Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Pretty sure those get done with environmental impact statements though. And properly sealed, old tankers shouldn't be leaking into the ocean for several hundred years at least.

Oh good, unexplainable oil leaking to the Ocean surface from our barbaric civilization. Maybe future humans will write about how foolish we are to do things like this.

The ocean should be a waste dump for no man.

[nenjin]

I'm not defending the whole industry or anything. But they don't literally just ram a hole in the keel and let it sink.

I always kind of have been puzzled why they don't strip down oil rigs and tankers for materials though.

[Sheb]

I think they do take most of the valuable stuff. But a bunch of steel robs sunk in concrete aren't worth the bother.

[Montague]

Montague, how can you sue them off if polluting isn't illegal, hence regulated? I just don't get it.

(And since when does the Federal Government protect polluter from prosecution?)

A civil lawsuit. Litigation. They'd go to court if a plaintiff could prove damages and responsibility. If Monsanto dumps 400tons of eviljuice into the river and it kills off a farmer's entire crop that season, then Monsanto would be sued because it caused damage to somebody's property. Damage to life and property is obviously illegal.

The federal government protects polluters indirectly. In that same civil suit, Monsanto could claim "We followed every federal regulation regarding the storage and containment of evil-juice and we can prove we followed them to the letter. If these measures failed then you need to sue the government, not us, we just did what we were told would keep people safe." and they thus might not be responsible for damages.

[Sheb]

Okay, got it. Still don't think it'd work, because except for the most clear-cut cases, it's just too fucking hard to prove it'd Monsanto's fault. Or at the very least it'd take years and thousands of dollars of research that most people can't afford.

[Leafsnail]

What if the pollution doesn't directly damage any business but instead, say, screws up a city's air and creates a smog over it?  Who exactly is gonna sue them then?

[G-Flex]

A civil lawsuit. Litigation. They'd go to court if a plaintiff could prove damages and responsibility. If Monsanto dumps 400tons of eviljuice into the river and it kills off a farmer's entire crop that season, then Monsanto would be sued because it caused damage to somebody's property. Damage to life and property is obviously illegal.

Proving damages in most cases would be flat-out impossible. You're intentionally giving a case where it just happens to be clear-cut, but what about when you have hundreds of companies and facilities all contributing, in a general sense, to a worsening of environmental and health conditions? Who do you sue? How do you even pin down blame? What do you even blame them for, exactly? You can't pick some guys out of a city and say "these plaintiffs all have lunger cancer, which might be because of the undisclosed, unregulated chemicals the 427 defendant companies may or may not have been pumping into the soil and atmosphere, which may or may not heighten the statistical chance of such cancer". It just doesn't work that way. Litigation only works in cases where there is a very clear-cut causal link between a problem and the actions of the perpetrating party. Usually, with issues like pollution, the link is there, but is indirect enough that you can't effectively point fingers and say "this chemical by this company definitely and directly caused this problem". It's normally a hell of a lot more complicated than that.

[Montague]

Okay, got it. Still don't think it'd work, because except for the most clear-cut cases, it's just too fucking hard to prove it'd Monsanto's fault. Or at the very least it'd take years and thousands of dollars of research that most people can't afford.

Pretty much, but that's the line of thought behind "self-regulation" anyways. Most libertarian types don't really buy that argument either and admit the environment should be one of the government's few responsibilities.

A civil lawsuit. Litigation. They'd go to court if a plaintiff could prove damages and responsibility. If Monsanto dumps 400tons of eviljuice into the river and it kills off a farmer's entire crop that season, then Monsanto would be sued because it caused damage to somebody's property. Damage to life and property is obviously illegal.

Proving damages in most cases would be flat-out impossible. You're intentionally giving a case where it just happens to be clear-cut, but what about when you have hundreds of companies and facilities all contributing, in a general sense, to a worsening of environmental and health conditions? Who do you sue? How do you even pin down blame? What do you even blame them for, exactly? You can't pick some guys out of a city and say "these plaintiffs all have lunger cancer, which might be because of the undisclosed, unregulated chemicals the 427 defendant companies may or may not have been pumping into the soil and atmosphere, which may or may not heighten the statistical chance of such cancer". It just doesn't work that way. Litigation only works in cases where there is a very clear-cut causal link between a problem and the actions of the perpetrating party. Usually, with issues like pollution, the link is there, but is indirect enough that you can't effectively point fingers and say "this chemical by this company definitely and directly caused this problem". It's normally a hell of a lot more complicated than that.

Yep. However, industries do indeed get sued all the time for damages caused by pollution. This is easier to do when the source of the pollution is clear and the link to health problems or damages is clear.

So, no, you'd likely never win a case against the coal power plant if you get some respiratory disease because they'd just argue "Our plants are pollution isn't that bad, you can blame the automobile traffic, airport other factories, tire burning yard, ect, ect, ect for your problems, not us." because it'd be impossible to pinpoint the source, especially when every single industry is happily polluting away knowing no potential plaintiff could really ever pin them down and sue them.

[Deadmeat1471]

HAhahahahaha!

Polluting industries aren't gonna limit themselves. That cuts into profit margins. It almost seems like Ron Paul supporters are living in a fairy land.

This is exactly my experience with RP supporters. Cut away regulation and the private sector will cure poverty, the environment, healthcare and everything else. Magically.

I want to hear from a RP supporter, whats their reaction to being looked at like this. I don't want a response like LOL THE MAIN STREAM IS CRUSHING OUR DREAMS MAAANNNNN

I want a real response to try and defend the allegations by (it seems) everyone that RP lives in the land of the fairies, a place with no standing in the real world. I say this not as a Republican voter, not even as an Obama lover, but as a British onlooker onto american politics.

