Page 3 of 14 FirstFirst 123456713 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 75 of 346
  1. #51
    Prince of Whales RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    37,442
    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.
    Now it could be argued using this aim that some pollution would be made criminal, although this seems to contradict the section 2.2 on the environment that says that "social pressure" is the preferred method.

    Since we don't have a functioning legal system that can enforce "social pressure" or civil judgments, would it then be assumed under this platform that recalitrant or powerful corporations would be subject to criminal procedings under this princple?

    What would they be cited for?
    Failure to abide by the civil court? Criminal pollution laws?

    Setting aside for a moment that the former would mean that only those with $$$ get any justice, because big corporations can outlast with money any group of concerned citizens in a lawsuit, that would simply force the pollution suits back into the criminal realm, creating de facto pollution laws by court precedent.

    The latter... is what we have now.
    _____________________________
    To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public. -- The kind of Republican that would kicked out of the party today.

    "You know what uranium is, right? Its this thing called nuclear weapons. And other things. Like lots of things are done with uranium. Including some bad things." -President Trump

    Putin has built up their military again and again and again. Their military is much stronger. Hes doing nuclear, were not doing anything. Our nuclear is old and tired and his nuclear is tippy-top from what I hear. Better be careful, folks, okay? You better be careful. -President Trump



    http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...16#post9293816

  2. #52
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    55,455
    anyone who believes social pressure as a means of environmental control would work cracks me up. We'd all be drinking some nasty ing water if that was the case.
    _____________________________


  3. #53
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    55,455
    I'll tell you this much: A properly educated society live in a democracy will naturally gravitate towards libertarianism. The fact that we don't is an indicator we can't have it.

  4. #54
    sick demented ring****** ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    100,236
    anyone who believes social pressure as a means of environmental control would work cracks me up. We'd all be drinking some nasty ing water if that was the case.
    I'm for it; I could dump all the fluoride I wanted into the aquifer.
    _____________________________

  5. #55
    Prince of Whales RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    37,442
    I'm for it; I could dump all the fluoride I wanted into the aquifer.
    Assume you are a large corporation, and you decide to build a fertilizer processing plant. You consume a huge amount of water, and decide that it is cheaper to dump the waste into a nearby lake. This lake feeds a lot of streams and so forth in the area, as well as provides water for local crop irrigation. Your waste is now lowering the quality of life, and stealing "clean" water from those affected.


    You could create tons of hotspots of people with fewer cavities.

  6. #56
    Believe. Parker2112's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    4,494
    We can start here.

    Sounds good in theory.

    Let's put it to a practical example, to show what I think are the ultimate limitations of the theory.

    Assume you are a large corporation, and you decide to build a fertilizer processing plant. You consume a huge amount of water, and decide that it is cheaper to dump the waste into a nearby lake. This lake feeds a lot of streams and so forth in the area, as well as provides water for local crop irrigation. Your waste is now lowering the quality of life, and stealing "clean" water from those affected.

    Without "using force" or government, how do you stop this? Do you stop this? Do you simply accept that the company will pollute without restriction?
    Injunction, tort litigation, criminal charges, etc.
    _____________________________
    "IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.
    Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."
    -Hermann Goering, President Nazi Party, Luftwaffe Commander


    "I guarantee the first time I go through one, I will have hands on my genitals. I might just pull out my nuts for good measure. Me and the TSA officer are going to get intimate. Might as well make us both uncomfortable." - Parker2112

  7. #57
    sick demented ring****** ChumpDumper's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Post Count
    100,236
    Sounds like legal regulation to me.

  8. #58
    Whom Gods Destroy z0sa's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    14,281
    The environment is one glaring hole in libertarian philosophy. RG's scenario is much easier to solve than one where the pollution may be "hidden" or not easily detected. With little government regulation, and the secretive nature of corporations, there'd be an open door for them to pollute to the max until it bothered - or hurt or killed - someone. Even if the government eventually came down on them, the damage done could be deadly and irreparable.
    _____________________________
    "The earth does not want new continents, but new men."


  9. #59
    Veteran
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Post Count
    10,222
    anyone who believes social pressure as a means of environmental control would work cracks me up. We'd all be drinking some nasty ing water if that was the case.
    See you just don't get it. It would be in the interest of a private individual or corporation to care of the land they own and they would do a better job of it than the government. So if our national parks, take Yosemite for example, were returned to private ownership then it would be kept even more pristine because that would generate more tourism/profits. Well unless they realized they could just flood it like it's sister valley Hetch Hetchy and make more money selling the water to Califorinia. But they wouldn't be able to do that because it's public land, no wait it's private, no wait it's....


