that corps interests outwiegh those of the individual.

But if you support the libertarian stance, and believe that the individuals right to enjoy his/her private property without interference, then you understand how fucked up our current system is already.

If we moved towards a society that didnt favor corporate plunder, but instead respected the rights of individuals first and foremost, then you would know where we need to head.

We discussed all this already. do the search. but you conveniently forgot. and said some false shit about libertarians take on the environment. go figure.

[Parker2112]

Thread is easily summed up by two philosophies:

Tradable Emmissions Credits: what conservatives have traditionally supported as a free-market solution to pollution control.

Cap-and-Trade: what liberals have recently supported as a solution to pollution control.

Of course they are actually the exact same libertarian idea that neither side supports when suggested by the other team.

libertarian idea, till you bring in the govt regs and manipulation. The things your talking about arent libertarian in the least, because they require nw agencies/new regs/ etc.

[Wild Cobra]

Parker, to be a libertarian does not mean believing in now laws or regulations, or creating them as needed. have you ever read the Libertarian party Platform (http://www.lp.org/platform)?

A few highlights:


1.5 Crime and Justice

Government exists to protect the rights of every individual including life, liberty and property. Criminal laws should be limited to violation of the rights of others through force or fraud, or deliberate actions that place others involuntarily at significant risk of harm. Individuals retain the right to voluntarily assume risk of harm to themselves. We support restitution of the victim to the fullest degree possible at the expense of the criminal or the negligent wrongdoer. We oppose reduction of constitutional safeguards of the rights of the criminally accused. The rights of due process, a speedy trial, legal counsel, trial by jury, and the legal presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must not be denied. We assert the common-law right of juries to judge not only the facts but also the justice of the law.


2.1 Property and Contract

Property rights are entitled to the same protection as all other human rights. The owners of property have the full right to control, use, dispose of, or in any manner enjoy, their property without interference, until and unless the exercise of their control infringes the valid rights of others. We oppose all controls on wages, prices, rents, profits, production, and interest rates. We advocate the repeal of all laws banning or restricting the advertising of prices, products, or services. We oppose all violations of the right to private property, liberty of contract, and freedom of trade. The right to trade includes the right not to trade — for any reasons whatsoever. Where property, including land, has been taken from its rightful owners by the government or private action in violation of individual rights, we favor restitution to the rightful owners.


2.2 Environment

We support a clean and healthy environment and sensible use of our natural resources. Private landowners and conservation groups have a vested interest in maintaining natural resources. Pollution and misuse of resources cause damage to our ecosystem. Governments, unlike private businesses, are unaccountable for such damage done to our environment and have a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection. Protecting the environment requires a clear definition and enforcement of individual rights in resources like land, water, air, and wildlife. Free markets and property rights stimulate the technological innovations and behavioral changes required to protect our environment and ecosystems. We realize that our planet's climate is constantly changing, but environmental advocates and social pressure are the most effective means of changing public behavior.
This must be maintained by laws and regulations. My third example shows the opinion that when the government leases property for resources, it is exploited. However, an owner has a vested interest to maintain it.

[scott]

Still nuthin' I see.

I don't want to assume he read it but didn't respond, he might have missed it. I will keep bumping this till he notices. Surely he can come up with a plan that will address my question. Right?

Moi?

A true libertarian policy would still include restrictions (and severe punishments) against gross negligence. It not like along with Tradable Emissions Credits they also want to issue Tradable Murder Credits.

It's not like Ron Paul is the epitome of libertarian ideals (and I don't think Parker is a libertarian so much as he is just a Ron Paul supporter. And we all know WC isn't a libertarian, he is just someone who likes the word because it sounds like something he's never met: a librarian). Ron Paul is just a completely unelectable guy with some libertarian ideas who has a ton of his other ideas, a lot of them that make perfect sense and some of them that are kind of head scratchers.

[Parker2112]

Parker, to be a libertarian does not mean believing in now laws or regulations, or creating them as needed. have you ever read the Libertarian party Platform (http://www.lp.org/platform)?

A few highlights:





This must be maintained by laws and regulations. My third example shows the opinion that when the government leases property for resources, it is exploited. However, an owner has a vested interest to maintain it.

Wrong. They can be maintained in courts of law.

[Parker2112]

Moi?

A true libertarian policy would still include restrictions (and severe punishments) against gross negligence. It not like along with Tradable Emissions Credits they also want to issue Tradable Murder Credits.

