Economic libertarians - tell me how an anarcho-capitalist state would prevent BP from ****ting all over the environment?

[Walsingham]

LOL at InSidious

 

 

I had to look up Klammath Falls. I thought it was only in Fallout. Is that a deliberate reference, do you reckon?

 

I suppose you are aware of the way farmers in Africa cheerfully knacker the environment by various practices? They, and the people around them would love to have the odd EPA feller stopping the insanity. I'm not saying Klammath was right. But a single error does not an evil make.

[Guard Dog]

LOL at InSidious

 

 

I had to look up Klammath Falls. I thought it was only in Fallout. Is that a deliberate reference, do you reckon?

 

I suppose you are aware of the way farmers in Africa cheerfully knacker the environment by various practices? They, and the people around them would love to have the odd EPA feller stopping the insanity. I'm not saying Klammath was right. But a single error does not an evil make.

I don't think that was a reference, that whole thing happened after FO came out I'm pretty sure. I don't remember now that I think about it. When did FO come out? I just player FO1 & 2 for the first time last year. Anyway, that example you gave was not really a comparison Wals. The water situation at KF was all about throwing the federal weight around and screwing people in the name of political corectness. And I ran down more than one evil. Heck the situation in Covington I was an eyewitness to. That was what got me involved in politics to begin with.

 

Of course we all know how THAT ended. I'd never run for office again. Never...never...ever...ever

[Hurlshort]

Actually I don't remember you going into much detail about your political campaign, GD. I guess we can wait for the book

 

I'd never run for office myself. It's really not a job I envy.

[Guard Dog]

Actually I don't remember you going into much detail about your political campaign, GD. I guess we can wait for the book

 

I'd never run for office myself. It's really not a job I envy.

Actually I got started as a paid staffer for Don Garlits when he ran for congress in Florida back in '94. On paper I was there to advise him on military and veterans issues. My only qualifications for that was that I had just completed a 5 year tour in the Marines and was a Gulf War vet. Basicly I knew nothing about politics and was really only there because a friend had introduced me to some people in the Florida Republican Party and I sort of backed into the job. I really was not qualified but I did a lot of learning on the job. Anyway, he ended up losing and I stayed on with the FRP part time while I started a business doing electronic test equipment calibrations. I ended up working for George Albright on his campaign in 96, then I decided I wanted to try my hand in a run for the Florida State House. Well, in the Republican party you only get backing to run if you have been a "good soldier" was the exact words. I had not been around long, had not run a campaign before and plus I had some real philisophical differences and word had gotten around I was not a "team player". So I contacted some friends in the Libertarian Party, got their backing and made a run at it. I finished 3rd in a three way race behind a democrat and an unaffiliated independant. Anyway, I emptied my savings on the run and my business, which was operating on a shoestring anyway failed a few months later. I was dead broke forced to sell my house and my wife filed for divorce. That was a pretty bad time. But I got through it, drank a lot... really a lot. Then snapped out of that phase, went back to school at FAU using my GI Bill and finished my degree. Things have gotten steadily better ever since. I'd never do that again though. No chance.

[Hurlshort]

Thanks for sharing that GD, I'm sorry it turned out so badly for you. What doesn't kill you, makes you stronger, eh? I do see it as a problem that the only people that are really successful either come from a ton of money or are willing to compromise their morals to receive backing. Actually, the ton of money isn't even much of a help either, as Ross Perot and Meg Whitman have shown us.

[Oblarg]

I haven't a clue what a watermelon is in that context, but sign me up for it.

 

Descriptor originally coined in Germany for left-wing environmentalists : Watermelon - Green on the outside, Red on the inside.

 

Most Greens are socialists in hippy clothing, at the end of the day they want to take your money and tell you how to live your life and how to think. The vehicle for their authoritarian leftist agenda is saving the planet.

 

Totally agree. To quote HL Menken "The desire to save the world is just a false face for the desire to rule it"

 

Go read through Collapse by Jared Diamond and see if you retain that position.

 

We are certainly capable of destroying our civilization through environmental damage, and we're drawing frighteningly close to actually doing it.

[Monte Carlo]

^ Yeah, right and the only solution is (let me guess) epic re-distribution of wealth, nationalisation and living in yurts.

 

No thanks.

