Ask a Libertarian: Eposide 1 - The EPA

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/01/basf-abandons-gm-crop-market-in-europe.html

The German chemical giant BASF is moving its transgenic plant operations from Europe to the United States, it says, because of widespread opposition to the technology.

The company announced on 16 January that it would move its plant-science headquarters from Limburgerhof, Germany, to Raleigh, North Carolina, and that it would no longer develop plants solely for cultivation in Europe. The division employs 157 people in Limburgerhof, plus another 63 at facilities elsewhere in Europe. BASF said that it would relocate 123 of those jobs to the North Carolina facility.

In statement, Stefan Marcinowski, a member of the BASF board of executive directors, cited “a lack of acceptance for this technology in many parts of Europe —from the majority of consumers, farmers and politicians.” The company instead plans to focus on plant biotechnology markets in the Americas and Asia.

Hey Pkr chk this, very disturbing , but humorous, in a disrespectful rapper revisionist history kinda way...

Lol... that's pretty funny Teo. People don't realize how important and versatile hemp was and is. It wasn't the intoxicant effects that lead to it's prohibition... it was collusion between commercial interests and progressive govt. Fascism is corruption.

Boards, that portrayal of the Libertarian is a bit like stating Environmentalists would ban people for CO2 emissions.

There are no good zealots.

The problem with the current state of regulations is that it is excessive with no accountability (think BP and MMS).

More bang for the buck could be accomplished by social pressure and environmental group education along with lessened regulation.

stormwatch89 wrote:Boards, that portrayal of the Libertarian is a bit like stating Environmentalists would ban people for CO2 emissions.

Not at all.  Libertarians want to end the EPA (and the IRS, FDA, Dept of Ed, etc..).  Do you disagree with that?

I asked a simple question:  What is life like in an EPA-free libertarian-land?  

Why can't anyone answer that?  If this were a thread about environmentalists and if someone were making the claim that environmentalists want to ban Co2 emissions, I suspect an environmentalist would chime in and clarify their positions.  But libertarians?  All I have seen thus far is a reference to fluoride and a few one-liners.  That's it.  

Have libertarians never actually put any thought into what life would be like without environmental regulation?   Do libertarians not at least have an idea of what libertarian-land would be like?

Just imagine if jehova's witnesses came door to door saying things like "You're going to burn in hell!  End days are coming, I tell ya!" and then when you ask them to clarify their beliefs so that you to can have salvation, they say things like "Uh...well.....you see....this is kinda a bullshit question...because... like...well.... first of all that would never happen....uh....fluoride" (runs away)

Libertarian thought is the equivalent of the above but with politics.  All I am asking anyone to do here is explain how your philosophy applies to the real world.   This is a 1000 level,  "Introduction to...", day 1 of school, very basic type of question.

Not at all. Libertarians want to end the EPA (and the IRS, FDA, Dept of Ed, etc..). Do you disagree with that?

I asked a simple question: What is life like in an EPA-free libertarian-land?


You are clever Boards......because I remember the libertarian on our fourm declaring an end to the EPA, and now is in denial, and actually is shuffling so much.....you might think he plays tennis.

That was a different context... run your dog and pony show by yourselves. In the previous context I'd use the court.

It's not legal to cause harm today... and it wasn't prior to the epa.

PkrBum wrote:That was a different context... run your dog and pony show by yourselves. In the previous context I'd use the court.

Now we're getting somewhere.  So in the EPA-free libertarian-land, the court would be the solution to all environmental problems?

So, to continue the previous example, when a business dumps toxic waste into a stream for several decades and then - generations later - someone happens to notice "Hmm.  People sure do get cancer here a lot", what is the court remedy?  After generations of premature death have been delivered to an entire community of people living downstream from the polluter...what exactly happens?  How would the people of the community even know to make the connection to the business?   How would they even know the business was dumping waste into the stream at all?  Assuming the citizens of the community were ever able to connect the dots and then take the business to court, what sort of payout would make that community whole again?

I was hoping for a better answer than "The courts would settle everything."

[quote="boards of FL"]

stormwatch89 wrote:Boards, that portrayal of the Libertarian is a bit like stating Environmentalists would ban people for CO2 emissions.

Not at all.  Libertarians want to end the EPA (and the IRS, FDA, Dept of Ed, etc..).  Do you disagree with that?

I asked a simple question:  What is life like in an EPA-free libertarian-land


I do disagree with that and think you'll find most libertarians are not for total destruction of the EPA, only reeling it back. The pendulum has swung too far and the very real and very unsatisfactory fact is there is NO accountability when scandal after scandal becomes transparent. Again, MMS. Clearly an organization consisting of kickbacks and favors, but no one was held accountable. I always felt they should have been made to suffer even more than BP.

Yes, I disagree and while there may be some extreme Libertarians who want no EPA I think you'll find them few.

Remember, the Libertarian philosophy is that we should be allowed all the freedom possible as long as those freedoms do no harm to others. Obviously, pollution harms others.

That is really the main problem with humanizing corporations. They really have no individual conscience. Whereas an individual can be reasoned with by family and neighbors and courts but the power of a corporation and it's spreading the responsibility within it's ranks makes it difficult to reason with. So we create a giant monster (the Epa ) to fight these beasts...problem reaction solution .

stormwatch89 wrote:Yes, I disagree and while there may be some  extreme Libertarians who want no EPA I think you'll find them few.

