Home Mail MemberMap Chat (0) Wallpapers
Go Back   ChiefsPlanet > The Ed & Dave Lounge > D.C.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-21-2013, 01:43 PM  
Amnorix Amnorix is offline
In BB I trust
 
Amnorix's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Boston, Mass.
Casino cash: $5990
The EPA and Environmental Laws SUCK!!!

Over the years I've seen a number of threads and posts hating on the EPA and environmental regulations. Many seem to think that they are expensive and unnecessary burdens to the corporate world which would self-regulate. They ignore, of course, little things in our history like the Cuyahoga River in Cleveland actually catching on fire due to excessive pollution.

But if anyone needs another example of why it might not be best to let companies decide these things for themselves, they only need to look at what is going on in China these days.

http://world.time.com/2013/10/21/kid...ity/?hpt=hp_t3



A woman wearing a mask walk through a street covered by dense smog in Harbin, northern China, Oct. 21, 2013.
Posts: 33,136
Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2013, 08:52 AM   #31
Loneiguana Loneiguana is offline
Veteran
 
Loneiguana's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Springfield
Casino cash: $5635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amnorix View Post
It's Austrian School/Misean nonsense. Free markets are the magic bullet that answers EVERY question. Anything remotely wrong with anything is because of governmental interference.

Even if history actually proves the exact opposite....
You can even look at the current situation for evidence that companies will not police their own behavior without significant pressure from regulations.

When the final decision comes down to the cost, and if it is cheaper to pay a environmental fine then proper disposal of material, companies go the cheaper route.
__________________
"Most of us can, as we choose, make of this world either a palace or a prison."
–John Lubbock
Posts: 3,833
Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2013, 08:55 AM   #32
Amnorix Amnorix is offline
In BB I trust
 
Amnorix's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2003
Location: Boston, Mass.
Casino cash: $5990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneiguana View Post
You can even look at the current situation for evidence that companies will not police their own behavior without significant pressure from regulations.

When the final decision comes down to the cost, and if it is cheaper to pay a environmental fine then proper dispose of material, companies go the cheaper route.

Right, which is pretty much what I would expect them to do. Corporations are created for the purpose of helping their owners make a profit. Sure, they can make nice noises about caring for employees and their civic community and all that, but a FOR-PROFIT corporation exists to.....wait for it ....make a profit. And generally as much profit as possible.

So government needs to regulate with that in mind, and restrain the excesses that unbridled capitalism will inevitably lead to.

Not that TJ and BEP will ever admit that, of course. The more unrestrained capitalism is, the better off everyone will be, in their view. Not that there isn't direct historical evidence to the contrary, of course, but...
__________________
"I love signature blocks on the Internet. I get to put whatever the hell I want in quotes, pick a pretend author, and bang, it's like he really said it." George Washington
Posts: 33,136
Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2013, 09:02 AM   #33
Loneiguana Loneiguana is offline
Veteran
 
Loneiguana's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Springfield
Casino cash: $5635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amnorix View Post
Right, which is pretty much what I would expect them to do. Corporations are created for the purpose of helping their owners make a profit. Sure, they can make nice noises about caring for employees and their civic community and all that, but a FOR-PROFIT corporation exists to.....wait for it ....make a profit. And generally as much profit as possible.

So government needs to regulate with that in mind, and restrain the excesses that unbridled capitalism will inevitably lead to.

Not that TJ and BEP will ever admit that, of course. The more unrestrained capitalism is, the better off everyone will be, in their view. Not that there isn't direct historical evidence to the contrary, of course, but...

Its not corporations, specifically I'd say, but capitalism itself.

And that is not a knock on capitalism, but the frank truth.

Capitalism is Profit for profit sake. That is what capitalism does different from other economic theories.

Free market, supply/demand, all that has existed for thousands of years. What capitalism did was enforce a world view of profit just for the sake of profit.

There is nothing wrong with that, as long as we recognize it, and like you say, find ways to limit the excesses. Because Profit for Profit sake will place Profit ahead of the good of the country.
__________________
"Most of us can, as we choose, make of this world either a palace or a prison."
–John Lubbock
Posts: 3,833
Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2013, 09:22 AM   #34
Amnorix Amnorix is offline
In BB I trust
 
Amnorix's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2003
Location: Boston, Mass.
Casino cash: $5990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneiguana View Post
Its not corporations, specifically I'd say, but capitalism itself.

And that is not a knock on capitalism, but the frank truth.

Capitalism is Profit for profit sake. That is what capitalism does different from other economic theories.

Free market, supply/demand, all that has existed for thousands of years. What capitalism did was enforce a world view of profit just for the sake of profit.

There is nothing wrong with that, as long as we recognize it, and like you say, find ways to limit the excesses. Because Profit for Profit sake will place Profit ahead of the good of the country.