    RG, the correct description of libertarians is "politically irrelevant". Why spend time arguing with them?

  10. #60
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    55,455
    The environment is one glaring hole in libertarian philosophy. RG's scenario is much easier to solve than one where the pollution may be "hidden" or not easily detected. With little government regulation, and the secretive nature of corporations, there'd be an open door for them to pollute to the max until it bothered - or hurt or killed - someone. Even if the government eventually came down on them, the damage done could be deadly and irreparable.
    Its not so much as a hole in their philosophy as they overvalue how much the general public cares about it. People generally don't give a shit about the environment unless it directly effects them.

    IE Joe the Plumber doesn't care that Chesapeak bay is a shit hole but if it was his aquifer in question he'd care more.

  11. #61
    Veteran baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    72,753
    Its not so much as a hole in their philosophy as they overvalue how much the general public cares about it. People generally don't give a shit about the environment unless it directly effects them.

    IE Joe the Plumber doesn't care that Chesapeak bay is a shit hole but if it was his aquifer in question he'd care more.
    I don't agree. Lots don't seem to give a crap that air pollution from inefficient vehicles is a carcinogen and effectively a socialized tax on them.

  12. #62
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    49,929
    RG, the correct description of libertarians is "politically irrelevant". Why spend time arguing with them?
    Because so many Republicans are hunkered down in the libertarian foxhole, afraid to speak their own names.

    Tea Party, much?

  13. #63
    Believe. Parker2112's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    4,494
    you guys all miss the boat. Handle it in the courts. How is that a huge hole? EPA is more subject to administration pressure than judges.

    It would require more diligence by private activist groups to monitor activities. And regulation can still happen. But the govt has not kept this country environmentally safe. Look at the Gulf.

  14. #64
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    55,455
    I don't agree. Lots don't seem to give a crap that air pollution from inefficient vehicles is a carcinogen and effectively a socialized tax on them.
    I think thats kinda what I've been saying.

  15. #65
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    55,455
    you guys all miss the boat. Handle it in the courts. How is that a huge hole? EPA is more subject to administration pressure than judges.

    It would require more diligence by private activist groups to monitor activities. And regulation can still happen. But the govt has not kept this country environmentally safe. Look at the Gulf.
    You sure seem to be advocating regulation.

  16. #66
    Believe. Parker2112's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    4,494
    "Handle it in the courts" is not "regulation"

    The difference is the solution is not subject to partisan fail and the cost is only borne by those with damages/interest in the case.

  17. #67
    Believe. Parker2112's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    4,494
    Its not so much as a hole in their philosophy as they overvalue how much the general public cares about it. People generally don't give a shit about the environment unless it directly effects them.

    IE Joe the Plumber doesn't care that Chesapeak bay is a shit hole but if it was his aquifer in question he'd care more.
    Thats the hole point. Let those parties with specific interests at stake be the ones to fund the argument.

    There are arguments against the libertarian take (hanlde enviro issues in court), but I havent seen them argued here yet.

  18. #68
    Prince of Whales RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    37,442
    you guys all miss the boat. Handle it in the courts. How is that a huge hole? EPA is more subject to administration pressure than judges.

    It would require more diligence by private activist groups to monitor activities. And regulation can still happen. But the govt has not kept this country environmentally safe. Look at the Gulf.
    As I have stated before it is entirely possible that civil court rulings get ignored, it happens today.

    If a company decides to dump industrial waste of one sort or another into a small community's water table, then ignores a court ruling, then what?

    Wild Cobra was unable or unwilling to answer this.

    Further consider the disparity of resources between a large company and a small community.

    Do you think a small group of activists is going to prevail versus a billion-dollar+ company? What if that company hires all sorts of scientists to "prove" their "waste" isn't harmful?

  19. #69
    Prince of Whales RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    37,442
    "Handle it in the courts" is not "regulation"

    The difference is the solution is not subject to partisan fail and the cost is only borne by those with damages/interest in the case.
    Exxon is STILL dragging out the court settlements decades after the Valdez oil spill to the community there.

    Handling it in the courts would lead to companies making the calculation that it is far cheaper to pay lawyers to endlessly litigate something than to pay out the costs of a settlement. Large corporations easily outlive people. That is especially true if the pollution tends to increase mortality, such as asbestos etc.

    Do you find this acceptable?

  20. #70
    Prince of Whales RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    37,442
    2.9 Health Care

    We favor restoring and reviving a free market health care system. We recognize the freedom of individuals to determine the level of health insurance they want, the level of health care they want, the care providers they want, the medicines and treatments they will use and all other aspects of their medical care, including end-of-life decisions. People should be free to purchase health insurance across state lines.
    Here is a juicy bit.

    What do you do with insurance regulation? What is the Libertarian stance on this?

    What if you choose to live in state A with all of state A's insurance laws that you fully approve of.
    BUT
    You decide to buy from a company in another state. They have different laws and standards.

    Which state's laws apply?

    How do you then deal with dishonest recission?

    How do you regulate health insurance? Do you? If a company decides it won't cover something, and you feel it is actually a covered risk, what then?

  21. #71
    Veteran
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Post Count
    2,142
    Here is a juicy bit.

    What do you do with insurance regulation? What is the Libertarian stance on this?

    What if you choose to live in state A with all of state A's insurance laws that you fully approve of.
    BUT
    You decide to buy from a company in another state. They have different laws and standards.

    Which state's laws apply?

    How do you then deal with dishonest recission?

    How do you regulate health insurance? Do you? If a company decides it won't cover something, and you feel it is actually a covered risk, what then?

    These are legal questions the courts can easily handle. This is not a good argument.

  22. #72
    Veteran
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Post Count
    2,142
    And the applicable jurisdiction would be in the insurance contract.

  23. #73
    Prince of Whales RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    37,442
    These are legal questions the courts can easily handle. This is not a good argument.
    How do you then deal with dishonest recission?

    Sue the company? Again, one must go back to the question of disparity resources. If a company uses dishonest recission against you, and it is fully within their interests NOT to pony up for the expensive cancer treatment or so forth, they know they can outwait and out-litigate you.

  24. #74
    Prince of Whales RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    37,442
    And the applicable jurisdiction would be in the insurance contract.
    Honest enough answer, and a fair solution.

    Handling differences in state to state laws can be tricky, especially when they conflict. Often states sign "memos of understanding" or so forth.

    The problem with this though is the "race to the bottom". Companies will gravitate to the state with the weakest laws and least oversight.

    When your out-of-state health insurer decides not to pay, and the laws of that state say that is ok, then you are screwed.

    "don't buy from them" you say. Caveat emptor.

    I guess we all must become insurance law experts to be able to judge whether a policy is ok, yes?

  25. #75
    Believe. Parker2112's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    4,494
    As I have stated before it is entirely possible that civil court rulings get ignored, it happens today.

    If a company decides to dump industrial waste of one sort or another into a small community's water table, then ignores a court ruling, then what?
    1st: What prevents them from doing that now? And many do pollute when the cost of fines is less than the cost of compliance.

    2nd: The same rules can exist for environmental compliance as exist today, but if Libertarians ran the show, two things would be necessary: 1. private right of action for any and all environmental claims, and 2. less stringent procedural requirements so that any citizen could bring that suit.

    As it stands, you may or may not meet procedural requirements to bring suit, and many times the government restricts the scope of regs/statutes so that only govt agencies can enforce them. Also, standing requirements in a court of law restrict right of action to only those directly affected, such as those with riparian rights or those that actually make use of the affected area.

    Imagine the effect of opening up the spigot and allowing environmental watchdog groups to sue without having to meet standing requirements? This would also allow environmental advocates to funnel support to these corporations to protect the environment through ongoing PRIVATE monitoring/litigation vs polluting corps.

    Wild Cobra was unable or unwilling to answer this.

    Further consider the disparity of resources between a large company and a small community.

    Do you think a small group of activists is going to prevail versus a billion-dollar+ company? What if that company hires all sorts of scientists to "prove" their "waste" isn't harmful?
    The above would offset that balance I think. But this is my largest concern as well.

    But also, lets be truthful: we have no voice as it is. Citizens cried out against Corexit, the govt claimed to direct BP not to use it, and yet our gulf is awash in dispersant. We are NOT better off with the govt at the helm. Fed govt is political, corrupt and ineffective.

    These problems are not relegated to fed gov either. Look at how Rick Perry has made the TCEQ a joke.

    By opening up our courts for private enforcement, you would give the citizens teeth to actually PRIVATELY pursue environmental violators.

    The other thing: allow increased CRIMINAL PROSECUTION OF THOSE IN VIOLATING CORPS WHO ACTUALLY ORDER POLLUTION. Aggressive prosecution and jail time would make corp officers think twice about avoiding the law for the bottom line.

    Now tell me: Wouldnt this private pursuit of environmental enforcement actually have the potential to TIGHTEN enforecement, RG?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •