Page 4 of 16 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 389
  1. #76
    Believe. Parker2112's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    4,495
    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?
    This is already on the books. Nothing would need to change. Interstate contracts/transactions happen every day, and libertarian views would not change this area.

    The law breaks it down by asking questions like: where was the contract executed? what was the intent of the parties? are the parties preempted from claiming the aws of one jurisdiction or another?

    Bottom line: courts try to find the most fair jurisdiction based on the cir stances. And that law is in place.

  2. #77
    Believe. Parker2112's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    4,495
    going without a strong central federal power is scary, but not nearly as impossible as advocates of big govt would have you believe.

    The fed gov has grown into something like training wheels. We used to be able to ride a two wheel bike, and now we need this burdensome, clunk en y to govenr our lives from afar.

    But really, we could learn to run our own lives at a state level. We can once again learn to ride a two wheeler. Will we scrape a knee? Maybe. But as it is, we are getting our knees skinned to the bone by the federal gov. So I think overcoming our fear/scepticism would be a great place to regain the freedom AND RESPONSIBILTY we once had over OUR OWN WELFARE. This would AMOUNT TO EMPOWERMENT, not handicap.

    And it might reverse the trend of the populous to withdraw into vid games and TV, and to step in and get involved in politics when the power came back home from high up on that distant Mountain in Washington DC, where lobbyists and politicians reign.


  3. #78
    Believe. Parker2112's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    4,495
    One more thing RG:
    1. You asked me about some books. I would recommend two: Ron Paul: the revolution/ a manifesto, and the federalist papers.

    if you are informed enough to swim on your own, you should be able to come away from Ron Pauls works with your own criticisms and possibly some agreements, but definitely a better understanding of the libertarian movement.

    2. Since we are talking about hard issues I feel comfortable engaging you once again. When we stray into dismissing each other completely based on already-existing at udes and inherent personal bias, this engagement serves no purpose and I will be forced to make my exit.

    If you really do have it pegged, put it to the honest test. Dont reduce arguments to dismissive "conspiracy" claims. If they are so transparent, shoot them down with ease.

  4. #79
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    1st: What prevents them from [ignoring civil judgments] now?
    And many do pollute when the cost of fines is less than the cost of compliance.
    Nothing does. That is my point.

    The cost of fines being less than the cost of compliance does bring us back to the calculus involved in corporate decisions.

    The implication of your second statement is:

    Companies comply when fines are greater than the cost of compliance.

    This is an admission that if one were to remove the criminal fines, it would simply reduce the incentive to NOT pollute.

    It is not my assertion that companies do not pollute now. It is my assertion that many don't simply because of the criminal penalties involved.

    A ten million dollar fine is a lot more of a deterrent than some poor farmer's lawsuit that can be defended for $50,000 over the course of a decade, is it not?

  5. #80
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    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.
    "Rules for environmental compliance?"

    What is that? Who decides what the rules are?

  6. #81
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672

    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.

    "Private right of action"? Don't we already have that in the form of torts? What exactly do you mean?

    (honestly don't know exactly what you are saying here)

  7. #82
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    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.



    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?
    So... even though you are saying that environmental laws should be privately regulated, you advocate "criminal prosecution"?

    How do you do that? Criminality is something that is decided by laws and governments.

    That seems to be directly contradictory, unless you have private citizens bringing criminal torts in court. That would mean that corporations would be just as free to bring suit against their enemies for much the same reasons, using the same mechanisms.

    It has the potential to tighten enforcement, if reality works exactly as you say it would.

    As for bringing polluting corporations to heel by making it easier to sue, would that not be a green light for abuse of things by narrow activist groups?

    I can imagine PETA bringing dozens of lawsuits against ranchers, zoos, meat packers, etc.

    I can just as easily imagine a British Petroleum, with billions of dollars of profit filing counter-suits to the sierra club and such private watchdogs.

    Do you really think that a privately funded watchdog group could possibly contend in court versus an industry group with hundreds of millions to spend on legal fees?

