I have a question regarding the environment and libertarians?

But a train exploding full of oil in Canada two days ago doesn't matter at all? I disagree with Meagains Liberal premise that NO one but Government could've stopped things from happening, esp in todays day and age where we have Liability.

You may think "only people with money can sue," but most lawyers will take on these cases for "Nothing unless you win" because companies ARE liable these days. Plus I mean, word of mouth.

Monsanto, Banks,Walmart etc. A lot of companies are too corrupt..My suggestion? Don't shop there! Obviously the government has done nothing in the way of placing regulations against these banksters, or the military-industrial complex; they pay a bribe, and small businesses are being strangled in paperwork and taxes.

 

I am not aware of any Liberal or Conservative viewpoints that are keeping this from happening. However, the Republicrats tendency of selling their vote to the highest bidder, has prevented this from happening. Maybe if we end lobbying? But again, the Republicrats love lobbying and I can't see them giving it up any time soon.

 

How do you mean "allow" class action lawsuits? It's not illegal to sue the government (The press sued Obama over the NDAA) and I for one, support that class action lawsuit!

I see what you're saying. But you most likely wont ever feel differently, since you still seem to believe that government regulations are the only things that help. Sure, there are instances (like child labor as mentioned) where someone had to step in. However, government regulations are sometimes utterly retarded. (you can only have certain types of plants growing in your yard, or you can get 100,000$ fines, you're 7 year old daughter can't sell lemonade in your front yard and, people starting small businesses are typically kept down by these dumb laws because there's so many fees and paperwork for each employee etc, it's literally out sorcing jobs, and making the Businesses take them overseas; It's not they think the American worker is too needy, it's because there's too many taxes and regulations and that discourages growth.

 

I don't agree with that. I think Republicans and Democrats share the blame equally.

I think a lot of lobbying is just a nice word for bribing. But I don't have a good solution for that while protecting free speech. That's something I'll look into in the future.

To be honest I'm not sure how to answer that question. I can't speak for all Libertarians, because their ideals vary widely. But I don't think anything should be left to one particular party. Be it Libertarian, Democrat, Republican, or anything else. I think politicians should learn to venture away from party lines, and find a compromise that we all could live with, if that's what it takes. That may be a pipe dream but its the way it should be.

I'll think on this for a bit, maybe do some reading, and then I might be able to better answer the question.

 

My first impression is that Libertarians would say yes the individual should be able to sue the government, for any sort of injustice they may do; as far as I can tell, we believe Government is not "above the law" as some would call it, but also subject to it.

With regards to the earth, Liberals want to rely on government programs such as the EPA etc. and all they do is take bribes for dumping toxic waste and other envoirmental threats. So when Libertarians say Liability; I think we're very principled with it.

And I think GMOs also have a lot to do with our enviorment (being that it's now in our wheat, potatos, tomatos and, corn.) Right now, the FDA (being ran by the biotech giant Monsanto) allowed food companies to soley investigate their product; Monsonto then release a test saying based off of "3 months of testing" GMOs are not dangerous. However, it is after the 4th month that researchers see an increase in liver toxicity and even cancerous tomurs. Our FDA/EPA programs failed to protect us, and instead protected the 'evil' industrie Monsanto. But industries are powerless without government bailouts, special benefits etc. Let me say too, that I think government help is actually most of the problems we're seeing, our government shouldn't pick winners and losers in business- the market should. But if it were up to me-GMOs would be fully investigated and if they turned out to be dangerous to the consumer I would pretty much bankrupt Monsanto with negligence lawsuits! As opposed to a government now who allows them to put research chemicals in our food, and disallows anyone from suing them, even if something happens to you eating GMOs! That's disgusting!

 

No unfortunately I've not heard much mention of GMOs, but it's not only them who can prove corruption; Hell, the CEO of Monsanto went and became CEO of the FDA, changed all the laws in their favor, and went back to working for Monsanto! And the research on Liver Toxicity in rats was an independant study I saw on youtube-quite disturbing actually!

 

Here's a few of the loopholes (exemptions) the government gives oil/gas companies. No doubt the result of bribery (lobbying) on behalf of big oil.

http://www.shalegas.energy.gov/resources/060211_earthworks_fs_oilgasexemptions.pdf

 

Is it your opinion that the issues you're referring to are being addressed adequately and acceptably at present? And if not, what changes do you feel should be applied to address these issues? Ideally, we, the people should place more effort in discussing the changes we could come together on in how our government operates and look for candidates to support who will do OUR bidding rather than that of the Democrat and/or Republican parties both of whom have made the general population increasingly irrelevant in their governance with the exception of the election process. Our elected politicians have become little more than lobbyists themselves, using the tax revenues and Federal debt to purchase votes allowing the Federal government to increase its power over the people all in the name of the greater good.

