New Hamspshire is rolling up

[bheld]

Originally Posted by thewise1

Well, isn't that essentially what happens now? How does government regulation saying "you can't dump in the river" actually prevent anything?

Well it certainly makes litigation a lot easier, don't you think? The threat of jail time is also a lot more effective than the threat of losing money.

[DosEquis]

Originally Posted by thewise1

Certainly agree with your last comment. The republicans are spending while the democrats are trying to pay for it (and their own spending). I hold no love for either of them.

If it were up to me, there would be no capital gains tax.

If it were up to me, i'd get rid of income tax and put capital gains tax rates the same they were during clinton's presidency. People still invested what were record amounts then, and they would continue to do so with that rate again. The people who are working for it would be spared.

[thewise1]

Originally Posted by bheld

Well it certainly makes litigation a lot easier, don't you think? The threat of jail time is also a lot more effective than the threat of losing money.

How does it make litigation easier? And why shouldn't harm to property or health be punishable by jail time anyway?

[bheld]

Originally Posted by thewise1

How does it make litigation easier? And why shouldn't harm to property or health be punishable by jail time anyway?

It's easier to sue somebody when there's a specific statute outlawing what they did to cause a problem.

Harm to property and health are only punishable by jail time when there are specific laws against that action. That's the way the courts are set up. You don't go to jail for sliding on ice and running into another car.

[thewise1]

I'm suggesting that we make it illegal to cause harm to property and/or health, instead of trying to micromanage business by over or under regulating it.

Your problem seems to be with the libertarian ideals, yet these are central to them. If you don't have these property rights (both to your body and to your physical property) then yes, it fails. Completely. I certainly can't argue that!

[bheld]

Originally Posted by thewise1

I'm suggesting that we make it illegal to cause harm to property and/or health, instead of trying to micromanage business by over or under regulating it.

Your problem seems to be with the libertarian ideals, yet these are central to them. If you don't have these property rights (both to your body and to your physical property) then yes, it fails. Completely. I certainly can't argue that!

Causing harm to property and health is already illegal, so what's there to change? That's what regulations are. Laws that govern appropriate actions in the marketplace.

All you're doing is moving the decision-making on what is acceptable and not acceptable from the legislative bodies to the courts, which is not their intended purpose.

Without any structure to what is appropriate for courts to hear you're going to have a landslide of litigation. If you think frivolous lawsuits are bad now you should wait until you pass a generic law that basically replaces everything with the golden rule.

[Ardentfrost]

It is illegal for one person to do harm to another person. No regulation is needed, the states have all the reason they need to punish companies who dump harmful substances into areas with any chance of harming another person.

As for non-harmful dumping, it is in a state's best interest to protect its land. Littering is illegal for me. Is it not also illegal for a company?

The EPA has all the power when it comes to the environment, and none of the will to do more than what is minimally required of it. Additionally, when power is focused, that gives you one avenue that needs to be corrupted before you can do whatever you want.

I know this is an answer pro-regulatory people hate, but we are PAST the point of it being ok to dump shit willy-nilly as a society. People WANT to do better by their environment, even those that are skeptical of global warming. It's not about being afraid of the consequences, it's about the desire to live in a clean community, to drink clean water, to breathe clean air. People want those things, and they are not achieved by giving over to a centralized "protection" agency.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

It is illegal for one person to do harm to another person. No regulation is needed, the states have all the reason they need to punish companies who dump harmful substances into areas with any chance of harming another person.

As for non-harmful dumping, it is in a state's best interest to protect its land. Littering is illegal for me. Is it not also illegal for a company?

The EPA has all the power when it comes to the environment, and none of the will to do more than what is minimally required of it. Additionally, when power is focused, that gives you one avenue that needs to be corrupted before you can do whatever you want.

I know this is an answer pro-regulatory people hate, but we are PAST the point of it being ok to dump shit willy-nilly as a society. People WANT to do better by their environment, even those that are skeptical of global warming. It's not about being afraid of the consequences, it's about the desire to live in a clean community, to drink clean water, to breathe clean air. People want those things, and they are not achieved by giving over to a centralized "protection" agency.

So what do government regulations do that prevent us from getting the outcomes we all want as a society? How does a regulation keep me from being able to sue a company for damaging my health or property?

[Ardentfrost]

If you can do that, why is it needed?

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

It is illegal for one person to do harm to another person.

with malice of course.

[bheld]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

If you can do that, why is it needed?

Well like I said before it reduces the load on the courts for one thing.

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by bheld

Well like I said before it reduces the load on the courts for one thing.

Paying off the centralized agency does relieve our court systems, that's true

Seriously, it is the responsibility of the states to protect their citizens from each other and it is certainly within reason for them to protect their own land... that's why we have cities with their own set of pollution laws (you especially see that in big cities) and whatnot. It might be cheaper for a company to just dump its industrial waste in the nearest river bed, but the socioeconomic backlash of that aside, no state is going to want that done, and will protect itself against that if it has the ability.

As we have seen, the EPA has the ability to block a state from protecting itself. I know that's not your ideal EPA that does that, but IF they can do that at all, THEN the EPA simply has too much power an ability to be corrupted. A state, although having the ability to be corrupt, has far less chance of not aligning with what the people of that specific area want (a clean environment safe from industrial dumping). No regulations, in this respect, are necessarily needed and certainly not at the federal level. A state could potentially regulate its own land for its own situation, but that would be up to them.

It all boils down to, is what we have working? And the answer is a resounding "no." And we could do it your way and give them even more power, however its their power that has CREATED the situation that is being exploited. To me the only sensible solution is to abstract the responsibility into 50+ subsections that resides closer to the true demand for a clean environment.