Sure, but the desire for wealth is a basic human instinct. Your choices are to fight a losing battle against it, or to harness it into productive channels. I'd far rather accept it and harvest it to improve the economy than to try to fight a losing battle.

That's the real problem with other economic models, and why Communism was such an utter failure. Once you remove the profit motive, or otherwise make people think that worker harder or beign smarter, etc. doesn't get you more wealth (or food, or whatever), then you've removed all incentive to work hard. Now the only incentive you have is to do the least acceptable amount of work.
__________________
"I love signature blocks on the Internet. I get to put whatever the hell I want in quotes, pick a pretend author, and bang, it's like he really said it." George Washington
Posts: 33,136
Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2013, 09:39 AM   #35
Loneiguana Loneiguana is offline
Veteran
 
Loneiguana's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Springfield
Casino cash: $5635
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amnorix View Post
Sure, but the desire for wealth is a basic human instinct. Your choices are to fight a losing battle against it, or to harness it into productive channels. I'd far rather accept it and harvest it to improve the economy than to try to fight a losing battle.

That's the real problem with other economic models, and why Communism was such an utter failure. Once you remove the profit motive, or otherwise make people think that worker harder or beign smarter, etc. doesn't get you more wealth (or food, or whatever), then you've removed all incentive to work hard. Now the only incentive you have is to do the least acceptable amount of work.
(Note: this is not anti-capitalism remarks nor do I feel any need to discuss communism.)

Capitalism did not introduce the desire for profit, though, and the desire for profit can exist without capitalism.

Its profit for only the sake of Profit that separates capitalism from earlier free market, supply/demand style systems of the past.

Think of it this way, The Merchant operating in Venice or Cairo, or Istanbul in the 15th Century had the free market, the supply demand, all that. He had a desire for profit.

The difference is that merchant desired profit to obtain material wealth. More land, houses, travel, that kind of thing. The merchant did not desire profit just to make a profit.

That is what Capitalism introduced: Profit for Profit. And it has caused a lot of positive, up lifting change for society. The wealth a system that is only focused on wealth for wealth sake can generate is enormous; and that has spurred great development.

But, we have to recognize the fact that when profit is for profit sake, then profit will come before all else with such a world view.

And as we agree on, that has to be monitored and regulated. Otherwise things like privatize the profits, socialize the losses becomes acceptable business strategy.

I will add however, that the motivation for profit can exist without capitalism.
__________________
"Most of us can, as we choose, make of this world either a palace or a prison."
–John Lubbock
Posts: 3,833
Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.Loneiguana would the whole thing.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2013, 10:15 AM   #36
Amnorix Amnorix is offline
In BB I trust
 
Amnorix's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2003
Location: Boston, Mass.
Casino cash: $5990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loneiguana View Post
(Note: this is not anti-capitalism remarks nor do I feel any need to discuss communism.)

Capitalism did not introduce the desire for profit, though, and the desire for profit can exist without capitalism.

Its profit for only the sake of Profit that separates capitalism from earlier free market, supply/demand style systems of the past.

Think of it this way, The Merchant operating in Venice or Cairo, or Istanbul in the 15th Century had the free market, the supply demand, all that. He had a desire for profit.

The difference is that merchant desired profit to obtain material wealth. More land, houses, travel, that kind of thing. The merchant did not desire profit just to make a profit.

That is what Capitalism introduced: Profit for Profit. And it has caused a lot of positive, up lifting change for society. The wealth a system that is only focused on wealth for wealth sake can generate is enormous; and that has spurred great development.

But, we have to recognize the fact that when profit is for profit sake, then profit will come before all else with such a world view.

And as we agree on, that has to be monitored and regulated. Otherwise things like privatize the profits, socialize the losses becomes acceptable business strategy.

I will add however, that the motivation for profit can exist without capitalism.

I guess I disagree, or perhaps don't even understand, when you say that capitalism is about profit for the sake of profit.

Ultimately, PEOPLE are in a system, and those people want to make a profit. Not for the sake fo profit, but for the sake of the stuff that wealth gets them.

Nor has any other system come remotely close to capitalism in harnessing people's ability to be productive. Other systems tend to hamper productivity by undercutting/thwarting the profit motive that people have.

I do agree that socializing losses is unacceptable.
__________________
"I love signature blocks on the Internet. I get to put whatever the hell I want in quotes, pick a pretend author, and bang, it's like he really said it." George Washington
Posts: 33,136
Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2013, 10:57 AM   #37
SNR SNR is online now
Simply Red's backup vocalist
 
SNR's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Where the hell is SNR
Casino cash: $9122
Why don't global warming folks ever go up in arms over China?