 

The idea of free market environmentalism relies on property rights and torts. Which a lot of you would say it would be impossible to pull off due to the lawyers that money could buy. But as Balbus will tell you, there's never been a completely free market, for good reason. There needs to be some simple rules in place.

I'll use an example that I'm familiar with.

A company that I used to work for uses an after-burner to incinerate harmfull fumes into relatively clean smoke. But when the after burner malfunctioned, they would just keep running, and every now and then they'd report it to the EPA. When they did report it a man in a nice suit would come in from out of state. He'd take a look at the poisonous black smoke for a few minutes, then he'd take a check for $10-20,000 and go back to wherever he came from.
But what if that money went to those who were effected. What if everyone in the neighborhood unlucky to catch the draft that day got a check for $10,000? I'd bet if that were the case, every single damn time that white clean smoke turned into black nasty fumes that shit would get reported. Instead of now, where the whole neighborhood shakes their head and says, "Dayum, when's the government gonna start protecting me from that black smog?"

I think a system like that would be a lot more effective. Now I know not all pollution is going to be as easy to spot as a thick black cloud but with penalties going to the whole neighborhood instead of just one man in a suit, I think it would be motivation enough for good lawyers and environmentalists to make it happen. Hell, it could open a new profession for scientists who care about the environment. They could start a business gathering proof for the people effected.

 

Letlovin

Is the child supervised? I mean are they wondering around a retirement home on their own? Most respectable homes people have to be let in and out, there are entry codes etc, few I know would just let a 12 year old wander around as they wished. How is the child getting the work what work is it etc etc - This throws open more questions than answers.

But you seem to be implying that you’d want it to happen so I’m just wondering if you have thought it through.

To repeat the point is that the regulations are in place now so it isn’t happening but if the regulations are ‘reformed’ so that it can - it could happen so the concerns I and Meagain have raised are very much valid.

Now I think you claim you don’t want to ‘remove’ child labour laws so what is your point in bringing up the granddad myth and the retirement home proposal? What reforms are you talking about, what would you want to do?

 

Letlovin

As I keep repeating and as meagain has clearly picked up on the point of the child labor example is that regulation is often needed, but people who call for deregulation often don’t seem to see that.

They call regulations stupid saying things like – ‘regulations say that granddad can’t even give money to his grandson for helping him out by mowing the lawn’

And other people who don’t ask questions go - oh well that’s not right, regulations are bad–

Then some lobby group working for people that want to exploit cheap young labour push for child labour ‘reform’ and people who don’t ask questions and have been softened up by the granddad myth go along with it.

*

The child labour example was just that one example but you can see this anti-regulation lobbying many places often based on complete myths. And it’s the same with environmental regulations they are called stupid because “you can only have certain types of plants growing in your yard” or other such things.

 

I’ve asked before so what would you do to solve this problem?

 

Indie

I ask again which people are you talking about because the outstanding criticisms leveled at your ideas is that they would only advantage a few to the detriment of the many.

 

Letlovin

Re: you idea for property rights and torts as a system of regulation.

Can you give an example from history for this system?

I can give many examples where it hasn’t happened - take the one above about the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory case where 146 workers died and the owners got off. Now the plaintiffs did win compensation to the amount of $75 per deceased victim but the insurance company paid the owners about $60,000 more than the reported losses, or about $400 per casualty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire#Consequences_and_legacy

Also as mentioned it seems to me that often right wing libertarian though thinks in terms of punishment as a deterrent rather than prevention as a way of lessening harm.

Regulation should be about having mechanisms in place to check that work places etc are not breaking the law and if they are such places should be fined. If that is not taking place then to me the system isn’t working.

For the example above regulation need to be in place so workplaces are safe, places need to conform to those regulations before being allowed to open up and be regularly inspected BUT this again comes under the same ‘dumb law’ attack from the anti-regulationists with some saying - people starting small businesses are typically kept down by these dumb laws because there's so many fees and paperwork for each employee etc.

There is talk of ‘red tape’ and ‘bureaucracy’ and keeping down growth.