Jump to content

Libertarian Environmental Policy


Tiberius

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Great, let's turn our nations air and water over to these criminals!

 

http://www.nytimes.c...-agency.html?hp

Actually, that's the exact opposite of libertarian environmental policy.

 

Libertarians believe in the strict enforcement of property law. As such, anyone polluting another's property, where damages can be shown, would be 100% liable for costs of clean-up and damages. These amounts, when calculated, are usually multitudes higher than the amounts levied in punative fines, and are paid directly to the aggrieved party, rather than to a feckless bureaucracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Actually, that's the exact opposite of libertarian environmental policy.

 

Libertarians believe in the strict enforcement of property law. As such, anyone polluting another's property, where damages can be shown, would be 100% liable for costs of clean-up and damages. These amounts, when calculated, are usually multitudes higher than the amounts levied in punative fines, and are paid directly to the aggrieved party, rather than to a feckless bureaucracy.

 

So nothing would be done for public water, public air, etc? Nothing would be done---just like here--to protect the country's water or the oceans or anything? That's as f'n stupid as it gets!

 

And the private land owners would have their individual cases tied up in the courts against corporate lawyers. Libertarians would let the little guy get totally screwed. But, then again, thats the whole point of Libertariasm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So nothing would be done for public water, public air, etc? Nothing would be done---just like here--to protect the country's water or the oceans or anything? That's as f'n stupid as it gets!

Hardly. The only stupid thing here is your continued fallacious assertions about a libertarian philosophy which you clearly don't understand.

 

Every piece of property has an ownership stake tied to it, private or public.

 

And the private land owners would have their individual cases tied up in the courts against corporate lawyers. Libertarians would let the little guy get totally screwed.

Again, presumptive idiocy. What makes you think that there wouldn't be similar libertarian reforms to courts, and an end to corporate personhood as it currently exists? It seems to me that you've never bothered to have a comprehensive conversation about libertarianism, and instead would rather attempt to drop bombs on a landscape you don't know the first thing about, which would be funny if it weren't so sad.

 

But, then again, thats the whole point of Libertariasm

Libertarianism, with a small "L". Large "L" Libertarians are more socialist than libertarian, seeking only to reform socialist ideas using libertarian principals.

 

And no, that's not the point of libertarianism, your ignorant fiat declarations aside. It's actually the exact opposite of libertarian goals, which are to empower the individual (read: little guy).

Edited by TakeYouToTasker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This entire dialogue is indicative of the conclusion that eventually will become unavoidable:

The Democratic party is no longer the party of "the little guy".

 

Followed closely by the next, logical, inescapable conclusion:

The libertarian movement is now comprised of, and wholly owned by, "the little guy".

 

For me, these 2 conclusions are already valid. For many others: it's just a matter of time until they accept their validity.

 

It's like gravity: it existed for millions of years, before it was "discovered". So, it's just a matter of time, before women, minorities, whites, everybody, realizes that the "progressive agenda" is anti-little guy, and therefore, anti-them.

 

 

EDIT: Oh, and it's yet more confirmation that gatorman, wawrow, birdog, etc., have no friggin clue about the TEA party(the real TEA party) or libertarians in general. Hopefully they will continue to refuse to know their enemy. It makes destroying their idiotic agenda much simpler.

Edited by OCinBuffalo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being an environmental scientist in NC- your article rings true. The anti-science Republicans have taken revenge on 100 years of democratic dominance in NC. Their mantra is Jobs Jobs Jobs-- period. No matter what the cost to the environment - jobs at any cost. All of the regulations regarding fracking, off shore drilling and toxic remediation have been gutted. Professional and responsible state regulators fear for their jobs- politics trumps science. The damage being done by this truly feckless administration will be paid for by decades of contaminated water, air and soil. Such a beautiful State has been thrown to the Wolves of Wallstreet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being an environmental scientist in NC- your article rings true. The anti-science Republicans have taken revenge on 100 years of democratic dominance in NC. Their mantra is Jobs Jobs Jobs-- period. No matter what the cost to the environment - jobs at any cost. All of the regulations regarding fracking, off shore drilling and toxic remediation have been gutted. Professional and responsible state regulators fear for their jobs- politics trumps science. The damage being done by this truly feckless administration will be paid for by decades of contaminated water, air and soil. Such a beautiful State has been thrown to the Wolves of Wallstreet.

 

There's regulations regarding fracking?

 

I thought that industry was "Do whatever the !@#$ you want."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's regulations regarding fracking?

 

I thought that industry was "Do whatever the !@#$ you want."

 

Coal companies are being squeezed hard by competition with the natural gas companies and it looks like they are cutting back on safety and environmental safe guards all over

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

EDIT: Oh, and it's yet more confirmation that gatorman, wawrow, birdog, etc., have no friggin clue about the TEA party(the real TEA party) or libertarians in general. Hopefully they will continue to refuse to know their enemy. It makes destroying their idiotic agenda much simpler.

 

yay!