*Focus of the ridicule is on his ideas about the free market magically healing all ills.
I agree with his foreign policy and other such things, but the free market crap which is the main part of his campaign and ideology is just insanely naive to me.

[Montague]

HAhahahahaha!

Polluting industries aren't gonna limit themselves. That cuts into profit margins. It almost seems like Ron Paul supporters are living in a fairy land.

This is exactly my experience with RP supporters. Cut away regulation and the private sector will cure poverty, the environment, healthcare and everything else. Magically.

I want to hear from a RP supporter, whats their reaction to being looked at like this. I don't want a response like LOL THE MAIN STREAM IS CRUSHING OUR DREAMS MAAANNNNN

I want a real response to try and defend the allegations by (it seems) everyone that RP lives in the land of the fairies, a place with no standing in the real world. I say this not as a Republican voter, not even as an Obama lover, but as a British onlooker onto american politics.

*Focus of the ridicule is on his ideas about the free market magically healing all ills.
I agree with his foreign policy and other such things, but the free market crap which is the main part of his campaign and ideology is just insanely naive to me.

I'd say they are on to something. Countries with greater economic freedom are the most prosperous ones. They also tend to have better human rights records, greater standard of living (even for the poor) and greater individual freedom. It correlates almost perfectly.

Consider that most abuse is done directly or indirectly by the government interfering with the economy. Try naming a monopoly that arose without the help or support of a government, for example.

http://www.heritage.org/index/default
Look at the list and think about which countries you'd rather live in.

Of course, RP and friends are proposing something absurdly extreme. Not even Hong Kong is completely without regulation or totally 100% free market. There is a balance here, though it peaks toward greater economic freedom, I don't think going retarded with it is going to help things. There is a very black and white type of thinking with extreme ideology and that's basically how it boils down. If a little bit is good then a lot more must be better.

[USEC_OFFICER]

I'd say they are on to something. Countries with greater economic freedom are the most prosperous ones. They also tend to have better human rights records, greater standard of living (even for the poor) and greater individual freedom. It correlates almost perfectly.

Personally, I think that the correlation is the other way around. Countries that are more prosperous want to compete on the world stage, so they lower tariffs and try to get the free market system flowing, since by doing so they potentially can earn more money. When countries slide into a recession, then they establish trade tariffs and laws in an attempt to protect their economy. Of course the correlation isn't exactly perfect, since economic freedom is influenced by a whole host of different factors. The prosperity of the country is probably one of the major factors though.

Consider that most abuse is done directly or indirectly by the government interfering with the economy. Try naming a monopoly that arose without the help or support of a government, for example.

Standard Oil and Carnegie Steel Company/U.S. Steel are the two that spring foremost to my mind.

[G-Flex]

http://www.heritage.org/index/default
Look at the list and think about which countries you'd rather live in.

JFYI, you might want to use sources that aren't from conservative think tanks. That's not even biased; that's having a clear and outspoken agenda.

[Montague]

http://www.heritage.org/index/default
Look at the list and think about which countries you'd rather live in.

JFYI, you might want to use sources that aren't from conservative think tanks. That's not even biased; that's having a clear and outspoken agenda.

You have a better source? Far as I know that's the only source that bothers with that sort of thing. What's inaccurate about it?

Personally, I think that the correlation is the other way around. Countries that are more prosperous want to compete on the world stage, so they lower tariffs and try to get the free market system flowing, since by doing so they potentially can earn more money. When countries slide into a recession, then they establish trade tariffs and laws in an attempt to protect their economy. Of course the correlation isn't exactly perfect, since economic freedom is influenced by a whole host of different factors. The prosperity of the country is probably one of the major factors though.

Maybe if the correlation was a recent thing tied to globalism, but it's pretty much been like that for the last 50 years or go. Tariffs are not really free-market so much as they are free-trade.

The country's domestic economic polices determine it's economic freedom. Some countries have few foreign trade tariffs or protectionist policies but very little domestic economic freedom and vise-versa. Vietnam or China is an example of the former. Not many modern examples of the latter anymore, though. Protectionism as a whole was more popular a few decades ago even with capitalist countries.

[USEC_OFFICER]

Personally, I think that the correlation is the other way around. Countries that are more prosperous want to compete on the world stage, so they lower tariffs and try to get the free market system flowing, since by doing so they potentially can earn more money. When countries slide into a recession, then they establish trade tariffs and laws in an attempt to protect their economy. Of course the correlation isn't exactly perfect, since economic freedom is influenced by a whole host of different factors. The prosperity of the country is probably one of the major factors though.

Maybe if the correlation was a recent thing tied to globalism, but it's pretty much been like that for the last 50 years or go. Tariffs are not really free-market so much as they are free-trade.

The country's domestic economic polices determine it's economic freedom. Some countries have few foreign trade tariffs or protectionist policies but very little domestic economic freedom and vise-versa. Vietnam or China is an example of the former. Not many modern examples of the latter anymore, though. Protectionism as a whole was more popular a few decades ago even with capitalist countries.

Right, now I'm confused. What laws would constitute good economic freedom and what laws would constitute poor economic freedom? Is it about the ability for corporations or individuals to set up their own businesses and how they should regulate it? Do minimum wage and environmental laws affect economic freedom?

[G-Flex]

You have a better source? Far as I know that's the only source that bothers with that sort of thing. What's inaccurate about it?

It's hard to say what's accurate or not because it's using an ill-defined metric created by fiscal conservatives in order to promote their own agenda. It's not that it's "wrong", it's that it just plain isn't trustworthy.