I'll agree that the idea isn't unanimous, but few? Even many republicans are calling for an end to the EPA, and they're left of libertarians. Ron Paul comes to mind. Hell, Rick Perry said he would completely ax five large government agencies. I assume the EPA would have been one of those, but I don't know since he couldn't recall the names of five government agencies at the time he made that statement.

Now that I mention that, I think I understand why this thread is progressing the way that it is.

Even many republicans are calling for an end to the EPA, and they're left of libertarians.

I would disagree a bit with this conclusion. Libertarians and the conceptual bucket we try to place the same has a wide spectrum of left and right membership. The stoner who wants free love with anything, and no restrictions on his drug intake, the white power advocate who wants the federal government destroyed, both argue under libertarian principles.

I found that Boards cleverly put some peanut butter on the mouse trap, and lo and behold some folks forgot what they have posted in the past. This thread has been a hoot, but make no mistake that the concept of a libertarian is a qualifier which usually indicates intellectual laziness because discussing good government is hard work filled with tedious reading and understanding of specific issues and multiple cost/benefit models which allow rational choice. Our motley crew let out a duh.....declared in general over simplifications that government is generally bad, and is out of control. Boards asked a simple question, and I never saw so much slipping and sliding as we had a collective thump as the the bodies hit the ice.

Pffft... Fed govt solutions are for the fearful and lazy. There would be a place for feds in what I can envision... it's spelled out already. Liberty is scary... dangerous even. In this case it would cede controls back to states... unless the crime was interstate.

There would/could/should be laws created by congress that were indeed common good. But not a bureaucratic monstrosity.

Liberty is scary... dangerous even.

You continue to keep a smile on my face. I spent the day in Chicago Tuesday and I saw thousands of first generation Americans who had immigrated to this great nation because of economic opportunity and freedom which in general are not always available in other nation states. This idea that America has lost liberty is laughable to me, and certainly the newly arrived I speak to regularly. They often comment how Americans take the same for granted. In my lifetime I have seen the expansion of liberty beyond what existed when I was a child.

Good government operates within our constitution. Our founding fathers understood too well the fear of tyrants and our history and spirit has been ingrained in us from when we were toddlers that we have certain rights which the government cannot infringe. If a person wants to be intellectually lazy, or in the case of some forum members off the wall crazy, they can find conspiracy and excess in everything. A rational person works to improve how government works, and challenges government when they overreach. If one person had intellectual integrity and answered Boards question with the same, one could have hope that those who espouse this bundle of libertarian ideas really have a clue. There was no such response, and you in particular who have the intellectual capacity to give the same, continue to give lazy generalities like a child you are teaching in tennis who refuses to move their feet or charge the net and insists to stand at this arbitrary spot and insists the ball will eventually come to him. Sometimes it takes work to get to the ball and the issues. Simplistic lazy generalities stating that government is bad, or that we should get rid of the EPA, are not a political philosophy, but a declaration of slothful intellect.

It's past sloth that you can't see fed govt overreach in a thousand examples... it's irresponsible and selfish.

It will be next to impossible to regain what's been lost... the dye is cast. You don't even want transparency and accountability from govt... you constantly excuse and apologize for the lack there of. You have no right to denigrate my opinion... fuck you comrade.

The problem here is these lefties don't understand the answer, because boards made a fatal flaw to the question. boards and many here obviously think libertarians are for NO gov at all. which is incorrect.

they cant grasp the concept of "LIMITED" and then even more with that limited concept to be able to understand that answering such a broad question about a large over bloated organization is not a single answer. it would require picking out different aspects of the epa itself and approaching it that way.

hope this helps

States were allowed to try every prohibition and regulation they like... the good ideas would be adopted... the bad ideas to fail. LA used to look like beijing does today. You'd think common sense would be appreciated... instead it's avoided like leprosy.

PkrBum wrote:States were allowed to try every prohibition and regulation they like... the good ideas would be adopted... the bad ideas to fail. LA used to look like beijing does today. You'd think common sense would be appreciated... instead it's avoided like leprosy.

So you're OK with government, just not OK with federal government? The use of force for taxation and regulation is not what you have a problem with at all, it's just a geography thing?

http://www.pnj.com/article/20140207/NEWS10/302070017/30K-gallons-of-acid-found-after-train-derailment


Just imagine how much more efficiently this whole scenario would have gone if we didn't have an EPA. They could have just removed the derailed cars and then went on about their business. Then the invisible hand would have just...somehow...cleaned everything up and made the environment nice again. Something about people voting with their dollars and stuff. Long story short, it would have just been cleaned up immediately. Hell, we wouldn't even need to know about it. It wouldn't even end up in the news. No need to alarm anyone, right?

But noooooo. The EPA has to come in and hold people accountable. Total bullshit. Right, Pkr? If only government would just get out of the way here...

TEOTWAWKI wrote:

So they are warning you that if your kid, under six, swallows a tube of toothpaste, seek medical care.

Wow...wonder how many tubes they'd have to swallow before they swallowed a lethal dose?

Using figures from a fluoride terrorist site, you would have to chug down about 600 tubes.  Does that sound about right?

FYI .14% w/v Fluoride equals .0014 weight per volume.

Are you aware you can poison yourself by drinking to much water? Pure, 100% unadulterated water.