So You Hate the EPA, huh?

Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
Seems a section of the mines structure failed, possibly caused by heavy machinery operating in the area trying to clean it all up.

Hardly "EPA pumps millions of gallons of shit into river intentionally" as is implied.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it is so much better because it is an accident.... Oh wait....
 
GreatwhiteNorth

GreatwhiteNorth

Global Moderator
Staff member
I wonder if anyone was held responsible for the spill?
I mean, if Joe the miner did it there would be calls for his head - here?
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
So, if somebody pollutes your land but denies it, how does one stop this intrusion? In your free market world where there are no regulators or government, that is.
Click to expand...
You assume in the absence of a single coercion based government holding a monopoly on force in a given area that there would be no mechanisms for people to arbitrate disputes, which is an erroneous assumption. If you can get past that assumption, I could offer details to answer your question.


Now a question for you...what IF the polluter IS the coercion based government and the victim has no other realistic alternative but to use the perpetrator (government) as the arbitrator as well? Do you see any problems with that scenario?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
You assume in the absence of a single coercion based government holding a monopoly on force in a given area that there would be no mechanisms for people to arbitrate disputes, which is an erroneous assumption. If you can get past that assumption, I could offer details to answer your question.


Now a question for you...what IF the polluter IS the coercion based government and the victim has no other realistic alternative but to use the perpetrator (government) as the arbitrator as well? Do you see any problems with that scenario?
Click to expand...
Regarding the first paragraph ... you are right, I do say that your idea of people just getting along is dumb. Thanks for saying so yourself.

Regarding the second paragraph. This is a straw man type question. Umm, this isn't a coercion based government where the victim has no other realistic alternative...blah blah. I don't see any problems along the lines that you suggest. You say that the government is monolithic and nobody can question or sue it to correct a wrong, then ask me if I see a problem with that. I see a problem with your premise. People sue the US government and win when they have a good case. Try asking a question based on a real life scenario and I'll respond with an answer.
 
ASCIIGHOST

ASCIIGHOST

Well-Known Member
Common Law would do a better job in regards to controlling pollution. Free markets are the best. Considering how much pollution there is now, government intervention and regulation fail miserably.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
Seems a section of the mines structure failed, possibly caused by heavy machinery operating in the area trying to clean it all up.

Hardly "EPA pumps millions of gallons of shit into river intentionally" as is implied.
Click to expand...
Subcontractors were doing the work
You know. Freemarket
 
bravedave

bravedave

Well-Known Member
ChesusRice said:
Subcontractors were doing the work
You know. Freemarket
Click to expand...
Subcontractors doing the bidding of the EPA who consistently get in over their heads and make decisions without weighing ALL impacts while their decisions as unelected officials ARE politically weighted left where a minnow is more important than feeding humans.
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
ASCIIGHOST said:
Common Law would do a better job in regards to controlling pollution. Free markets are the best. Considering how much pollution there is now, government intervention and regulation fail miserably.
Click to expand...
Do you have an example of a first world country that successfully does this? I can't think of any -- maybe you can?

Corporations like DuPont would love to see this country go to a common law system where they would have the advantage of large well paid teams of lawyers. They play the game of hiding the evidence and denying facts when they come out at a world class level. It takes strong government action to force them to cooperate. Your common law would be a godsend to them. In short, what a dumb libertarian idea you put forth.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
bravedave said:
Subcontractors doing the bidding of the EPA who consistently get in over their heads and make decisions without weighing ALL impacts while their decisions as unelected officials ARE politically weighted left where a minnow is more important than feeding humans.
Click to expand...
So what was the proper solution to cleaning up the mine?
Who was going to do that?
 
