If someone truly wants to risks the costs of non-compliance, they will do so, and that is true for *any* law, but it is hardly a reason to not enact a law against some costly or harmful behavior.
You may as well ask:
"If someone is going to murder someone else, what good does the death penalty do?"
The answer to both your question, and the above is deterrence.
Businesses all the time use this cost/benefit calculuus to determine courses of action, and have famously used this to cover all sorts of behavior.
Insurance companies make this kind of cold calculation all the time. "Is it cheaper to live up to the policy, or to fight the contract we entered into and attemp to weasel out of our obligations". Ethics be damned, lets make some money.
You force companies to be aware of their toxic waste, and provide penalties that vastly increase the cost of doing something shady with it. You add severe criminal penalties for faking the books and outright fraud, along with some more minor penalties for errors to prod people into correct accounting and handling of the toxic waste.
Without this, you get polluters who will force the costs of their pollution on the unsuspecting.
Pollution is a definite cost. The only thing that this kind of reporting and disposal does is forces the people who want to use the product to bear the true costs of the pollution, instead of shifting that to everybody else not a party to the transaction.
If you want to use a product that produces this kind of nasty , then you should bear the cost of that, and not force everybody else to pay for it, just so you can get that product a few pennies cheaper.
This concept, "negative externality", has been explained to you over and over and over, yet it still seems to elude you.
It isn't some "feel good" liberal expenses.
It is applying a conceptual framework to a problem, with the ultimate goal of eliminating unnecessary drags on the economy.
Do you not understand that it is wrong to steal from others?
Coal ash, obviously
Just in case WC wants to walk back his "feel good liberal expenses" quote.
Say all you want asswipe.
You're a ing liar by the way you changed the quote.
What's life like in the pathetic lane?
There you go lying again.
If you had enough intelligence to follow what I said, I clearly indicated that requiring they say on paper how they dispose of it is a waste of expense and time. If they are going to unscrupulously dispose of it, they will also unscrupulously lie about it on paper.
But you are the master of being unscrupulous, aren't you, so why don't you understand this concept?
I thought it was fair, you didn't.
I took the point and changed it to something that is hopefully more accurate.
(shrugs)
If you got your panties in a wad, quit saying stupid .
"Hopefully more accurate"
Bull . It was a calculated cheap shot.
Do you have any redeeming values?
I fully understand what you are saying, obviously better than you yourself do.
If someone is going to lie/cheat/murder they will do it anyways, yes.
But we have penalties for these things.
Controls such as this, are done partly to increase the penalty for breaking the law concerning the disposal.
The ability to hold companies accountable is a requirement for any law.
Is accountability not something you think is a good idea?
Crocodile tears from a guy who constantly distorts what "liberals" think.
:
Sorry, you will get no pity from me on this. Like I said, stop saying stupid , and you wouldn't have the problem of your words coming back to haunt you.
Wow...
And you extrapolate that into changing my quote.
Why not just increase the penalties in the first place? These people either play by the rules, or they don't. This added burden just adds expenses to all. There is no justification for it except to make more government jobs for more peanut counters.
Riddle me this:
How do you figure out if someone is playing by the rules?
There are better ways, and probably in play also. The "cradle to grave" rules are nonsense.
That isn't an answer.Riddle me this:
How do you figure out if someone is playing by the rules?
Either you can give me some kind of option, or we can assume your criticism that the reporting requirements are unnecessary is invalid.
You just don't understand his concept
I'm not going to research something to justify an opinion.
Tell me, how many times did these requirements pan out? Do you care to do that research?
We disagree on the need for this requirement. Fine.
You are still a pathetic ass because you misrepresent peoples easily understood intent.
So you don't like the rules that have to be enacted to enforce pollution limits that discourage companies from dumping toxic waste anywhere, but can't tell me what rules you would put in place that are better.
Gotcha.
"Those rules are really bad!"
"Ok, fine, they are bad. How should be change them to be better?"
"um, well, those rules are really bad!"
Stop sidestepping my complaint.So you don't like the rules that have to be enacted to enforce pollution limits that discourage companies from dumping toxic waste anywhere, but can't tell me what rules you would put in place that are better.
Gotcha.
"Those rules are really bad!"
"Ok, fine, they are bad. How should be change them to be better?"
"um, well, those rules are really bad!"
You are a ing liar. You slander me. You are pathetic to have to do so.
(sighs heavily)
Fine, since you want to act like a big baby about it, how exactly is the quote a lie?
Did you or did you not call reporting requirements for toxic pollution "feel good" liberal expenses?
Just the "cradle to grave" requirements.
Vanilla? You and Blake hand over your man-cards nao!
FU don't knock it till you've tried it!
, good thing you didn't say vanilla big red.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