[Oblarg]

^ Yeah, right and the only solution is (let me guess) epic re-distribution of wealth, nationalisation and living in yurts.

 

No thanks.

 

Nice strawman, bro.

[Walsingham]

^ Yeah, right and the only solution is (let me guess) epic re-distribution of wealth, nationalisation and living in yurts.

 

No thanks.

 

Hold on, Monte. I'm the freaky left wing nature hugger who posted the original point about how people do **** their environment. But I'm not talking about macro-climactic damage. I'm talkinb about deforestation, desertification etc. Local farmers claim they will starve unless they cut back forest and burn trees and eat monkeys and so forth. I don't think I need to evidence that. But if they go ahead and do it, then many more people and they themselves will starve completely. The only way is to have the govt or other regulatory body step in. the fact that it may not have been appropriate in the case of Klamath is irrelevant to my argument that it CAN be appropriate.

 

Unless I've made some ghastly error. Your turn, GD.

[Moose]

Can't solve any environmental problems until we first admit population control is a necessity - on Earth at least. Doug Stanhope sums it up best, if a little crudely, "***king isn't going to suddenly go out of style". Although I've heard it rumoured the white population is now falling due to the general acceptance of contraceptives. China has its own 'solution' - I guess its just about the other nations catching up.

[Monte Carlo]

^ Yeah, right and the only solution is (let me guess) epic re-distribution of wealth, nationalisation and living in yurts.

 

No thanks.

 

Nice strawman, bro.

 

I take it that's a 'Yes' then.

[Guard Dog]

^ Yeah, right and the only solution is (let me guess) epic re-distribution of wealth, nationalisation and living in yurts.

 

No thanks.

 

Hold on, Monte. I'm the freaky left wing nature hugger who posted the original point about how people do **** their environment. But I'm not talking about macro-climactic damage. I'm talkinb about deforestation, desertification etc. Local farmers claim they will starve unless they cut back forest and burn trees and eat monkeys and so forth. I don't think I need to evidence that. But if they go ahead and do it, then many more people and they themselves will starve completely. The only way is to have the govt or other regulatory body step in. the fact that it may not have been appropriate in the case of Klamath is irrelevant to my argument that it CAN be appropriate.

 

Unless I've made some ghastly error. Your turn, GD.

I can't answer for how thing are done in Africa or elsewhere but do you really thing westerners are ignorant of proper land stewadship? Do you really believe farmers are like a bunch of mindless locusts who left to their own devices would strip their land bare and eat themselves into exinction? Forgive me for channeling Sand here but if there are folks who are really that stupid perhaps we are better off without them.

 

The fundamental premise behind that notion that the government is the one to step in and save us from ourselves is that we are all stupid wretches who are incapable of managing ourselves. I reject that notion entirely. As I said government does have a role to play, a LIMITED role to play that does NOT include seizing or despoiling private property. And there is something else everyone better get comfotable with, we DO need to alter the envormant to suit our needs at time. If that means the habitat of some worthless little fish gets altered or even lost then that is how it has to be. Do not get me wrong, decisons like this should never be wanton or poorly planned. Enviormental impact should always be considered and minimized whenever possible but it should also be acceptable to a certain extent. You cannot make an omlet without breaking eggs. If you eat chicken sandwich for lunch, a chicken had to die so you could do that. It's just part of life.

[Hurlshort]

If onli I could get the government to pay me to not plant crops and milk cows!

[Monte Carlo]

Move to France, it's the cornerstone of European agriculture.

[Oblarg]

^ Yeah, right and the only solution is (let me guess) epic re-distribution of wealth, nationalisation and living in yurts.

 

No thanks.

 

Nice strawman, bro.

 

I take it that's a 'Yes' then.

 

Are you trolling me, good sir?

 

I can't answer for how thing are done in Africa or elsewhere but do you really thing westerners are ignorant of proper land stewadship? Do you really believe farmers are like a bunch of mindless locusts who left to their own devices would strip their land bare and eat themselves into exinction? Forgive me for channeling Sand here but if there are folks who are really that stupid perhaps we are better off without them.

