Rob's House Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Do you have any idea what facts are? Fact: The Indians did a rain dance, after which it rained. Therefore ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Fact: The Indians did a rain dance, after which it rained. Therefore ... ...the Indians were exploited by ConAgra? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 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 You need to step up your game. You can't even insult someone properly. BTW, why do you come here? Is it the daily ass pounding you crave or the need to have your inferiority complex confirmed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 28, 2014 Author Share Posted May 28, 2014 You need to step up your game. You can't even insult someone properly. BTW, why do you come here? Is it the daily ass pounding you crave or the need to have your inferiority complex confirmed? Where else can I can I converse with a person voted most likely to succeed by his high school class? And here I thought you were not even intelligent enough to graduate from high school! Thanks for setting me straight Fact: The Indians did a rain dance, after which it rained. Therefore ... Not much different than this http://articles.latimes.com/2007/nov/14/nation/na-rain14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 (edited) That's because Libertarianism exists only in the minds of the followers of the unrealistic doctrine Actually, you're incorrect. Libertarians, which you are referencing, are members of a registered US political party. Perhaps you're speaking about libertarianism, which is a moral philosophy. If you are, then it, like all other philosophies, are mental constructs. In this way it's no different than liberalism. You'll have to demonstrate that it's unrealistic, however. What makes it logically inconsistent, or impractical, and therefore unworkable? You've yet to demonstrate that you know anything at all about libertarianism, much less have a functional understanding of the philosophy; so you'll have to prove that you do before you heap criticism. Who is suppose to protect our streams and rivers if the government doesn't do it? No one, libertarian or otherwise, has argued that it isn't the government's just function to protect streams and rivers. No one here is making an anarchist or even a mini-archist argument. Stop strawmaning. Libertarians seems to think you have to wait till prove water is pollute before ANYTHING can happen. Foolishness. Counter to the belief that you should administer harsh justice before you've proven wrong doing? That's the dumbest thing I've read in a long time. Edited May 28, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 28, 2014 Author Share Posted May 28, 2014 Actually, you're incorrect. Libertarians, which you are referencing, are members of a registered US political party. Perhaps you're speaking about libertarianism, which is a moral philosophy. If you are, then it, like all other philosophies, are mental constructs. In this way it's no different than liberalism. You'll have to demonstrate that it's unrealistic, however. What makes it logically inconsistent, or impractical, and therefore unworkable? You've yet to demonstrate that you know anything at all about libertarianism, much less have a functional understanding of the philosophy; so you'll have to prove that you do before you heap criticism. No one, libertarian or otherwise, has argued that it isn't the government's just function to protect streams and rivers. No one here is making an anarchist or even a mini-archist argument. Stop strawmaning. Counter to the belief that you should administer harsh justice before you've proven wrong doing? That's the dumbest thing I've read in a long time. So there would be an Environmental Protection Agency with laws, enforcement and scientists, inspectors and every other big government regulation under Libertarian Rule??? That sounds like...Obama!! Or would you guys have a different way of keeping the environment clean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 So there would be an Environmental Protection Agency with laws, enforcement and scientists, inspectors and every other big government regulation under Libertarian Rule??? That sounds like...Obama!! Or would you guys have a different way of keeping the environment clean? Please respond intelligently to my post if you'd like to have this conversation. Demonstrate to me that you understand libertarian philosophy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koko78 Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 ...the Indians were exploited by ConAgra? Then they were forced to change the way they identified themselves to be more politically correct, as a non-Indian on the opposite side of the country became offended. You'll have to demonstrate that it's unrealistic, however. What makes it logically inconsistent, or impractical, and therefore unworkable? You've yet to demonstrate that you know anything at all about libertarianism, much less have a functional understanding of the philosophy; so you'll have to prove that you do before you heap criticism. I'm still waiting for the detailed explanation of how equal representation amongst the states in the US Senate is "unfair", especially in light of the fact that the House membership is based upon population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 So there would be an Environmental Protection Agency with laws, enforcement and scientists, inspectors and every other big government regulation under Libertarian Rule??? That sounds like...Obama!! Or would you guys have a different way of keeping the environment clean? I don't know how the Libertarians view this issue but I would guess that the libertarians would be for reasonable regulations and inspections. What I know they wouldn't be for is holding up projects like the Keystone Pipeline in order to suck up to the big donors on the far left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 ...the Indians were exploited by ConAgra? You just hatched a new conspiracy theory in the mind of gatorboy. Please respond intelligently to my post if you'd like to have this conversation. Demonstrate to me that you understand libertarian philosophy. Funny you tell him to quit straw-manning and he comes back with an even bigger straw man. Apparently you have strict comprehensive regulation or you have anarchy; there is no in between. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 (edited) I don't know how the Libertarians view this issue but I would guess that the libertarians would be for reasonable regulations and inspections. What I know they wouldn't be for is holding up projects like the Keystone Pipeline in order to suck up to the big donors on the far left. The proper role of government in regards to the environment is to fill the gaps that the free market cannot. It is not always feasible that individuals be able to draw private contracts with potential polluters over how much personal or property damage they are willing, or not, to endure, and at what cost. From this arises the "Polluter pays principal", where the polluter is legally obligated to either compensate fairly for damages, must pay to restore the damaged area to it's former condition, or some combination of the two. This is amenable, because damages are paid to the aggrieved party rather than paid to a feckless bureaucracy. Taxes assessed on polluters are undesirable for several reasons: they serve to further entrench and enlarge the bureaucracy by increasing it's scope and purview, affording it rights of contract and restitution prior enjoyed by citizens, they expressly permit deemed levels of pollution (read: harm to individuals) without commanding actual compensation to the aggrieved, and finally, payments are made to governments and used for purposes unrelated to the issue while those enduring the damages receive nothing in compensation. Edited May 28, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 The proper role of government in regards to the environment is to fill the gaps that the free market cannot. It is not always feasible that individuals be able to draw private contracts with potential polluters over how much personal or property damage they are willing, or not, to endure, and at what cost. From this arises the "Polluter pays principal", where the polluter is legally obligated to either compensate fairly for damages, must pay to restore the damaged area to it's former condition, or some combination of the two. This is amenable, because damages are paid to the aggrieved party rather than paid to a feckless bureaucracy. Taxes assessed on polluters are undesirable for several reasons: they serve to further entrench and enlarge the bureaucracy by increasing it's scope and purview, affording it rights of contract and restitution prior enjoyed by citizens, they expressly permit deemed levels of pollution (read: harm to individuals) without commanding actual compensation to the aggrieved, and finally, payments are made to governments and used for purposes unrelated to the issue while those enduring the damages receive nothing in compensation. Obviously, if Solyndra was polluting and causing problems for its neighbors a lawsuit would do no good for the neighbors. I endorse the government stepping in and getting an injunction against an obvious polluter. I don't endorse the governments over regulation and stupid ass decision making as per the link below. I'm sure that we have people bright enough to find a way to relocate enough of the smelt and salmon and do what is necessary to prevent their extinction (smelt) with the possibility of reintroducing them at a later date. (note the date on the article--- the situation has only gotten worse since) We then could use that fresh water to grow the crops we need. We need more Solomons in government. http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052970204731804574384731898375624 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 (edited) Obviously, if Solyndra was polluting and causing problems for its neighbors a lawsuit would do no good for the neighbors. I endorse the government stepping in and getting an injunction against an obvious polluter. I don't endorse the governments over regulation and stupid ass decision making as per the link below. I'm sure that we have people bright enough to find a way to relocate enough of the smelt and salmon and do what is necessary to prevent their extinction (smelt) with the possibility of reintroducing them at a later date. (note the date on the article--- the situation has only gotten worse since) We then could use that fresh water to grow the crops we need. We need more Solomons in government. http://online.wsj.co...384731898375624 Why would a lawsuit do no good for the neighbors under a libertarian system? Edited May 28, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Why would a lawsuit do no good for the neighbors under a libertarian system? Who is going to pony up in the case of a bankrupt defendant? Sometimes the clock can't be turned back, so somebody has to step in before things get out of hand. Getting a group together to file a lawsuit and getting a court date and then a decision takes time. Much damage can be done in the meantime. As much as I want to philosophically see things your way, practicality trumps your viewpoint. This is why I could have voted for Romney while you and millions of other people either voted libertarian or didn't vote at all. Who thinks we wouldn't be better off under McCain or Romney than Obama? I love your theory but believe in reality more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Who is going to pony up in the case of a bankrupt defendant? Sometimes the clock can't be turned back, so somebody has to step in before things get out of hand. Getting a group together to file a lawsuit and getting a court date and then a decision takes time. Much damage can be done in the