Fogdog

Fogdog

Well-Known Member
bravedave said:
Subcontractors doing the bidding of the EPA who consistently get in over their heads and make decisions without weighing ALL impacts while their decisions as unelected officials ARE politically weighted left where a minnow is more important than feeding humans.
Click to expand...
Oh man, so you are saying that industry would never make these kinds of discharges if the EPA were not around? Wasn't there a huge spill of waste from a coal mine a year ago or so? It took out a city's water supply and as far as I know, they are still trucking water in. There have been some enormous mine-spills in Idaho too. Colorado is dotted with old abandoned mines that are now filled with toxic water. So, yeah, free market solves everything (snicker).

The Animas River spill was from one of those abandoned mines -- the Gold King mine, which shut down in 1923. The abandoned mine was leaking toxic water from an earth and timber dam at the time and water was building up behind the earthwork. The EPA was trying to avert the disaster and, it went wrong, no excuses for that. At the time of the Colorado gold rush, mines were dug, money was banked and the owners moved on to other things. Toxic waste water became somebody else's problem, like you, me and the EPA. This is how your unregulated free market works.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Oh man, so you are saying that industry would never make these kinds of discharges if the EPA were not around? Wasn't there a huge spill of waste from a coal mine a year ago or so? It took out a city's water supply and as far as I know, they are still trucking water in. There have been some enormous mine-spills in Idaho too. Colorado is dotted with old abandoned mines that are now filled with toxic water. So, yeah, free market solves everything (snicker).

The Animas River spill was from one of those abandoned mines -- the Gold King mine, which shut down in 1923. The abandoned mine was leaking toxic water from an earth and timber dam at the time and water was building up behind the earthwork. The EPA was trying to avert the disaster and, it went wrong, no excuses for that. At the time of the Colorado gold rush, mines were dug, money was banked and the owners moved on to other things. Toxic waste water became somebody else's problem, like you, me and the EPA. This is how your unregulated free market works.
Click to expand...
Why didn't the free market clean up that mine?
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Time to go home everybody.

They've agreed to limit temperature increases to around 1.5°C, so it's all good now.

Cos they agreed it.
 
Rob Roy

Rob Roy

Well-Known Member
Fogdog said:
Regarding the first paragraph ... you are right, I do say that your idea of people just getting along is dumb. Thanks for saying so yourself.

Regarding the second paragraph. This is a straw man type question. Umm, this isn't a coercion based government where the victim has no other realistic alternative...blah blah. I don't see any problems along the lines that you suggest. You say that the government is monolithic and nobody can question or sue it to correct a wrong, then ask me if I see a problem with that. I see a problem with your premise. People sue the US government and win when they have a good case. Try asking a question based on a real life scenario and I'll respond with an answer.
Click to expand...
No, sometimes you CAN sue the government, but the point is the government IS monolithic and a monopoly on force.

That is easy to prove. In a dispute with the government, there are no disinterested parties that arbitrate the dispute, the government is the plaintiff AND the judge. There is no mechanism to appeal OUTSIDE the government, they hold a forcible monopoly on ahem "resolution" of any disputes they are involved in.


ChesusRice said:
Why didn't the free market clean up that mine?
Click to expand...

It sure seems like the EPA did a great job of cleaning things up....no wait, they didn't, Prohibitionist.
 
C

ChesusRice

Well-Known Member
Rob Roy said:
No, sometimes you CAN sue the government, but the point is the government IS monolithic and a monopoly on force.

That is easy to prove. In a dispute with the government, there are no disinterested parties that arbitrate the dispute, the government is the plaintiff AND the judge. There is no mechanism to appeal OUTSIDE the government, they hold a forcible monopoly on ahem "resolution" of any disputes they are involved in.





It sure seems like the EPA did a great job of cleaning things up....no wait, they didn't, Prohibitionist.
Click to expand...
The EPA has cleaned up thousands of toxic sites and had a failure at one.

Btw if the EPA Didn't do anything at the mine. The mine would still be polluting the river.

Why are you here? No one cares about the opinion of a child molester Like you.
And that's not slander. You advocate for the right to have sex with children.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top