 

The fundamental premise behind that notion that the government is the one to step in and save us from ourselves is that we are all stupid wretches who are incapable of managing ourselves. I reject that notion entirely. As I said government does have a role to play, a LIMITED role to play that does NOT include seizing or despoiling private property. And there is something else everyone better get comfotable with, we DO need to alter the envormant to suit our needs at time. If that means the habitat of some worthless little fish gets altered or even lost then that is how it has to be. Do not get me wrong, decisons like this should never be wanton or poorly planned. Enviormental impact should always be considered and minimized whenever possible but it should also be acceptable to a certain extent. You cannot make an omlet without breaking eggs. If you eat chicken sandwich for lunch, a chicken had to die so you could do that. It's just part of life.

 

Can't speak for farmers at the moment, but yes, many industries certainly are just as you describe - a swarm of mindless locusts focused only on immediate profit. For the best example, look at the global fisheries: in a few decades, most of them will collapse. That'll be it, no more fish. A major global food supply, gone.

 

So, to put it simply - No, I do not believe that I can trust big businesses to have a reasonable focus on long-term sustainability without government regulation. Some certainly may, but there are certainly enough that don't to warrant government interference.

Edited November 30, 2010 by Oblarg

[Tale]

^ Yeah, right and the only solution is (let me guess) epic re-distribution of wealth, nationalisation and living in yurts.

 

No thanks.

What do you have against yurts? Mongols lived in yurts. You wish you could be as cool as them.

[Amentep]

Can't speak for farmers at the moment, but yes, many industries certainly are just as you describe - a swarm of mindless locusts focused only on immediate profit. For the best example, look at the global fisheries: in a few decades, most of them will collapse. That'll be it, no more fish. A major global food supply, gone.

 

So, to put it simply - No, I do not believe that I can trust big businesses to have a reasonable focus on long-term sustainability without government regulation. Some certainly may, but there are certainly enough that don't to warrant government interference.

 

May be another can of worms not warrenting opening, but I have a distinct impression that modern businesses aren't run with the idea of sustaining the business anymore. There's a quest for profits that over-ride any kind of logic -- like it is better to make yourself a million running the business in the ground that to make 500K keeping the business viable in the long term.

 

Sadly, though, the government (or I suppose more appropriately the people running it) seems to have the same attitude; its more important to get what they want (money, power, a "win" in some unwinable and silly ideological race, etc) than it is to actually make sure the government works and is going to last (because, fact is, governments can go broke as well as be broken).

[Guard Dog]

So, to put it simply - No, I do not believe that I can trust big businesses to have a reasonable focus on long-term sustainability without government regulation. Some certainly may, but there are certainly enough that don't to warrant government interference.

 

Keeping on a philisophical level here because you and I do agree some level of regulation is appropriate, do you trust government to look out for the long term viability of business? You already conceeded that business only looks out for iteslf, to enrich itself. Don't you expect government to behave in exactly the same way, only look to empower itself, and empower and enrich the people who run it?

[Oblarg]

Keeping on a philisophical level here because you and I do agree some level of regulation is appropriate, do you trust government to look out for the long term viability of business? You already conceeded that business only looks out for iteslf, to enrich itself. Don't you expect government to behave in exactly the same way, only look to empower itself, and empower and enrich the people who run it?

 

Speaking in ideal terms, a business exists to make money while a government exists to serve the interests of the populace. Thus, in an ideal world, I would rather place the trust in the government, yes.

 

Of course, nothing is ever ideal, and trust me, I'm just as fed up with our government right now as you are, albeit for somewhat different reasons. But I do not think that the fact that our government is currently not serving the purpose it should logically leads to the conclusion that government should not be regulating the environmental impact of businesses. That said, I completely agree with you that the focus of most "environmentalism" is off-base and unconvincing - yes, saving the environment for the environment's sake is desirable (to an extent to which it doesn't adversely affect large numbers of people), but it is not the main reason for environmental conservation. Environmental conservation is important because of the potential impact on human society if we don't, and that concern should always have the priority.

 

To be honest, though, the amount of regulation required to save the global fisheries at this point simply isn't feasible - it would require massive international cooperation which would never, ever happen. I just hope we don't get to the same point with various other environmental concerns (deforestation is a big one - look at Haiti if you want to see what cutting down all the trees can do to a country).