 

jw

 

glad to see your making the case of ignorance being bliss.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Being an environmental scientist in NC- your article rings true. The anti-science Republicans have taken revenge on 100 years of democratic dominance in NC. Their mantra is Jobs Jobs Jobs-- period. No matter what the cost to the environment - jobs at any cost. All of the regulations regarding fracking, off shore drilling and toxic remediation have been gutted. Professional and responsible state regulators fear for their jobs- politics trumps science. The damage being done by this truly feckless administration will be paid for by decades of contaminated water, air and soil. Such a beautiful State has been thrown to the Wolves of Wallstreet.

nice to read an on-the-ground perspective. it seems nearly everyone i talk to from nc feels much the same about this administration on this issue and on education. i don't know if the intent is to run off like minded people but it's working. let's hope this administration is run off before the things are irreversibly destroyed.

Edited by birdog1960
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great, let's turn our nations air and water over to these criminals!

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/01/us/coal-ash-spill-reveals-transformation-of-north-carolina-agency.html?hp

 

That was a political op ed presented as a news story. The only connection drawn between the spill and the new regulations were the vague allegations of politicians who were opposed to the changes from the outset. No details about the spill, such as how/why it happened were given, nor was the damage in any way quantified.

 

But hey, if it fits your agenda...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That was a political op ed presented as a news story. The only connection drawn between the spill and the new regulations were the vague allegations of politicians who were opposed to the changes from the outset. No details about the spill, such as how/why it happened were given, nor was the damage in any way quantified.

 

But hey, if it fits your agenda...

Oh, well if you have a better reason for why this massive spill happened lets hear it
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, well if you have a better reason for why this massive spill happened lets hear it

 

When you're trying to establish a theory, which the author is trying to do, you have the burden of establishing your case. There isn't enough information in that article to draw any logical conclusions, yet with your response you've essentially admitted that you're going to accept an unsubstantiated theory as truth for no other reason than it fits your bias.

 

 

It also has nothing at all to do with Libertarianism, as I outlined earlier.

 

It is comical to watch someone trash a philosophy, and in the next breath demonstrate his total lack of understanding of that philosophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hardly. The only stupid thing here is your continued fallacious assertions about a libertarian philosophy which you clearly don't understand.

 

 

I tend to agree with your points more than I agree with gatorman's but calling him fallacious is an uncalled for personal attack. And it is dirty and gross. Keep it clean dude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It also has nothing at all to do with Libertarianism, as I outlined earlier.

That's because Libertarianism exists only in the minds of the followers of the unrealistic doctrine

 

When you're trying to establish a theory, which the author is trying to do, you have the burden of establishing your case. There isn't enough information in that article to draw any logical conclusions, yet with your response you've essentially admitted that you're going to accept an unsubstantiated theory as truth for no other reason than it fits your bias.

 

 

 

It is comical to watch someone trash a philosophy, and in the next breath demonstrate his total lack of understanding of that philosophy.

there is plenty of information in the article you dumb ****. The governor worked for Duke energy for thirty years and then gutted the state agency in charge of protecting the environment and guess what happened? Major environmental disasters took place.

 

 

Who is suppose to protect our streams and rivers if the government doesn't do it? Libertarians seems to think you have to wait till prove water is pollute before ANYTHING can happen. Foolishness.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's because Libertarianism exists only in the minds of the followers of the unrealistic doctrine

 

there is plenty of information in the article you dumb ****. The governor worked for Duke energy for thirty years and then gutted the state agency in charge of protecting the environment and guess what happened? Major environmental disasters took place.

 

 

Who is suppose to protect our streams and rivers if the government doesn't do it? Libertarians seems to think you have to wait till prove water is pollute before ANYTHING can happen. Foolishness.

 

Again, I can't tell if you're a very clever troll or a very stupid liberal. If that's all you need for cause and effect we could draw all kinds of nonsensical conclusions, and anyone with an IQ north of room temperature knows that without needing to be told.

 

But if you're up to an analysis that runs deeper than "See Spot Run", share with us the part of that article that explains what regulations were relaxed and how that contributed to the spill. Or even a vague idea about what those regulations covered and how the spill occurred.

 

Also, a libertarian is not an anarchist, dipshit.

Edited by Rob's House
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Again, I can't tell if you're a very clever troll or a very stupid liberal. If that's all you need for cause and effect we could draw all kinds of nonsensical conclusions, and anyone with an IQ north of room temperature knows that without needing to be told.

 

But if you're up to an analysis that runs deeper than "See Spot Run", share with us the part of that article that explains what regulations were relaxed and how that contributed to the spill. Or even a vague idea about what those regulations covered and how the spill occurred.

 

Also, a libertarian is not an anarchist, dipshit.

again, I CAN tell you are a complete idiot trying to do anything to twist the argument to make you some how feel better about this horrible environmental disaster. Obviously the industry got the foxes to watch the hen house, only a moron like you would see that. Libertarian environmental policy in practice. Let the best courts that money can buy sort it out!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

again, I CAN tell you are a complete idiot trying to do anything to twist the argument to make you some how feel better about this horrible environmental disaster. Obviously the industry got the foxes to watch the hen house, only a moron like you would see that. Libertarian environmental policy in practice. Let the best courts that money can buy sort it out!

 

Do you have any idea what facts are?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Do you have any idea what facts are?

 

Great question! You really must have been the editor of your high school news paper. Ha ha. What was it called? The All High Ass Wipe.

 

Your very presence in a pollution thread is so fitting, your posts are basically pollution

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...