Freedom Infringing Freedom

[DavidJames]

There is some truth to the idea that government is responsible for many of them. In some cases government owned the land and allowed a corporation to use it. The corporation polluted the snot out of it because they had nothing to lose, they weren't the owner of the land.

Of all the disingenuous intellectually dishonest drivel I've seen touted as Libertarian logic, this is my favorite. Excuse me, the owner of the land (the govt in this case) is responsible because the business polluted it?

People do bad things because they are bad people not because the govt makes them. Libertarians would have us believe those business exec's who pollute, produce dangerous products, create unsafe working conditions, and generally act unethically, immorally or simply criminally, are actually great people who only behave badly because of the govt.

We are supposed to believe that someone who would willingly and knowingly pollute someone else's land would become a model corporate citizen if that land were theirs. The brain defect that willing destroys another's property will figure out another outlet. People do bad things to make money, is that shocking? Yes the same thing (profit motive) that Libertarians claim will result in bad people to not do bad things is why they are doing them in the first place.

 

[shanek]

Repeat after me, "The consitution is not holy writ, not everything in it is necessarily right, it is quite possibly wrong in some ways".

I've said as much on many occasions and you know it. Pathetic strawman. The Constitution is the SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND. If the Constitution isn't being obeyed, then we do NOT have the rule of law. Get the government obeying the Constitution, then we can worry about fixing its problems.

Of course they would measure the maximum.

Why would they sanction the whole region for one maximum reading in one detector?

Ozone is a very powerful oxidant. Are you claiming it will not cause health problems in people?

I'm wanting them to do the studies showing the link with the specific health problems they say that level of concentration causes. Silly me.

(By the way, the highest rate of hospital admissions for respiratory disease in North Carolina occur in the counties with the lowest GLO concentrations. They've got a lot to account for.)

 

[CFLarsen]

(By the way, the highest rate of hospital admissions for respiratory disease in North Carolina occur in the counties with the lowest GLO concentrations. They've got a lot to account for.)

Are you saying that there is causation?

 

[shanek]

And school funding doesn't come only from people with children in school, it comes from everyone, therefore, parents aren't already paying for their children, but they are benefiting from public subsidy.

Ah, here we go! People without children benefit from the education that public schools give. But don't they also benefit from the education that private schools give, especially given how superior private school education tends to be? So why shouldn't these parents get their tax money back?

Local and state taxes burden the poor more as a percentage of their income compared to higher income groups, not that they actually pay a larger percentage of the total.

That doesn't address the point.

You'll have to name actual historians to support your assertion that there was ever near universal literacy.

Try David D. Hall, Worlds of Wonder, Days of Judgment. From the Publishers Weekly review:

Hall shows that religion in New England was grounded in almost-universal literacy, enabling colonists to be independent thinkers

Unless you compare and contrast public and private school students and their ability to read their diplomas, your source is irrelevant.

Not a bit of it. If we have 97% adult literacy as you say, and 25% high school graduate illiteracy, then that logically means that at least 22% of the population learns to read outside of the school system. Think about it.

Personally, I was reading before I ever went into day care. I was reading at 2. My mother has no idea how or even when I learned it.

 

[shanek]

Of course, this depends upon your definition of "literacy"...

This study as I recall was based on the ability of people to fill out their own legal forms. It was the only thing available across pretty much the entire population.

 

[shanek]

The strawman is yours, as you are the one insisting people receive some irrational "peace of mind".

"Peace of mind" is hardly irrational. It's why your car has safety features.

You seemed to be defending taxation when individuals benefit from them.

No, I was pointing out a flaw in your logic.

And yes, our military spending—heck, all of our spending—is way out of control. All the more reason to repeal the 16th Amendment and just get the government down to its Constitutional functions. Then, we could pay for everything with the current levels of tariffs and excises and still run a surplus.

 

[shanek]

I completely understand, but the libertarian response, regardless of actual feasability, would be that you don't have to live in a house, you can rent,

Or you can find some other way to pay for the house. The lein is something you voluntarily agree to when you get the mortgage.

and you don't have to own and drive a car, you can walk/use public transportation/beg for rides/whatever.

