Official Lolbertarian thread. Discuss the benefits of No goverment

Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Speaking of not being able to answer a question...


What do you do if the entity that harmed you IS government and they refuse to provide justice ? What then?
Click to expand...
I stopped answering questions after you stopped. But now that you bothered, the question you posed was:

"What means do you have NOW, if the polluter IS government and your claim is denied? I bet you won't answer that one."

There are many cases on the books where this kind of problem occurred. Its true that the government is a tough opponent but they have been brought to justice. So, if my case were strong enough, I would eventually prevail. Deny that the justice can be obtained through the courts all you want but there are many examples where people were harmed by a government and they won their day in court.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_lawsuits
Its also true that most cases of environmental litigation are brought against corporations and private companies.
 
Not GOP

Not GOP

Well-Known Member
The Obama Administration just wiped out the Navajo Nation, and three major rivers with toxic sludge. Arsenic 300 times the normal levels, and lead 3500 times normal levels.

 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
Lard ass? Oh come now sir, my gluteus is muscular and athletic. Just yesterday my lady was complimenting me on my finely tuned middle aged physique while observing my morning pushup ritual.

Now to your question...

In an ideal system a person would have a choice amongst arbitration methods rather than being held to one so called "justice system" which holds a monopoly on the use of force. The reason being, a monopolistic justice system has no incentive to provide actual justice since the consumer of said service is held captive by virtue of the monopoly held by the so called justice providers. Can you refute that consumers usually benefit when they have choices of who will be their service provider rather than one single source?

Also, you could easily answer any followup questions by reading less than 200 pages. (The Market for Liberty by Morris and Linda Tannehille ) I do think you have the capacity to do it, but your cognitive dissonance alarm would sound so loud in your fear addled brain when you discover that government is not needed you could suffer a mental breakdown...
Click to expand...
I was completely aware that you are a narcissist and love yourself first, last and always but you confirmed it here. Kiss your own old flabby ass and make love to yourself if you like, its nothing to me. I think its unseemly for an old man to wear a wife beater in the grocery store but again, whatever makes your weenie wag...

Regarding the book you refer to almost as if it were a bible. Morris and Linda Tanehille are nobodies. They didn't do anything before writing this book and did nothing afterward either. Its a made-up philosophy. They broke up in the eighties, Morris died and Linda was last heard from, living in a motor home selling hand made rope sandals, mostly at Rainbow Gatherings. She claimed she preferred living the life rather than proselytizing for it. In actuality, her life is indistinguishable from poverty. It sounds as bad as your life too (hand carried 60 gallons of water for eighty miles up a mountainside...lol). She was happy in her poverty, so it seems are you. Good for both of you. Life on the road in a motor home or life on a farm, barely making ends meet is not much of a life if you ask me. No thanks.

And after you get everybody to settle for poverty, you then ask people to give up protections for children from sexual predators, rely on "professional" arbiters to settle disputes (oh sure that would be fair...snicker) and to remove all protections that ensure equal opportunity for minorities and other marginalized people in this society. Sounds like a place where we would be racing towards the bottom of human existence. Again, I say, "no thanks".

Now, regarding your answer to my question regarding what recourse you'd have in your system if somebody polluted the water to your land and poisoned your family then denied doing it. First of all, thanks for the attempt. Its more than I've seen you try to do in a long time. While not exactly clear what you'd do, I infer that you'd use a system where a mutually agreed upon hired arbiter would decide damages. Its not unrealistic to think that a person who denied doing the pollution would also refuse to go to an arbiter. What non coercive action would you then take?
 
Not GOP

Not GOP

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
What did you add?
Click to expand...
I was trying to add to the post you made just a little bit ago,
and was going to keep going before you cut me off like a drunk driver

Fogdog said:
I stopped answering questions after you stopped. But now that you bothered, the question you posed was:

"What means do you have NOW, if the polluter IS government and your claim is denied? I bet you won't answer that one."

There are many cases on the books where this kind of problem occurred. Its true that the government is a tough opponent but they have been brought to justice. So, if my case were strong enough, I would eventually prevail. Deny that the justice can be obtained through the courts all you want but there are many examples where people were harmed by a government and they won their day in court.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_lawsuits
Its also true that most cases of environmental litigation are brought against corporations and private companies.
Click to expand...
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Not GOP said:
I was trying to add to the post you made just a little bit ago,
and was going to keep going before you cut me off like a drunk driver
Click to expand...
Do you have a point? The Navaho already know about the spill, so it's not news to them. They plan a lawsuit for damages, which they will win. The west is dotted with mines that were abandoned and are now full of polluted water, a big mess left behind by a poorly regulated mining industry -- a free market does stuff like this, hence the need for better regulation. Blame the Obama and the EPA for this spill if you like but its part of a larger problem created a long time ago.

So again, what did you add? What point do you want to make?
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Does anyone realize the EPA hire a PRIVATE firm. That caused both mine waste water leaks?

Can I emphasize PRIVATE CONTRACTOR
Yes the EPA is responsible. But Did they cause the Spill?
NO
A PRIVATE CONTRACTOR working for the EPA did
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I was completely aware that you are a narcissist and love yourself first, last and always but you confirmed it here. Kiss your own old flabby ass and make love to yourself if you like, its nothing to me. I think its unseemly for an old man to wear a wife beater in the grocery store but again, whatever makes your weenie wag...

Regarding the book you refer to almost as if it were a bible. Morris and Linda Tanehille are nobodies. They didn't do anything before writing this book and did nothing afterward either. Its a made-up philosophy. They broke up in the eighties, Morris died and Linda was last heard from, living in a motor home selling hand made rope sandals, mostly at Rainbow Gatherings. She claimed she preferred living the life rather than proselytizing for it. In actuality, her life is indistinguishable from poverty. It sounds as bad as your life too (hand carried 60 gallons of water for eighty miles up a mountainside...lol). She was happy in her poverty, so it seems are you. Good for both of you. Life on the road in a motor home or life on a farm, barely making ends meet is not much of a life if you ask me. No thanks.

And after you get everybody to settle for poverty, you then ask people to give up protections for children from sexual predators, rely on "professional" arbiters to settle disputes (oh sure that would be fair...snicker) and to remove all protections that ensure equal opportunity for minorities and other marginalized people in this society. Sounds like a place where we would be racing towards the bottom of human existence. Again, I say, "no thanks".

Now, regarding your answer to my question regarding what recourse you'd have in your system if somebody polluted the water to your land and poisoned your family then denied doing it. First of all, thanks for the attempt. Its more than I've seen you try to do in a long time. While not exactly clear what you'd do, I infer that you'd use a system where a mutually agreed upon hired arbiter would decide damages. Its not unrealistic to think that a person who denied doing the pollution would also refuse to go to an arbiter. What non coercive action would you then take?
Click to expand...
The fact that the Tannehilles personal lives are not my cup of tea does not offer a refutation to their written ideas in the book I referred you to. The two are distinctly separate things. I thought you were smarter than that. Nice try at conflation though.

What would you do if the polluter WAS government and they didn't rectify the problem and told you to shit in your hat? What recourse do you have then?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Not GOP said:
The Obama Administration just wiped out the Navajo Nation, and three major rivers with toxic sludge. Arsenic 300 times the normal levels, and lead 3500 times normal levels.

Click to expand...


The problem with government crimes is the perpetrators rarely are held personally accountable. It's all "collateral damage" to them.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
I stopped answering questions after you stopped. But now that you bothered, the question you posed was:

"What means do you have NOW, if the polluter IS government and your claim is denied? I bet you won't answer that one."

There are many cases on the books where this kind of problem occurred. Its true that the government is a tough opponent but they have been brought to justice. So, if my case were strong enough, I would eventually prevail. Deny that the justice can be obtained through the courts all you want but there are many examples where people were harmed by a government and they won their day in court.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_environmental_lawsuits
Its also true that most cases of environmental litigation are brought against corporations and private companies.
Click to expand...

Nice try, except it sort of died on the vine.

There are many cases of people "not prevailing" and having no recourse. I'm not going to bother to post them though.

So, what options would you have when the "justice system" is a forcibly held monopoly and you CAN'T go anywhere else and that same system is also the opposing party?
 
Not GOP

Not GOP

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Do you have a point? The Navaho already know about the spill, so it's not news to them. They plan a lawsuit for damages, which they will win. The west is dotted with mines that were abandoned and are now full of polluted water, a big mess left behind by a poorly regulated mining industry -- a free market does stuff like this, hence the need for better regulation. Blame the Obama and the EPA for this spill if you like but its part of a larger problem created a long time ago.

So again, what did you add? What point do you want to make?
Click to expand...
Rob Roy said:
The problem with government crimes is the perpetrators rarely are held personally accountable. It's all "collateral damage" to them.
Click to expand...
You're exactly right Rob. The only time intentions matter to Democrats is when it comes to government accountability. I know that, but fog dog doesn't. I'm almost sure he's the guy who suggested we should keep the government open on weekends
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top