Quoted: Quoted: The state, as I said before, repeatedly, that's still the states purvue. So it's the GOVERNMENT that sets the standards for what constitutes "pollution". And it's the GOVERNMENT that prosecutes those companies for pollution violations that affect "the environment at large". That is exactly what we have today. Thank you.

No, it is not "exactly what we have today".  

Laws prohibiting something, (polluting) are very different than regulating agencies.

Regulating agencies allow some pollution and hold polluters not liable to civil or criminal penalties if they over pollute.

It's like how the govt "regulates" how many rat hairs a company can have in it's candy bars.  (I think it is seven at this time)  If they have more than that on an average they get a small fine. But part of the deal with this kind of regulation is that the company cannot be sued by the public for having rat hair in their candy bars. The public has no legal standing to sue because of the "deal" made between the govt and candy companies that results in "regulation".  

Under a libertarian system it would not have this kind of regulation.  Candy companies would not be insulated from lawsuits from people who found rat hair in their candy.  

And there could be straight laws passed making rat hair in candy illegal period.

As it is now, rat hair is LEGAL in candy because it is "regulated" by the govt.  

And while we are on the subject of govt regulation, .... anyone who has had experience with lazy govt regulators will tell you that they are almost completely incompetent in their jobs and protect almost NO ONE.  It's just a big waste of taxpayer money.

Case in point, the deaths from Ecoli in hamburger the last few years. What did govt regulation do to prevent that?  Nothing.

Govt regulation is to protecting you from pollution as 911 is to protecting you from crime.  

Calls to 911 does not protect you from crime.  Govt does not protect you from crime.

What really scares companies is the fear of a huge legal judgement that will put them out of business and criminal charges that may put them in jail.  

Regulation frequently insulates companies from these consequences.



Zen






"This is my rifle, there are many like it, but this one is mine"  

Quoted: Quoted: The state, as I said before, repeatedly, that's still the states purvue. So it's the GOVERNMENT that sets the standards for what constitutes "pollution". And it's the GOVERNMENT that prosecutes those companies for pollution violations that affect "the environment at large". That is exactly what we have today. Thank you.

Not quite, as Zen pointed out, and as I stated before, the costs are transferred to the polluter.

You started out saying the position was indefensible, and now you think it's the same as yours?

Of course we haven't even gotten into the myriad ways government policy negatively impacts the environment.

Free market interest rates would be remarkably eco-friendly.



Brasspile,

Good point, well taken.

Quoted: I would like to take this opportunity to remind people that we are on the same side ( Pro RKBA), and the differences sit wating in the eaves. Is GWB the perfect example of what we want in a leader?  No. Would Badnarik be a better leader at this time than Bush?  No.  (too much change, too fast, start with legislature) Would Kerry benefit what we want in America?  FUCKING HELL NO! I guess I would be Very Happy to see the election as Libertarians vs. Republicans, or similar.   However, that is too big of a change, too fast for people to swallow. If the election were between Libertarian and Democrat right now, I can guarantee Kerry would be taking oath in January.   Choose your battles, some things take time.

Wisest words said yet.

+1