  8. #83
    Believe. Parker2112's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    4,495
    "Rules for environmental compliance?"

    What is that? Who decides what the rules are?
    Today, those are: Fed/state Satutes + Fed/state Administrative Regulations.

    Written by legislators, interpreted by judges and ALJs, enforced by administrative bodies who have the responsibility of defining scientific limits sufficient to meet the legislative aims in the statutes.

    I say "rules" because these rules of the road could theoretically be shifted from administrative bodies to statutes with private right of enforcement.

    What this means is this: only some statutes allow for private citizens to initiate a lawsuit for noncompliance by a polluter.

    Many laws only allow the federal govt to enforce. And thats my point...allow the people to jump in the fray. Let public groups become the enforcer when it comes to diligent environmental stewardship.

    What this does is leave the issue/expense to the affected parties, and remove the need for taxation for these bloated and many times ineffective environmental agencies.

  9. #84
    Believe. Parker2112's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    4,495
    "Private right of action"? Don't we already have that in the form of torts? What exactly do you mean?

    (honestly don't know exactly what you are saying here)
    Tort law allows you to pursue damages. But what do you do if air quality suffers because of your neighbors smokestack, but you have yet to get sick?

    Well, as it stands, you cant point to a federal statute that requires emissions under x parts per million as a way to make your neighbor stop, unless the law allows private parties to sue to enforce, which is not often the case. So you have to convince the govt to pursue enforcement, which theywont always do.

    In my theoretical Libertarian scheme, you would open more of these laws up to private rights of action, which would allow watchdog groups to bring suit for injunction to stop the activity WHETHER OR NOAT ANYONE HAD COME DOWN SICK. Just because they were out of compliance with federal law. And the liberal public would be able to funnel funding to these groups to give them even more teeth.
    Last edited by Parker2112; 11-07-2010 at 12:23 AM.

  10. #85
    Believe. Parker2112's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    4,495
    So... even though you are saying that environmental laws should be privately regulated, you advocate "criminal prosecution"?

    How do you do that? Criminality is something that is decided by laws and governments..
    Not privately regulated. Privately litigated. Lawsuits. Put the burden on courts rather than administrative agencies. Put the cost burden on the interested parties rather than joe the taxpayer.

    As for criminal prosecution, I am only saying we could criminalize more often, and make CEOs/Corporate officers subject to jailtime for polluting. Personalize the penalty a bit to discourage the act even more. And it would have to be done by government prosecutors. Private citizens can press charges for certain crimes, but they cant prosecute criminal infractions.



    As for bringing polluting corporations to heel by making it easier to sue, would that not be a green light for abuse of things by narrow activist groups?
    Yes it would, but you can counter frivolous lawsuits here the same as we do now in other areas: by making loser pay winners legal costs + fees, by making frivolous claimants pay punitive damages, etc

    I can imagine PETA bringing dozens of lawsuits against ranchers, zoos, meat packers, etc.

    I can just as easily imagine a British Petroleum, with billions of dollars of profit filing counter-suits to the sierra club and such private watchdogs.

    Do you really think that a privately funded watchdog group could possibly contend in court versus an industry group with hundreds of millions to spend on legal fees?
    Things can definitely be done to level the playing field: limiting the scope of discovery, limit appeals, etc. So it might require some fine tuning, but we might not be as far away from making this a workable option as you may think.

    The main point: There is no need to think that the only way to protect the environment is through huge/inefficient/partisan/political/biased/lobbied/bough-and-paid-for federal govt. This is a fallacy of recent persuasion.

  11. #86
    Believe. Parker2112's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    4,495
    PS: Im glazing over tons of voluminous subject matter, so there are many generalities throughout, but this is simply for the sake of the hypothetical at hand. I dont proclaim to know this WOULD work, but I know that the model we have is not the ONLY ONE that Will.