It's not like Ron Paul is the epitome of libertarian ideals (and I don't think Parker is a libertarian so much as he is just a Ron Paul supporter. And we all know WC isn't a libertarian, he is just someone who likes the word because it sounds like something he's never met: a librarian). Ron Paul is just a completely unelectable guy with some libertarian ideas who has a ton of his other ideas, a lot of them that make perfect sense and some of them that are kind of head scratchers.

The "unelectablility" bit is being stretched as thin as the "electability" of the "frontrunners" and favorites. Take a quick look at the cast plastic misfits running for the Republican nomination. Consider the anger and division within the conservative base regarding the current state of the party and the proliferation of RINOs.

The competition and divisive state of the Republican Party could undermine Paul's unelectiblility.

And if he actually does win the nomination and goes up against Obama?

http://www.businessinsider.com/shock-poll-obama-tied-with-romney-perry-paul-in-new-poll-2011-8

[scott]

The "unelectablility" bit is being stretched as thin as the "electability" of the "frontrunners" and favorites. Take a quick look at the cast plastic misfits running for the Republican nomination. Consider the anger and division within the conservative base regarding the current state of the party and the proliferation of RINOs.

The competition and divisive state of the Republican Party could undermine Paul's unelectiblility.

And if he actually does win the nomination and goes up against Obama?

http://www.businessinsider.com/shock-poll-obama-tied-with-romney-perry-paul-in-new-poll-2011-8

What if he doesn't come close? Will you come back to this forum and admit you were wrong, or just call everyone a shepple and post YouTube videos?

Edit: If he even comes close to winning the nomination, I'd be happy to eat crow.

[Parker2112]

I dont think he is electible by "shepples." And the electorate is FULL of em.

A victory to me means RP changes the debate permanently. I think that has happened. Change happens slowly. His persistence in running, serving, debating, and spreading libertarian ideals over the last four decades IS paying off whether he wins or not.

I think he has a punchers chance or less. But under the right circumstances, you never know.

http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/2010/writers/richard_obrien/02/11/douglas.tyson/tyson-douglas.jpg

[scott]

Just so we are clear...

He's not electable by any standard that matters (the standard being: getting elected by voters) because the people who do the voting are sheeples.

But he isn't unelectable by your standard, which is to say he changed the debate in some non-descript way which still doesn't result in him getting elected.

Listen, despite what a fucktard like Wild Cobra believes - I know what real libertarianism means and I believe in those ideals (note, libertarianism is not capitalized, that would mean I'm talking about the bastardized Libertarian Party). I also recognize, for the most part, libertarian ideals are UNELECTABLE because they exist in a space that the average American (who you like to call "the sheeple") is not comfortable with. The idea of a social liberal, fiscal conservative (which is really the same as saying an economic liberal) does not sit well with most because it is the combination of ideals that involves the least amount of authority granted to politician du jour. The thing "liberals" and "conservatives" alike agree on, and agree on vehemently, is that they love power and authority, and thirst for it like a wanderer in the desert. The true libertarian idea evaporates that authority, and it undermines what the established parties have worked so hard to create: a system of egalitarian rule.

[Parker2112]

Just so we are clear...

He's not electable by any standard that matters (the standard being: getting elected by voters) because the people who do the voting are sheeples.

But he isn't unelectable by your standard, which is to say he changed the debate in some non-descript way which still doesn't result in him getting elected.

Listen, despite what a fucktard like Wild Cobra believes - I know what real libertarianism means and I believe in those ideals (note, libertarianism is not capitalized, that would mean I'm talking about the bastardized Libertarian Party). I also recognize, for the most part, libertarian ideals are UNELECTABLE because they exist in a space that the average American (who you like to call "the sheeple") is not comfortable with. The idea of a social liberal, fiscal conservative (which is really the same as saying an economic liberal) does not sit well with most because it is the combination of ideals that involves the least amount of authority granted to politician du jour. The thing "liberals" and "conservatives" alike agree on, and agree on vehemently, is that they love power and authority, and thirst for it like a wanderer in the desert. The true libertarian idea evaporates that authority, and it undermines what the established parties have worked so hard to create: a system of egalitarian rule.

Hard numbers. Any other election, RP would have a 1-2% chance. This time, I think Perry is going to fall apart leaving a dangerous vaccum (dangerous for the status quo). Why? Because I think he will end up exposing himself before its said and done. He is showing that he doesnt like hard questions about his shitty track record, and I think he eventually crumbles in his own hand.

If Perry falls out of serious contention, I give Ron Paul as good a chance as anyone. Maybe a slight edge to Romney, but bottom line would be 25%-40% chance for RP.

And if RP gets the Republican nomination, I say all hell has broken loose and its anybody's ballgame. He is winning independents over daily, and he has a real shot against Obama. 50%-50%.