meantime. Several problems here. Under a libertarian system, our entire system would be reformed, including courts. Insurance, much along the lines of malpractice, would fill many of those gaps; and for those gaps unable to be filled by the market, a public pool to make victims whole may even be desirable. Environmental concerns are no so different from other private contract issues, and property issues that the government must step in an clumsily mis-practice justice on the issue. As much as I want to philosophically see things your way, practicality trumps your viewpoint. This is why I could have voted for Romney while you and millions of other people either voted libertarian or didn't vote at all. Who thinks we wouldn't be better off under McCain or Romney than Obama? I love your theory but believe in reality more. Out of all of the millions of colors in the entire world, which is your favorite: blue or red? I'm not so willing as you to gleefully choose red. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Several problems here. Under a libertarian system, our entire system would be reformed, including courts. Insurance, much along the lines of malpractice, would fill many of those gaps; and for those gaps unable to be filled by the market, a public pool to make victims whole may even be desirable. Environmental concerns are no so different from other private contract issues, and property issues that the government must step in an clumsily mis-practice justice on the issue. Out of all of the millions of colors in the entire world, which is your favorite: blue or red? I'm not so willing as you to gleefully choose red. Actually, I prefer blue, just not on election days. I'm a conservative, in the sense of the word, not some gatorman definition that makes me a granny killing, religious fanatic who would just love to poison the environment but not until I have a war on women and send all the blacks back to the plantation. Practicality has to be part of the solution. I think if we had a Romney in the WH we'd be moving closer to what you want than we are now. I am afraid that we have so many entrenched judges, bureaucrats, politicians and regulations that without some extraordinary leadership with a strong will and a way of getting the public behind him/her we are doomed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 28, 2014 Author Share Posted May 28, 2014 I'm still waiting for the detailed explanation of how equal representation amongst the states in the US Senate is "unfair", especially in light of the fact that the House membership is based upon population. Wow, you are not to bright. What needs to be explained? The Senate is anti-majority rule. The house is majority rule but the Senate can block anything the House passes. That's like saying it would be ok if I was the only member of the Senate, because the house is there and makes it fair. I love your theory but believe in reality more. yes. Same thing with Communism, sounds good, but in the real world just doesn't work. If the country turned against the Libertarians like the Communists in the two red scares, you know, put them in jail, deport their stupid asses, murder a few of them, I'd think that would be bad also, but probably we can't get there. Several problems here. Under a libertarian system, our entire system would be reformed, including courts. Insurance, much along the lines of malpractice, would fill many of those gaps; and for those gaps unable to be filled by the market, a public pool to make victims whole may even be desirable. Environmental concerns are no so different from other private contract issues, and property issues that the government must step in an clumsily mis-practice justice on the issue The courts would be "reformed"? How so? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Wow, you are not to bright. What needs to be explained? The Senate is anti-majority rule. The house is majority rule but the Senate can block anything the House passes. That's like saying it would be ok if I was the only member of the Senate, because the house is there and makes it fair. yes. Same thing with Communism, sounds good, but in the real world just doesn't work. If the country turned against the Libertarians like the Communists in the two red scares, you know, put them in jail, deport their stupid asses, murder a few of them, I'd think that would be bad also, but probably we can't get there. The courts would be "reformed"? How so? Like the VA accountability bill overwhelmingly passed by the House but blocked by the Senate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted May 28, 2014 Share Posted May 28, 2014 Wow, you are not to bright. What needs to be explained? The Senate is anti-majority rule. The house is majority rule but the Senate can block anything the House passes. That's like saying it would be ok if I was the only member of the Senate, because the house is there and makes it fair. the senate can't actually block anything coming from the house. they each write their own separate bills, and reach a compromise between them in committee, then it's sent on the the president to either sign or veto. the only way the senate can 'block' anything is by not bringing their own bill up to a vote. you tell people that they're 'not to(sic) bright' and follow up with a statement like that? way to go, Albert. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tiberius Posted May 28, 2014 Author Share Posted May 28, 2014 the senate can't actually block anything coming from the house. they each write their own separate bills, and reach a compromise between them in committee, then it's sent on the the president to either sign or veto. the only way the senate can 'block' anything is by not bringing their own bill up to a vote. you tell people that they're 'not to(sic) bright' and follow up with a statement like that? way to go, Albert. Omg are you stupid. What you just wrote is really idiotic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts