Libertarianism and the Environment

[Jason Harvestdancer]

This topic has already come up so I just quoted myself.

Somehow I knew that when I told APA to grow up or shut up that you'd come along to take his place.  So, shall we be discussing libertarianism as understood by 99.99999% of the population (including those who disagree with it but at least know what it is they are disagreeing with) or as understood by Berati?

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I have to admit I've always seen environmental issues as being tough for libertarians, so I have a bit to add. First, wouldn't simply making a law forbidding the dumping of toxic waste be more economical than forcing people to bring about individual lawsuits? What if the entity doing the dumping was a wealthy business that could financially ram their neighbors into the ground? When you take into account the difficulty of putting a precise price tag on such things, as ecology isn't really an exact science, doesn't that sound like it could put regular people at an enormous disadvantage against a wealthy corporation? I think TSA also makes a valid point about long term consequences and dead owners, if you're willing to argue the that people who would inspect for these kinds of things can just be thrown off the property, though I'm not sure you would argue that point.

From my point of view that's not much different from our current setup.  If the businessman pollutes now, he pays a fine.  If he pollutes under my system, he pays restitution.  The only real difference is who he pays, the property owner who was actually harmed or the government.  Even if the one doing the dumping is wealthy.

Noted, and I appreciate your input, but what of my buried toxic waste example? Once again, such a thing would be hard to find out without either whistleblowers or inspections. Assuming there are no whistleblowers, and no inspections due to lax regulations, how is that suppose to be addressed when it only becomes apparent long after the original owner has left/died? Does the one who inherits the property have to deal with the civil fallout, even though he/she had no knowledge of the burial? Toxic waste burial can cause extreme problems over a long period of time, if you need an example just look up Love Canal. At the end, someone has to assume responsiblilty, but I would think that inspections would do better on cutting down on such a thing than civil suits after the fact.

In this event, there may be an advantage to my system.  Under the regulatory system, outside regulators have to come on to your property to test for something a neighbor is doing.  And if you don't want people strutting across your property, too bad.  But under my system, where you actually have a financial incentive to have them on your property, you actually invite them in and tell them what it is you wish them to look for.

The legacy issue is a tougher nut to crack.  You'll have to trace back the ownership chain until you find who the original offender is.  Suppose you in good faith buy a car and then find out the car was stolen.  The proper solution is that the thief refund you the price of the car while the car is returned to the original owner.  It wasn't his to sell, and by selling it to you he is stealing from you as well.

Love Canal, now that's an interesting case.  Yes, they did bury toxic waste on their own property, but there's a lot more to the story than that.  The chemical company disposing the chemcials received notice one day.  The local school board wanted to take the property and build a school on it.  The chemical company refused to sell, because that was their dump site.  The school board threatened to take it by eminent domain if the chemical company refused to sell.  Seeing as how they were going to lose the property anyway, the chemical company signed a contract saying that they will sell the property for the price of $1 if the school board promised to not build anything there for 100 years.  The school board signed the contract, paid the $1, and then promptly built a school right on top of the dump site.  This is an instance of the flashy headline on page 1, and then months later the full story on page 15.  Everyone remembers the dumping, nobody remembers the rest of the story.

[Brian37]

This topic has already come up so I just quoted myself.
Libertarianism is childishly naive and the market fundamentalist concept of spontaneous order is a proven failure. However, libertarians don't let empirical evidence get in the way of such a perfect ideology. Check out reason four in the video below and ask yourself if you've come across any libertarians like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yJwN-EwBOgM

THANK YOU! Regulations are not there to hold back progress anymore than having speed limits is anti car.

What is going on now is one class is being called out on it's abuse and they are simply being crybabies instead of working to improve conditions.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

I am not curious at all. "Libertarianism" is a wolf in sheeps clothing. "Hey guys, fuck you you want, marry whom you want, smoke pot and make it legal, just ignore that we have the same "fuck you I got mine" "all taxes are robbry" policy the right wing supports.

Will you please stop lumping us all under the conservative libertarian umbrella?

[Berati]

Somehow I knew that when I told APA to grow up or shut up that you'd come along to take his place.  So, shall we be discussing libertarianism as understood by 99.99999% of the population (including those who disagree with it but at least know what it is they are disagreeing with) or as understood by Berati?

And I knew that if a thread came up about your secular religion you would descend with your pompous arrogance and the ridiculous claims that those who critisize libertarianism just don't understand it.

Grow up Jason. It's time to look at real world solutions to real world problems and leave the fantasies behind.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

And I knew that if a thread came up about your secular religion you would descend with your pompous arrogance and the ridiculous claims that those who critisize libertarianism just don't understand it.

Grow up Jason. It's time to look at real world solutions to real world problems and leave the fantasies behind.

99.9999% of those who disagree with it know what it is.  That doesn't include you.

OR

You are the only one in the world who understands it and everyone else, including libertarians, are wrong about the definition of the term.

This isn't even a question of if it is right or wrong, it is a question of what the fuck is the definition of the term.  Is it defined by how everyone in the world except Berati uses it, or is it defined by how Berati uses it?  So which is it?

[Berati]

99.9999% of those who disagree with it know what it is.  That doesn't include you.

OR

You are the only one in the world who understands it and everyone else, including libertarians, are wrong about the definition of the term.

This isn't even a question of if it is right or wrong, it is a question of what the fuck is the definition of the term.  Is it defined by how everyone in the world except Berati uses it, or is it defined by how Berati uses it?  So which is it?

You sound just like Casparov. Not a surprise as you both follow faith based ideologies.

So the truth is I define it the same as everyone else. It’s really a simpleton’s ideology so it’s not difficult to understand.

http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/key-concepts-libertarianism

https://www.lp.org/platform

http://www.libertarianism.org/guide/what-is-libertarianism

Since you never bothered to define your version of libertarianism, just pick any of the above and every criticism I’ve made applies!
I give examples of stupid libertarian ideas and your only reply has been to point out some good ideas. Like they somehow cancel out. They don’t.

Your useless accusations that I’m not defining libertarianism correctly are not going to win you any points. None. You’re right back to the No True Scotsman fallacy which you seem incapable of understanding.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

You're right Jason. I'm not interested in a discussion that tries to legitimise your bullshit notion of how magical ideology will magically fix everything. You want shortcuts? Fine. Take the path through the woods.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

So the truth is I define it the same as everyone else.

Ok, now you're saying the real world isn't a True Scotsman.  Fascinating.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

From my point of view that's not much different from our current setup.  If the businessman pollutes now, he pays a fine.  If he pollutes under my system, he pays restitution.  The only real difference is who he pays, the property owner who was actually harmed or the government.  Even if the one doing the dumping is wealthy.
In this event, there may be an advantage to my system.  Under the regulatory system, outside regulators have to come on to your property to test for something a neighbor is doing.  And if you don't want people strutting across your property, too bad.  But under my system, where you actually have a financial incentive to have them on your property, you actually invite them in and tell them what it is you wish them to look for.

The legacy issue is a tougher nut to crack.  You'll have to trace back the ownership chain until you find who the original offender is.  Suppose you in good faith buy a car and then find out the car was stolen.  The proper solution is that the thief refund you the price of the car while the car is returned to the original owner.  It wasn't his to sell, and by selling it to you he is stealing from you as well.

Love Canal, now that's an interesting case.  Yes, they did bury toxic waste on their own property, but there's a lot more to the story than that.  The chemical company disposing the chemcials received notice one day.  The local school board wanted to take the property and build a school on it.  The chemical company refused to sell, because that was their dump site.  The school board threatened to take it by eminent domain if the chemical company refused to sell.  Seeing as how they were going to lose the property anyway, the chemical company signed a contract saying that they will sell the property for the price of $1 if the school board promised to not build anything there for 100 years.  The school board signed the contract, paid the $1, and then promptly built a school right on top of the dump site.  This is an instance of the flashy headline on page 1, and then months later the full story on page 15.  Everyone remembers the dumping, nobody remembers the rest of the story.

I'll post a lengthier response later, but I do have another question as to the issue of civil restitution: What if the person who's property poluted by his neighbor doesn't have enough money to hire a lawyer, and no one will take the case pro-bono? Is he fucked then, or are there other means?

I knew a little bit of that about Love Canal, but not the full story, so that was interesting. My point in referencing it was more that toxic waste can be stable for a lot of years then suddenly fuck things up when it is buried. So yeah, the legacy issue is a tough one for me. You can't assume that the original owner will be found every time, or even alive.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

Oh come now..  Let's all become libertarian and when your house catches on fire you call your private fire department. When someone breaks in and kills your family call your private cops and when a foreign power invades you call your private army and ask your private congress and private president to declare a private war.

[Berati]

Ok, now you're saying the real world isn't a True Scotsman.  Fascinating.

Wrong again!
If you hadn't blinded yourself with brainless devotion to a childish ideology you would have understood what was said instead of dodging the issues raised. Dodging the issues is all you have done.

[Hijiri Byakuren]

Wrong again!
If you hadn't blinded yourself with brainless devotion to a childish ideology you would have understood what was said instead of dodging the issues raised. Dodging the issues is all you have done.

He hasn't dodged anything except your straw man of what a libertarian is.


Sent from Monster Island. Titty sprinkles.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I'm sorry everyone else.  I'm not very good at ignoring trolls.  It's one of my weaknesses.

APA, Berati, you win.  There shall be no discussion of anything libertarian in a forum devoted to free thought.  It shall not be allowed.  Free thinkers aren't allowed to discuss this with you here to disrupt and my difficulty ignoring trolls.  You have decreed that free thought means never discussing anything libertarian.

[Jason Harvestdancer]

I'll post a lengthier response later, but I do have another question as to the issue of civil restitution: What if the person who's property poluted by his neighbor doesn't have enough money to hire a lawyer, and no one will take the case pro-bono? Is he fucked then, or are there other means?

There are lawyers who work on contingency.  Plus with pollution on the scale being discussed it does seem likely that said individual may have the ability to say to his neighbors "May I join in on your lawsuit?"  If it is small scale pollution, such as Joe dumping his trash in Mike's backyard, small claims court is not expensive.  On the other hand, if Big-N-Large Corporation is dumping into the ground water, Joe and Mike will both be impacted by this activity.