That and deforestation are far bigger problems that need to be solved before I get taxed for breathing out carbon dioxide.
Posts: 55,833
SNR is obviously part of the inner Circle.SNR is obviously part of the inner Circle.SNR is obviously part of the inner Circle.SNR is obviously part of the inner Circle.SNR is obviously part of the inner Circle.SNR is obviously part of the inner Circle.SNR is obviously part of the inner Circle.SNR is obviously part of the inner Circle.SNR is obviously part of the inner Circle.SNR is obviously part of the inner Circle.SNR is obviously part of the inner Circle.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2013, 11:44 AM   #38
Taco John Taco John is offline
12on Paul
 
Taco John's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2001
Casino cash: $5885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amnorix View Post
Not that TJ and BEP will ever admit that, of course. The more unrestrained capitalism is, the better off everyone will be, in their view. Not that there isn't direct historical evidence to the contrary, of course, but...

I'm always amused at how dizzy and muddled your silly little thought process is. The caricature you've created in your mind about me and my beliefs is hilarious to me. The anarchistic arguments you ascribe to me are funny, but stupidly wrong. I can only blame your narrow capacity to understand anything outside of the small box that frames your view of the world.

Yes, capitalism should be as unrestrained as possible, but that doesn't mean that governments don't have a role in protecting people and property. Somehow you morons - and I use that word advisedly given the context of this thread - somehow you morons have taken the argument that government should be local as possible to mean that no government should exist whatsoever. In your feeble minds, if it's not a FEDERAL government, it's no government at all.

We get a front row seat in watching the Obamacare implementation. The states who took on the exchanges themselves - SUCCESS! They largely made it work. They're signing people up. The states that relied on the FEDERAL government to implement an exchange: terrible, bloated failure.

But I digress. You've mistaken libertarianism for anarchism. It's a stupid mistake for anyone who considers themselves politically learned. Government has a role in protecting property rights, and that includes protecting people from pollution.
__________________
Ehyeh asher ehyeh.
Posts: 50,865
Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2013, 11:45 AM   #39
Taco John Taco John is offline
12on Paul
 
Taco John's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2001
Casino cash: $5885
Here's a repost from Ron Paul's book "The Revolution" speaking specifically towards pollution:

Some people falsely believe that advocates of the free market must be opponents of the environment. We care only about economic efficiency, the argument goes, and have no regard for the consequences of pollution and other examples of environmental degradation. But a true supporter of private property and personal responsibility cannot be indifferent to environmental damage, and should view it as a form of unjustified aggression that must be punished or enjoined, or dealt with in some other way that is mutually satisfactory to all parties. Private business should not have the right to socialize its costs by burdening other people with the by-products of its operations.

Economist Martin Anderson puts it this way. Dumping garbage on your neighbor's lawn is wrong. But pollution is really just another form of garbage. For that reason, proposals to charge pollution fees, which get higher the greater the pollution, neglect the demands of justice. Anderson compares it to taxing thieves as a way of giving them an economic incentive not to burglarize your home. If the practice is wrong, the law should treat it as such. "if a firm creates pollution without first entering into an agreement, or if the parties cannot come to an agreement fixing the cost and degree of pollution, then the court system could be used to assess damages," say economists Walter Block and Robert W. McGee.

In fact, that's how American law used to treat pollution. But a series of nineteenth-century nuisance cases changed that: the courts suddenly decided that a certain level of pollution could be allowed for the sake of the greater good. The implications was that if, for example, a few farmers had their property destroyed by passing trains, that was just the price of progress. (Easy for them to say!) These cases allowed private industry to invade the property rights of other and deprived those others of legal recourse. I do not see this as a free-market outcome. (I do not claim that pollution consisting of a few undetectable particles must be prohibited, or that no airplanes would have the right to travel high above people's homes. These are legitimate matters for the courts, where such matters have been properly decided in the past.)

Imagine if the previous legal approach to pollution had not been overturned, and polluters continued to be legally liable for any such invasive practices. Block and McGee suggest that we would long ago have "begun enjoying a non-pollution-intensive technology where there were no open-ended smokestacks. Instead, these pipes would have led back to chemical cisterns, the latter to capture otherwise errant soot particles." This approach would also have encouraged the growth of an environmental forensics industry that would allow us to identify those responsible for pollution by determining its exact source, just as DNA evidence now permits us to identify rapists and murderers.

Ron Paul's "The Revolution: A Manifesto"
Pages 105-106
__________________
Ehyeh asher ehyeh.
Posts: 50,865
Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2013, 11:46 AM   #40
Taco John Taco John is offline
12on Paul
 
Taco John's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2001
Casino cash: $5885
Oh by the way, I fully expect to be attacked for this position by the very same people who were attacking me for the wildly opposite position falsely ascribed to me without missing a beat.
__________________
Ehyeh asher ehyeh.
Posts: 50,865
Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2013, 11:47 AM   #41
Amnorix Amnorix is offline
In BB I trust
 
Amnorix's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2003
Location: Boston, Mass.
Casino cash: $5990
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taco John View Post
I'm always amused at how dizzy and muddled your silly little thought process is. The caricature you've created in your mind about me and my beliefs is hilarious to me. The anarchistic arguments you ascribe to me are funny, but stupidly wrong. I can only blame your narrow capacity to understand anything outside of the small box that frames your view of the world.

Yes, capitalism should be as unrestrained as possible, but that doesn't mean that governments don't have a role in protecting people and property. Somehow you morons - and I use that word advisedly given the context of this thread - somehow you morons have taken the argument that government should be local as possible to mean that no government should exist whatsoever. In your feeble minds, if it's not a FEDERAL government, it's no government at all.

We get a front row seat in watching the Obamacare implementation. The states who took on the exchanges themselves - SUCCESS! They largely made it work. They're signing people up. The states that relied on the FEDERAL government to implement an exchange: terrible, bloated failure.

But I digress. You've mistaken libertarianism for anarchism. It's a stupid mistake for anyone who considers themselves politically learned. Government has a role in protecting property rights, and that includes protecting people from pollution.

You really shouldn't be mocking anyone in this thread, since your initial foray into it was crushed by many as nonsensical.

And FTR I do understand that you do not subscribe to anarchy.
__________________
"I love signature blocks on the Internet. I get to put whatever the hell I want in quotes, pick a pretend author, and bang, it's like he really said it." George Washington
Posts: 33,136
Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2013, 11:52 AM   #42
Taco John Taco John is offline
12on Paul
 
Taco John's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2001
Casino cash: $5885
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amnorix View Post
You really shouldn't be mocking anyone in this thread, since your initial foray into it was crushed by many as nonsensical.
Yes of course. Why, I should conform to your little group think club and just accept that I'm wrong about my positions since you guys are having such a hard time thinking them through.
__________________
Ehyeh asher ehyeh.
Posts: 50,865
Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2013, 11:53 AM   #43
Taco John Taco John is offline
12on Paul
 
Taco John's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2001
Casino cash: $5885
"crushed"

LOL
__________________
Ehyeh asher ehyeh.
Posts: 50,865
Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2013, 11:54 AM   #44
Taco John Taco John is offline
12on Paul
 
Taco John's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2001
Casino cash: $5885
It was "crushed" but no one was able to refute a word of it...

A totalitarian government allows its industry to pollute the air freely without repercussion, and capitalism takes the blame. This is a problem with government, not with capitalism.

In a free market system, there is a respect for property rights. Nobody has the right to pollute the air or the water, or property that they don't own - except when governments give them those rights. This pollution isn't a problem of capitalism. It's a problem of government.


Instead of refuting it, they determined it was "nonsensical."

This is progressivism of today. Government is under attack. Simple. Call the argument nonsensical.

But what if it's common sense?

Doesn't matter. There's enough of us. We can just overwhelm the argument without needing to actually address it.

But wait a minute, he's saying government has a role. Don't we like that?

No. He's saying it has a limited role. Unacceptable. Just call it nonsensical and move on.
__________________
Ehyeh asher ehyeh.
Posts: 50,865
Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.Taco John is blessed with 50/50 Hindsight.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-22-2013, 12:05 PM   #45
Amnorix Amnorix is offline
In BB I trust
 
Amnorix's Avatar
 

Join Date: May 2003
Location: Boston, Mass.
Casino cash: $5990
Your statement was nonsensical.

The Messiah seems to take an odd position to say the least. Let the courts sort it all out. So instead of Congress, the chosen representatives of the people, creating laws to govern what pollution is, isn't and how to handle it, leave it to the courts to sort out.

This is what he suggests, except then (according to him) courts didn't handle things the way he hoped/wanted, or the economists suggest. They started allowing limited amounts of pollution, or something.

So what is the remedy, exactly? He doesn't appear to have an answer. "Imagine if the previous legal approach to pollution had not been overturned" he says. So "imagine if judges didn't do what they did"? Ok. But they did do what they did. So now what? No answer.

I note that I don't accept his description of history as necessarily accurate. In truth I have no idea, as ancient court rulings on environmental matters that pre-date the regulatory framework isn't exactly something I have run across.


So let me ask you -- what is the solution NOW? We are where we are. What would you do regarding the U.S.'s environmental laws.
__________________
"I love signature blocks on the Internet. I get to put whatever the hell I want in quotes, pick a pretend author, and bang, it's like he really said it." George Washington
Posts: 33,136
Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.Amnorix has an IQ even higher than Frankie's.
  Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump




All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:14 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.