[Darth InSidious]

Can't solve any environmental problems until we first admit population control is a necessity - on Earth at least. Doug Stanhope sums it up best, if a little crudely, "***king isn't going to suddenly go out of style". Although I've heard it rumoured the white population is now falling due to the general acceptance of contraceptives. China has its own 'solution' - I guess its just about the other nations catching up.

Malthusian claptrap.

[Moose]

Ah you're right, resources are infinite - I had forgot that.

[Walsingham]

I can't answer for how thing are done in Africa or elsewhere but do you really thing westerners are ignorant of proper land stewadship? Do you really believe farmers are like a bunch of mindless locusts who left to their own devices would strip their land bare and eat themselves into exinction? Forgive me for channeling Sand here but if there are folks who are really that stupid perhaps we are better off without them.

 

The fundamental premise behind that notion that the government is the one to step in and save us from ourselves is that we are all stupid wretches who are incapable of managing ourselves. I reject that notion entirely. As I said government does have a role to play, a LIMITED role to play that does NOT include seizing or despoiling private property. And there is something else everyone better get comfotable with, we DO need to alter the envormant to suit our needs at time. If that means the habitat of some worthless little fish gets altered or even lost then that is how it has to be. Do not get me wrong, decisons like this should never be wanton or poorly planned. Enviormental impact should always be considered and minimized whenever possible but it should also be acceptable to a certain extent. You cannot make an omlet without breaking eggs. If you eat chicken sandwich for lunch, a chicken had to die so you could do that. It's just part of life.

 

With respect to your normal good sense, you are talking arse, sir.

 

I think it's a fairly sound statement to assert that most scientists, managers, engineers etc recognise that the things in our world (systems) interact almost constantly, and in vigorous and powerful ways (the system of systems).

 

The notion that one can draw an arbitrary line around personal property by signing a piece of paper and the universe will respect the division is nothing short of mental. Which is a very disrespectful thing to say, but I can't say it with any less force without robbing the meaning.

 

Assuming you agree with my assumptions, you can presumably see that government non-intervention in personal property is automatically defunct. To use Oblarg's example, if a fisherman catches all the fish tomorrow he may go out of business, but people who had no commercial say in the matter will starve. They cannot act commercially after the fact. Their only recourse is to intervene before the action is taken. they can either do this by means of vigilante action, or by enacting laws and a body to enforce them. Ditto the people who depend on farmers who pursue a quick profit at the expense of eco-diversity and next season trigger a plague of insects because all the birds who normally eat the insects had nowhere to nest.

[Guard Dog]

I think it's a fairly sound statement to assert that most scientists, managers, engineers etc recognise that the things in our world (systems) interact almost constantly, and in vigorous and powerful ways (the system of systems).

 

Agreed

 

The notion that one can draw an arbitrary line around personal property by signing a piece of paper and the universe will respect the division is nothing short of mental. Which is a very disrespectful thing to say, but I can't say it with any less force without robbing the meaning.

 

Assuming you agree with my assumptions, you can presumably see that government non-intervention in personal property is automatically defunct. To use Oblarg's example, if a fisherman catches all the fish tomorrow he may go out of business, but people who had no commercial say in the matter will starve. They cannot act commercially after the fact. Their only recourse is to intervene before the action is taken. they can either do this by means of vigilante action, or by enacting laws and a body to enforce them. Ditto the people who depend on farmers who pursue a quick profit at the expense of eco-diversity and next season trigger a plague of insects because all the birds who normally eat the insects had nowhere to nest.

 

Ok, I think this is an important point to discuss but I'm at work right now and can't give it the resonse it deserves because of time contraints. But, in short your two examples are flawed because 1) No one has ownership of fisheries becasue it is well settled here and elsewhere, property lines end at the waters edge. Therefore activites such as fishing are subject to regulation by whatever government entity they fall near (state for lases rivers and within a certain distance of the shore on the ocean, federal beyond on bordering on federal management areas). This is all together proper and appropirate for the reasons I listed before. 2) A mishandled private farm can no more starve the people than I could. If a farm is mismanaged it goes out of business. Sometimes that is just a small red mark on a corporate blotter, sometimes it means a family loses their land and home. In every case it ends with the farm being sold to somone else who will probably do better. Crop rotation, land stewardship, it's all a part of succesful agriculture and and that is one of the few things the US has done right over the years. Whenever the federal government gets involved, all that happens is everything gets screwed up and the "enviorment" still suffers.

 

Ok, case in point. This was a big issue I took an unpopular stand on in my political career. There was a proposal in Florida to pass a $.01 per pound (yes we still measure that way for some reason) tax on all sugar produced in Florida (FL produces more sugar than any other state except Hawaii). The plan was to use the money to finance the clean up of the Florida Everglades. Now it was a fact that the everglades were suffering because of sugar farming. For over 100 years sugar growers had been using phosphorus base fertilizer on their fields. That was just how it was done, no one knew any better. The problem was the run off waer from these farms was phosphorus laden and when it entered the Everglades Waterway it cause an explosion of alge growth. The alge depeted the oxygen in the water which caused fish to die by the millions. What's worse the water entered the Gulf of Mexico and caused the infamous Red Tide fish kills that made world news back in the 80s & 90s. Once it was determined what the cause was the law banning phosphate based fertilizer was passed by the Floida Legislature and US Sugar (the big evil corporation in this fairy tale) had already voluntarily eliminated its use.

 

Now, the everglades still needed restoration. So the proposal for the "Sugar Tax" was popular because the price of sugar was fixed by subsidy, therefore the cost of the tax could not be passed on to the consumer (which is what usually happens). I was against it, I wrote a paper opposing it, campaigned against it and of course everyone assumes it was because I was anti-enviormental or some shill for evil "big business". I hear that a lot on this board lately. But I had really good reasons for opposing it and it was all based on one simple fact, In the 1990s US Sugar earned $.0015 on every pound of sugar it produced. The tax would drive them out of business because it could not compete with other companies if it was forced to produce at break even money. I was partially correct.

 

The tax failed the first time it was proposed in 1996. The voters of Florida had the good sense to realize what would happen. It later passed as a federal tax by congressional act. US Sugar shut down everywhere in south Florida. The only sugar farms left were around Belle Glade and Clewiston. The towns of Immokalee, La Belle, Pahokee, Indiantown, Lake Placid, and Andytown were plunged into poverty and unemployment. These were thriving communities. US Sugar moved the bulk of it's operations to the Bahamas. The land was parceled up and sold. Some of it became vegtable farms, most was plowed up paved over and houses built on it. A large portion was built out for industrial use. Now instead of hundreds of miles of green we have houses, sewage, buildings, pollution from cars, people, etc. All to solve a problem that had already been solved. This is almost ALWAYS what happens when the federal government steps in.

 

As a sort of happy ending the state of Florida passed a bond in 2008 to buy up the land around Bell Glade with the closure of the mill in Bryant. That will at least prevent more enviormental damage from more houses and such but it will never bring the folks who worked there there lives and homes back.

[Oblarg]

At this point, saving the fisheries is a lost cause. It's too hard to regulate fishing in international waters, and there aren't any governments that would be willing to do it, either, for fear of costing people their jobs and livelihoods. Look at Japan if you want an example.

 

The problem with this is that right now we have two choices - cost many fishermen their livelihoods now, or lose the potential for anyone to make a living off of that resource in the future. It should be clear what the correct course of action is.

 

My worry is that unless we start regulating the consumption of other resources soon (forests, for example), we may reach a similar point. Humans have a frightening capacity to destroy their own civilizations through environmental damage, and unless we make some sacrifices now there won't be anything to lose in the future.

 

Something to think about: What was the man who cut down the last tree on Easter Island thinking when he did it?

[Humodour]

At this point, saving the fisheries is a lost cause. It's too hard to regulate fishing in international waters, and there aren't any governments that would be willing to do it, either, for fear of costing people their jobs and livelihoods. Look at Japan if you want an example.

 

The problem with this is that right now we have two choices - cost many fishermen their livelihoods now, or lose the potential for anyone to make a living off of that resource in the future. It should be clear what the correct course of action is.

 

My worry is that unless we start regulating the consumption of other resources soon (forests, for example), we may reach a similar point. Humans have a frightening capacity to destroy their own civilizations through environmental damage, and unless we make some sacrifices now there won't be anything to lose in the future.

 

Something to think about: What was the man who cut down the last tree on Easter Island thinking when he did it?

 

Less than 1,000 years ago, Ireland and Iceland were covered in forest.