Winning over liberal-leaning independents comes easier for RP's campaign than winning over RINOs and neocons. For all those who wanted hope and change when they voted for Obama (:toast) RP is going to look like a second chance at the same. The Repub ticket is the hard one. The tea party could well be the wild card that wins the day. And I cringe at the tea party's contents. Ironic that they could save the day.

So long story short, there are some scenarios in which sheeples could be cornered into checking the box for RP.

Scott, have you changed your stance on the Fed?

[ElNono]

Parker, sig bet Ron Paul doesn't get over 15% of the votes in the GOP primary.

[scott]

What is my stance on the Fed by which could be changed?

[boutons_deux]

Repugs have been fantastic, going back to St Ronnie the Destroyer, at implementing "libertarian" environmental (UCA freed from regulations to fuck up the planet) policies.

Business as Usual Is Destroying America

The national efforts to stem the tide of pollution in the 1960s and 1970s made a difference: Americans had the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and cleaner air and water. In 1972, EPA dared to ban DDT, the silver bullet of the farmers against all insects. This decision united farmers, the chemical industry and all polluters to reassert their authority. Business as usual was back on the driver's seat.

So, the honeymoon with the natural world was more ephemeral than real.

The Republican administration of Ronald Reagan declared war on nature and started the subversion of EPA to a polluters' protection agency.

This was a bipartisan effort to rein in the environmentalists who wanted real protection from the trillions of pounds of hazardous chemicals used or dumped all over the country.

The national efforts to stem the tide of pollution in the 1960s and 1970s made a difference: Americans had the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and cleaner air and water. In 1972, EPA dared to ban DDT, the silver bullet of the farmers against all insects. This decision united farmers, the chemical industry and all polluters to reassert their authority. Business as usual was back on the driver's seat.

So, the honeymoon with the natural world was more ephemeral than real.

The Republican administration of Ronald Reagan declared war on nature and started the subversion of EPA to a polluters' protection agency.

This was a bipartisan effort to rein in the environmentalists who wanted real protection from the trillions of pounds of hazardous chemicals used or dumped all over the country.

Of all the presidents in the last 50 years, George W. Bush was the most formidable enemy of environmental protection. This was a president who invented terrorism as a mantra for perpetual war. His obsession was to defeat the invisible Muslim fanatics who bombed Washington, DC, and New York. He mobilized the Pentagon and countless mercenary soldiers to invade and occupy Iraq and Afghanistan with the result that he brought the country near bankruptcy. With this single-minded commitment to war for theology and petroleum, Bush cared less about environmental protection. Bush only remembered the legacy of Ronald Reagan. He used the Reagan models to cut down on the little the EPA was still doing to keep the air breathable.

As a result, during the Bush administration, the air was permeated with more pesticides, toxic soot, lead and smog; the drinking water was permeated with more arsenic, pesticides and the rocket fuel perchlorate; the land was permeated with more untreated waste, slipping into streams, ground water, rivers and lakes. This extra pollution killed countless thousands, but it was profit in the pockets of polluters.

Second, factories, car manufacturers and power plants did not bother to replace old-fashioned equipment, exacerbating pollution. The EPA's enforcement lawyers kept suing the factory criminals, only to have the White House prevent their prosecution. In 2002, Eric Schaffer, director of enforcement, quit in disgust.

Third, the chemical industry gave millions to the EPA to help them test their products on America's infants and toddlers. They called such unethical and shameless experiment CHEERS - Children's Environmental Exposure Research Study. The testing did not last for long, but it created an additional way the industry could save money by preying on vulnerable populations in need of a little cash.

According to Sen. Barbara Boxer, who, in 2008, investigated the malfeasance of the Bush administration, the political men of the EPA worked closely with the White House and Pentagon officials to undermine the evaluation of toxic chemicals. "National security" trumped safety for our children.

Fourth, the Bush administration had an industry man, Philip Cooney, who censored government research and reports about global warming. The Bush administration knew the United States was the largest global producer of carbon dioxide, a key agent in raising the temperature of the planet. Yet, it wrecked international efforts to bring the warming of the earth, a juggernaut of future calamities, under control.

This ugly policy of business as usual so disheartened Elizabeth Kolbert, a writer for The New Yorker, that she concluded her 2006 book, "Field Notes From a Catastrophe: Man, Nature. And Climate Change," with this: "It may seem impossible to imagine that a technologically advanced society could choose, in essence, to destroy itself, but that is what we are now in the process of doing."

Kolbert is right. Business as usual is slowly killing America, especially its children.

http://www.truth-out.org/print/5842

====

And of course the biggest polluter is the military, and the MIC suppliers/contractors.

local example: Kelly field as wannabe-but-isn't Superfund site (Repugs have been defunding Superfund fund for many years):

http://www.txpeer.org/toxictour/kelly.html

[Parker2112]

So you blame the misdeeds of our federal debacle on those who favor its dismantling?

This is some of the stupidist shit ever posted imo

[boutons_deux]

The federal debacle is exactly how UCA and capitalists want to be. They know how to manipulate the federal (any) govt to extract the maximum benefits and revenue, which of course comes from taxpayers

They absolutely don't want any countervailing power for the govt, which is the only source with the potential to be a countervailing power.

[RandomGuy]

Moi?

A true libertarian policy would still include restrictions (and severe punishments) against gross negligence. It not like along with Tradable Emissions Credits they also want to issue Tradable Murder Credits.

It's not like Ron Paul is the epitome of libertarian ideals (and I don't think Parker is a libertarian so much as he is just a Ron Paul supporter. And we all know WC isn't a libertarian, he is just someone who likes the word because it sounds like something he's never met: a librarian). Ron Paul is just a completely unelectable guy with some libertarian ideas who has a ton of his other ideas, a lot of them that make perfect sense and some of them that are kind of head scratchers.

Actually was addressing Parker with my "still waiting" post. Parker has, in my experience, a reputation for ringing doorbells and running away, you... don't.

[vy65]

What I told you before was that civil litigation procedural laws would have have to be rewritten to even the playing field. Swift justice. Limit discovery. Limit appeals. N more ten and 15 year "last man standing" litigation. No more burying the little guy in discovery requests, causing them to fold early. no more endless appeals and retrials, making the suit moot by the time a verdict comes down. No more judicial findings that corps interests outwiegh those of the individual.

lol

This is meaningless drivel. What specific changes would you make?

[RandomGuy]

Its already been discussed between you and I on a long thread. I will let you do the search.

Hint: Laws as currently written (by lobbyists) allow huge corporations to utilize the full advantage of their resources to crush the "lil guy," individual rights be damned.

What I told you before was that civil litigation procedural laws would have have to be rewritten to even the playing field. Swift justice. Limit discovery. Limit appeals. No more ten and 15 year "last man standing" litigation. No more burying the little guy in discovery requests, causing them to fold early. no more endless appeals and retrials, making the suit moot by the time a verdict comes down. No more judicial findings that corps interests outwiegh those of the individual.

But if you support the libertarian stance, and believe that the individuals right to enjoy his/her private property without interference, then you understand how fucked up our current system is already.

If we moved towards a society that didnt favor corporate plunder, but instead respected the rights of individuals first and foremost, then you would know where we need to head.

We discussed all this already. do the search. but you conveniently forgot. and said some false shit about libertarians take on the environment. go figure.

"false shit" ... whatever. All I remember is that your stance was a bit vague.

Anyhoo, now that we have some specifics, let's see what we have:


Limit discovery.
Limit appeals.
No more ten and 15 year "last man standing" litigation.
No more burying the little guy in discovery requests, causing them to fold early.
No more judicial findings that corps interests outwiegh those of the individual.

This is the kind of thing that screams "unintended consequences" and "hand-wavy generalities" to me.

Personally I don't find the "respect due process" and "limit discovery/appeals" to be fully compatable, but, let's assume it is and see where this all goes.

Let's go on to the first bit, about limiting discovery, and come back to limiting appeals later.


most civil cases in the United States are settled after discovery
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_(law)
http://joselermalaw.com/content/civil-litigation
http://www.justicejournalism.org/crimeguide/chapter09/chapter09_pg04.html
http://www.in.gov/judiciary/pubs/media-guide/civil-cases.html

The rather expensive process actually motivates a lot of companies to seek a comprimise settlement for small cases, as the cost of discovery itself can cost more than the damages sought.

We can probably assume that reducing dicovery will cause more cases to go to court. Not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, I would guess.

It is also safe to assume that if one limits discovery, and you are suing a rather large corporation, it seems safe to say the chances of missing something important to your case go up, as they can play the shell game with information.

How exactly do you limit discovery, but still allow the chance for a wronged property holder to complel a defendant to fork over needed documentation, Parker?

[vy65]

limiting discovery would help polluters and fuck over plaintiffs.

[RandomGuy]

lol

This is meaningless drivel. What specific changes would you make?

Heh, you beat me to it.

I don't think Parker has the legal expertise to really flesh it out. Not saying that as a knock on Parker. He isn't a lawyer.

Hopefully he can research it a bit to find something specific, but I won't hold my breath.