Libertarians believe that laws mandating car insurance should be repealed.

 

[shanek]

That does not answer the question about which criteria s/he can use to measure 'actual damage'.

Actual damage is simply the difference in property value caused by the person's actions.

That may make sense in the US where the a constitutional government would closely resemble a libertarian one, but what about countries that have constitutions that list many duties of the government that conflict with Libertarianism?

It's their country. I don't have any business telling them how they should establish their own government.

How can they get closer to a libertarian society without violating their own constitutions?

Amend them?

 

[username]

Of all the disingenuous intellectually dishonest drivel I've seen touted as Libertarian logic, this is my favorite. Excuse me, the owner of the land (the govt in this case) is responsible because the business polluted it?

Well, I believe that in some cases it is the government that actually pollutes the site, the military would be an example. However, the argument I have heard (please understand I am not endorsing the argument, I am trying to explain as best I can what it is) is that the government is very lax when it comes to inspecting and enforcing any rules on those using the land.

We are supposed to believe that someone who would willingly and knowingly pollute someone else's land would become a model corporate citizen if that land were theirs. The brain defect that willing destroys another's property will figure out another outlet. People do bad things to make money, is that shocking? Yes the same thing (profit motive) that Libertarians claim will result in bad people to not do bad things is why they are doing them in the first place.

Well, I think the idea is that an unethical corporation will do whatever is in the best interest of their bottom line regardless of the morality/legality. If the board considers what the cost of legally disposing of their waste will be and weighs that against the potential fines if they are caught polluting then their decision will be based upon what they perceive the lowest cost choice to be.

It is also important to remember that a corporation is it's own legal entity. If a corporation pollutes a piece of land to the point where it is no longer usable, it can shut down and cease to exist. The officers of that corporation can start another one, subject to some regulatory rules concerning time limits and the nature of the new corporation, I believe. Since the corporation no longer exists at the time the pollution is noticed, who does the government have to go after that has sufficient assets to pay for the cleanup?

If the land were privately owned, the theory is that the land owner would take greater care to ensure his land wasn't being polluted or that the corporation was addressing it. If the land owner didn't do this the land owner would end up with at best worthless land or at worst land he has to pay to cleanup himself.

Anyway, I am just trying to explain the view, I think it is an accurate view in some cases, I am just not sure what percentage of the superfund sites actually fall into this kind of criteria.

 

[shanek]

Putting aside the highly debateable subject of what the government is and is not authorized by the constitution to do in the first place

It's not debatable at all. It's all in Article I Section 8. And this was universally recognized at least up until the Civil War.

and whether or not it should be limited to those activities so authorized in the second place,

Again, not debatable at all. The 10th Amendment makes this crystal clear.

For example, if the government ceased operating the postal service and we went with private companies to handle the mail, the pollution generated by that industry is not going to go away.

But private delivery companies have an incentive to reduce pollution. Both UPS and FedEx use the most fuel efficient trucks they can and plan their routes so as to minimize fuel consumption. The Post Office doesn't do this.

I'm sorry, but I don't follow why corporate employees somehow have to pay for the consequences of misuse but government employees do not.

Because corporations have to be worried about the future value of the land. It affects their bottom line. That's not the case with government. That's why most of the pollution from corporations takes place on government property.

 

[shanek]

Are you saying that there is causation?

No; I am saying that the EPA's claim of causation is far from established.

 

[CFLarsen]

No; I am saying that the EPA's claim of causation is far from established.

So, when you say "they"...

(By the way, the highest rate of hospital admissions for respiratory disease in North Carolina occur in the counties with the lowest GLO concentrations. They've got a lot to account for.)

...you mean the EPA and not GLO concentrations?

What does the lowest GLO concentrations have to do with the highest rate of hospital admissions for respiratory disease in NC? Surely you think there is a connection, since you..well, connect them.

 

[shanek]

So, when you say "they"...

...you mean the EPA and not GLO concentrations?

I was referring to the EPA, yes.

What does the lowest GLO concentrations have to do with the highest rate of hospital admissions for respiratory disease in NC? Surely you think there is a connection, since you..well, connect them.