  12. #87
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,406
    PS: Im glazing over tons of voluminous subject matter, so there are many generalities throughout...
    So true.
    but this is simply for the sake of the hypothetical at hand.
    And such a valuable hypothetical. Thanks for stressing that.
    I dont proclaim to know this WOULD work, but I know that the model we have is not the ONLY ONE that Will.
    Pleading the bare possibility of counterfactuals. If you minaturize expectations any positive results at all will clear the bar.

    (Miracle of miniaturization.)

  13. #88
    Believe. Parker2112's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    4,495
    So true.
    And such a valuable hypothetical. Thanks for stressing that.
    Pleading the bare possibility of counterfactuals. If you minaturize expectations any positive results at all will clear the bar.

    (Miracle of miniaturization.)
    For all the stuff I've posted, this is the only criticism you've got? The best you can do? Really?

    Are you really so ignorant that this is all you can add to the discussion?

    Or Are you just that insistent on the circle jerk of insults?


  14. #89
    Believe. Parker2112's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Post Count
    4,495
    either way, i dont want none.

  15. #90
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Wild Cobra was unable or unwilling to answer this.
    I am unwilling to play your stupid game Chump. You act as if we would do away with things like the EPA, and that isn't necessarily so. I bring up the we have problems with your concerns with our current laws. All you do is keep throwing more . You refuse to listen to reason.

  16. #91
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,406
    Or are you just that insistent on the circle jerk of insults?
    You feel insulted?

    Pobrecito.

  17. #92
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,406
    either way, i dont want none.
    Either way forum jackasses will continue to <rip> on you and you'll probably continue to cry about it.
    Last edited by Winehole23; 11-08-2010 at 12:01 AM.

  18. #93
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,406

  19. #94
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,406
    Face it, Parker2112: if you came for the civil, rational tone, surely that's not why you're staying now.

  20. #95
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,406
    I meant to <emphasize> the accuracy of your self-description and the bare plausibility of your other bs. You took that as an insult.
    Last edited by Winehole23; 11-08-2010 at 04:35 AM.

  21. #96
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,406
    I'm sorry you find your own self-characterization insulting, Parker. I'm not sure there's anything I can do about that.

  22. #97
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,406
    as for my own faint praise, it speaks loud enough I think.

  23. #98
    dangerous floater Winehole23's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Post Count
    89,406
    Be sore about that all you want. Your choice, Parker.

  24. #99
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    As for bringing polluting corporations to heel by making it easier to sue, would that not be a green light for abuse of things by narrow activist groups?
    Yes it would, but you can counter frivolous lawsuits here the same as we do now in other areas: by making loser pay winners legal costs + fees, by making frivolous claimants pay punitive damages, etc
    The only effect this would have is further tilt the balance of power in favor of large corporations and large groups over smaller groups.

    You would be creating a tyranny of corporations and interest group worse than anything you rail against today, IMO.

    "Sure you can sue my billion dollar corporation, but I can afford dozens of expert witnesses, and years to litigate. When you lose, I will present you with a bill for $500,000 in legal costs."

    One would have to VERY carefully reform that particular area of the law, and then define "frivolous".

  25. #100
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Not privately regulated. Privately litigated. Lawsuits. Put the burden on courts rather than administrative agencies. Put the cost burden on the interested parties rather than joe the taxpayer.
    This would tend to ignore some fundamental principles of economics.

    Consider:

    Something where the pollution is fairly dilute and the effects are, per capita, pretty small, or some action has only a very minor effect on a large group of people, but benefits a small group, such as a corporation or group of corporations greatly.

    The larger group could afford to spend a LOT pursuing its interests at the expense of the wider good, simply because the average person doesn't care enough to bother.

    Are you really going to jump on a lawsuit where your interest in the matter is only three or four dollars?

    All of this "let the courts decide" seems HIGHLY inefficient to me, and not only that, it seems to really shift the balance of power from flesh and blood people to large corporations.

    Much of your "criminalize" this and that also seems to be essentially what we have today anyways.

    Government isn't perfect, but it is fairly accountable to the public through elections, at least as much as abdicating all of our problems to lawyers and judges, in my opinion.

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
  •