[bheld]

What happens in the case of runoff where you have stuff coming off the farms here in Iowa and making its way down to the mouth of the Mississippi and killing everything within 50 miles of the delta down there? If you rely on states to regulate Iowa is going to tell Louisiana to piss off and that it's our economy. Now you're talking about state vs. state litigation and where is that going to end up? You've got the federal courts deciding it so why not just pass regulation the first time instead of waiting for shit like this to keep cropping up?

[Ardentfrost]

IF Iowa is unwilling to listen to the concerns of Mississippi, which is a HUGE if, then they can take their issue to the supreme court. How often do you suppose that'll happen? I'm betting zero, MAYBE once. Iowa's people would still care about the pollution, even if they aren't directly affected.

[Fed Up]

Originally Posted by Ardentfrost

That's so sad if you're right. It causes me to lose my faith in the future of this country (no lie). If there is no stopping this downward spiral into autocratic socialism, why not just go live in Australia or something.

I'm a little late to this thread and it seems there are many posts that have gone off on a tangent....but....

Paul was late to the party in NH. It showed in his numbers, but his polling numbers were rising all along the last few weeks. Many, because of the MSM, haven't yet heard his message.

Paul also has 10 more months of trying to get his message through to the masses. February 5th will be his defining moment. I haven't and won't give up the ship.

That said, I'm fully ready to move to the Philippines and establish redidency part time (I have an 8 year old daughter there). A person from America can live like a king on about 12,000 a year there, if they own their own place. $200 a month for a driver/$100 a month for a cook/maid/$200 for a bodyguard if you're afraid of Al Qaeda or the Abu Sayyaf (no thanks)/$10 for a one hour massage/food is cheap/and you still have money left over to travel or whatever. And they speak English...

We're talking peanuts here....A small nestegg of $500,000 can offer you all you need....just might need a raincoat now and then.

I've golfed Monday-Thursday at Tagaytay Highlands, an Arnold Palmer course, and I was the only one on the entire course. Zero handicap guy gave me lessons at $10 a pop and my caddy for 18 holes was $4.

There are options for those that want to retire early and enjoy a better quality of life than the U.S. can offer....and there are already many expats living in Cebu. See: Retire in the Philippines. Retire in Cebu, Dipolog, Davao, Dumaguete or Tacloban. Could you retire in the Philippines?

Australia is just a short plane hop away....so is Hong Kong.

But I do have a mission to accomplish here in America first....

Fed Up

[RMNIXON]

It looks like Richardson is dropping out:




MERRIMACK, N.H. (AP) - New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson ended his campaign for the presidency Wednesday after twin fourth-place finishes that showed his impressive credentials could not compete with his rivals' star power.

Richardson planned to announce the decision Thursday, according to two people close to the governor with knowledge of the decision. They spoke on a condition of anonymity in advance of the governor's announcement.

The Richardson campaign would not comment on the governor's decision, reached after a meeting with his top advisers Wednesday in New Mexico.

My Way News - AP: Richardson Ends Presidential Bid

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by thewise1

A free market is based on implicit private property rights. That means that if someone harms your property (including your health) then you have a claim against them.

How does regulating business aside from protecting property and health rights do anything to prevent this? Are you going to have the government shut them down after they dump waste in the river and the kids get cancer anyway? Or instead of doing it that way, perhaps have the people of the community that own the river or property effected by the dumping sue the company?

Either way, there is a remedy, and neither one will stop a stupid company from dumping in the first place. Just because there is a law to stop criminal behavior (it was criminal to harm someone else's property in the first place) does not mean it ends.

I guess I just don't see how the government regulation prevents that in the first place.

According to the founding fathers and the 5th amendment, among other common law practices of their time, you had no "private property rights"

It's a total myth

[Ardentfrost]

Originally Posted by Fed Up

I'm a little late to this thread and it seems there are many posts that have gone off on a tangent....but....

Paul was late to the party in NH. It showed in his numbers, but his polling numbers were rising all along the last few weeks. Many, because of the MSM, haven't yet heard his message.

Paul also has 10 more months of trying to get his message through to the masses. February 5th will be his defining moment. I haven't and won't give up the ship.

His poll numbers might have been rising, but people still believe that without that (R) or (D) next to your name, you're not worth voting for. When he loses the Republican nomination, his chances decrease even more. I might could regain some faith if he can start pulling 25% or more in states... not that it would get him the nomination, but at least it would give me faith in the movement.

But I'm not holding my breath. I just don't think McCain's retained clout in NH from 2000 should affect RP's numbers THAT much. The only other sensible conclusion is that the message really is that unpopular.

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by thewise1

A free market is based on implicit private property rights. That means that if someone harms your property (including your health) then you have a claim against them.

How does regulating business aside from protecting property and health rights do anything to prevent this? Are you going to have the government shut them down after they dump waste in the river and the kids get cancer anyway? Or instead of doing it that way, perhaps have the people of the community that own the river or property effected by the dumping sue the company?

Either way, there is a remedy, and neither one will stop a stupid company from dumping in the first place. Just because there is a law to stop criminal behavior (it was criminal to harm someone else's property in the first place) does not mean it ends.

I guess I just don't see how the government regulation prevents that in the first place.

You are spot on about private property rights!

As for Government Regulation as the actual problem solver, it does not. The best prevention is a company who knows what damage it will do to itself as a member of the community if they get caught doing it, and a community that will take action against damage when caught.

A friend of mine works for the health department. The worse thing that can happen to a restuarant is a notice in the local paper that they have been closed for violations or worse and article about getting people sick. Not the actual citations of the health department.