Personally I think it is just something he heard and found emotionally appealing without doing any critical thinking, as a lot of things do to young people.

[RandomGuy]

limiting discovery would help polluters and fuck over plaintiffs.

How exactly?

I suspect it would have some unintended consequences, but would be hard pressed to say exactly why. This is your baliwhack, so have at it, I would like the chance to learn something today on my lunch hour. :toast

[vy65]

How exactly?

I suspect it would have some unintended consequences, but would be hard pressed to say exactly why. This is your baliwhack, so have at it, I would like the chance to learn something today on my lunch hour. :toast

Plaintiffs have the burden of proof at trial. Their interest is in obtaining info from the defendant. If you limit discovery - meaning make it harder to get info from the other side - you'd make it easier for a corporation to sit on the information it has.

If a corporate polluter really damaged the environment, limiting discovery (i.e., decreasing the number of RFPs/interrogatories, limiting the number and length of depositions, whatever) would make it easier for said polluter to restrict access to information which would help a plaintiff prove its cause of action.

[vy65]

If anything, Parker should be arguing for added-incentives to the legal system. One example could be mandatory awards of treble damages given to plaintiffs who succeed in bringing an environmental claim against a corporate polluter. Or you could set minimum thresholds for awards of fees and costs to make sure that a prevailing plaintiff is not out of pocket for anything in suing a corporate polluter. Another thing could be to force all corporations held liable for pollution to contribute to a legal defense fund that could help subsidize other lawsuits.

But all that isn't nearly as fun as saying dumb shit and posting Ron Paul videos, now is it?

[RandomGuy]

The obvious rejoinder is the case of corporations that go out of business or bankrupt.

What is to stop a company from making products cheaply by dumping pollution in a way that is hidden for 10-20 years, issuing dividends to the owners who cash out and then wind down the corporation?

Or just simply creating a few shell companies to do something similar? With no government oversight, you are forced to wait until *after* the damage is really done, sometimes decades after, as we find out occasionally even now.

I dunno, I'm open to what works, but I just don't think the "scrap all governmental oversight and stick to simple lawsuits" is really all that workable. Some of what you brought up does seem fair.

[vy65]

The obvious rejoinder is the case of corporations that go out of business or bankrupt.

What is to stop a company from making products cheaply by dumping pollution in a way that is hidden for 10-20 years, issuing dividends to the owners who cash out and then wind down the corporation?

Or just simply creating a few shell companies to do something similar? With no government oversight, you are forced to wait until *after* the damage is really done, sometimes decades after, as we find out occasionally even now.

I dunno, I'm open to what works, but I just don't think the "scrap all governmental oversight and stick to simple lawsuits" is really all that workable. Some of what you brought up does seem fair.

Was this supposed to be a criticism of what I wrote? I'm not seeing the connection.

I also dunno how a company can make cheap products and hide pollution for 10-20 years.

And you deal with this by using the bankruptcy estate to create medical and litigation funds for the survivors - basically turning the victims into creditors of the bankrupt entity - like they did with asbestos corporations.

But I never said there should be limited govt oversight, so I don't see the relevance of any of this.

[RandomGuy]

Was this supposed to be a criticism of what I wrote? I'm not seeing the connection.

I also dunno how a company can make cheap products and hide pollution for 10-20 years.

And you deal with this by using the bankruptcy estate to create medical and litigation funds for the survivors - basically turning the victims into creditors of the bankrupt entity - like they did with asbestos corporations.

But I never said there should be limited govt oversight, so I don't see the relevance of any of this.

I was speaking more to Parker than to you specifically, sorry, could have made that more clear.

Burning coal, or mining it for that matter, usually leaves some nasty heavy metals that aren't really all that visibly apparent. Trace carcinigens, radiation, etc, all are things that don't really show up in the environment as readily as say, a burning river.

All of this though still fails to address the pollution itself. What happens if the money available is insufficient to clean it up or even mildly remediate it? Who do we sue then?

[boutons_deux]

"usually leaves some nasty heavy metals"

always

cadmium, methyl mercury, etc.

And then there is the lakes and/or mountains of coal ash that BigCoal has bullied/compromised EPA into not classifying coal ash as toxic (it's full of all of the above).

Clean Coal is a huge lie

[boutons_deux]

"usually leaves some nasty heavy metals"

always

cadmium, methyl mercury, etc.

And then there are the lakes and/or mountains of coal ash that BigCoal has bullied/compromised EPA into not classifying as toxic (it's full of all of the above).

Clean Coal is a huge lie

[vy65]

YtPzdewoX_Y

lol Ron Paul

[Wild Cobra]

Ron Paul is spot on again.