No, the EPA tried to connect them in their presentation. I'm saying there is no evidence for such a connection, and if anyone is to come up with such evidence they'll have to account for the fact that the places with the highest admissions has the lowest GLO concentrations. There's obviously more factors involved than just GLO, and they'll have to account for that.

If you were 1/100th the skeptic you pretend to be, you wouldn't have needed me to tell you that.

 

[dsm]

This study as I recall was based on the ability of people to fill out their own legal forms. It was the only thing available across pretty much the entire population.

But that depends upon your definition of "fill out". Filling out a legal form might simply have meant "place 'X' on line" in many areas of the country. Hardly a definition of literacy by todays standards...

 

[DavidJames]

Well, I believe that in some cases it is the government that actually pollutes the site, the military would be an example.

this is quite a different scenario, then

There is some truth to the idea that government is responsible for many of them. In some cases government owned the land and allowed a corporation to use it.

Polluters need to be dealt with, even if it's the govt.

...that the government is very lax when it comes to inspecting and enforcing any rules on those using the land.

if they are lax, then that is the problem and not who owns the land and they need to be taken to task for the lack of enforcement.

Well, I think the idea is that an unethical corporation will do whatever is in the best interest of their bottom line regardless of the morality/legality. If the board considers what the cost of legally disposing of their waste will be and weighs that against the potential fines if they are caught polluting then their decision will be based upon what they perceive the lowest cost choice to be.

I agree and I believe it suggests stronger fines and crisper enforcement, not eliminating them.

If the land were privately owned, the theory is that the land owner would take greater care to ensure his land wasn't being polluted or that the corporation was addressing it. If the land owner didn't do this the land owner would end up with at best worthless land or at worst land he has to pay to cleanup himself.

Libertarian theory yes, logical and backed up with significant evidence (not the typical shanek anecdotes), no.

All you need are open eyes and a brain not whitewashed by ideology to see that people do not always act rationally or in their best interest.

 

[shanek]

But that depends upon your definition of "fill out". Filling out a legal form might simply have meant "place 'X' on line" in many areas of the country. Hardly a definition of literacy by todays standards...

No, it didn't. They allowed for that. They actually had to put the words into the forms with their own hands.

 

[shanek]

if they are lax, then that is the problem and not who owns the land and they need to be taken to task for the lack of enforcement.

But they have a far greater incentive to give favors to politically-connected corporations than they do to enforce the environmental rules. The solution is to get that land out of government's hands so they can't do it at all.

All you need are open eyes and a brain not whitewashed by ideology to see that people do not always act rationally or in their best interest.

Yet another strawman. Is that all you people have?

 

[dsm]

No, it didn't. They allowed for that. They actually had to put the words into the forms with their own hands.

It seems, then, that your reference is questionable:

Happily, the Rhode Island town records contain a source of signatures that gives equal time to women, younger adults, and poor people: the official interrogations of transient poor people. Literacy rates based on name-signing ability of this population are as follows:

21.7% All females (n=258)

28.5% White females (females not designated as non-white, n=179)

6.3% Non-white females (Indian, black, Negro, mulatto, mustee, n=79)

66.8% All males (n=262)

77.1% White males (males not designated as non-white, n=214)

20.8% Non-white males (Indian, black, Negro, mulatto, mustee, n=48)

Journal of Social History

This is only on the basis of being able to sign your name (far from the definition of literacy today). As my previous reference suggests, this is not a singular view and, therefore, calls into question your contention of (near) universal literacy in the pre-public school days.

 

[a_unique_person]

I was referring to the EPA, yes.



No, the EPA tried to connect them in their presentation. I'm saying there is no evidence for such a connection, and if anyone is to come up with such evidence they'll have to account for the fact that the places with the highest admissions has the lowest GLO concentrations. There's obviously more factors involved than just GLO, and they'll have to account for that.

If you were 1/100th the skeptic you pretend to be, you wouldn't have needed me to tell you that.

Do you know what an oxidant is?

 

[shanek]

Do you know what an oxidant is?

Can you provide any references to oxidants directly causing asthma and other respiratory illnesses in the amounts and to the degrees claimed by the EPA?