West Virginia water contamination

Post Reply New Topic

Yup. That's all that matters in America. Everyone else can go to hell.

We have city water which is already so f*cked up most people, including me, only drink bottled water.


Moi? I'm not a libertarian I'm a hateful conservative zealot.

^^^Would it be ok to pollute the source your bottled water comes from?

/\
Doesn't taste like motor oil or antifreeze to me.
How long are you going to keep +r011ing over this?

Funfact: That amoeba what eats people's brains can be found in the water supply of several places in Louisiana:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/09/health/lo ... ng-amoeba/

Just don't laugh while drinking water or tilt your head the wrong way in the shower and you should be fine!

And here I thought the *one* thing we could all agree on was "water pollution = bad". I stand corrected.

I think I may have lost a little piece of my faith in humanity today.

/\
You know I have to play the bad guy.

your idea isn't very libertarian, though. I don't actually think that what you said was a bad idea, but it involves **more** government involvement and more active prosecution of polluters, neh? Isn't that entirely contradictory to libertarianism?

Aren't government regulations about how tight your seals have to be, and how you can handle potentially hazardous chemicals, and inspections to prevent spills from occurring in the first place, entirely contra-indicated by libertarianism?
On this very forum, one self-proclaimed libertarian said that the way to deal with pollution was to 'make the polluter pay fines to the person whose land/air/water were harmed, meaning basically that anyone rich enough could pollute as much as they wanted. Was that person not really a libertarian? Do you think that, in a court of law, Mr. Rich Polluter with his high-priced lawyer is going to lose to Mr. Landowner who's representing himself?

How does asking a question equal having goat breath?How do you know what burnt motor oil and antifreeze taste like?Drink that often?
Anytime people dump chemicals in the water some unfortunate person is going to wind up with it in their water.You may not be able to taste the chemicals.
So what's so bad about your city water that you can't drink it?You don't think it's a shame that you can't drink the water that comes out of your tap?

You have a hard time recognizing satire even for an Aspie.....

^^Not much I can do about that,I don't want a brain transplant.Sometimes I don't get the joke and sometimes people don't get mine.
Keep rolling those eyes like that and they'll stick permanently that way one day.Or at least that's what the old folks say.

My kind of satire
http://glossynews.com/science-and-techn ... -virginia/

Libertarianism isn't anarchism - the principle difference between the two is that libertarians recognize that there is a time and place for a government to step in and regulate - but that regulation should be in the service of the citizens and their freedoms - both natural and legal.



Yes, but that's not what I was saying should be done, either. The government doesn't need to waste money to directly inspect businesses for compliance to regulations - that's a construct that is absolutely unique to environmental protection, and it clearly doesn't work.

Let's take the financial industry for example - there are a whole host of government regulations on how to operate a financial services company legally, but there is no "financial protection agency" that comes through and does spot-checks on wall street brokerages. Instead, the government has made it's financial crimes laws so formidable that financial services firms hire third party auditing firms to audit their transactions and systems to make sure they are in compliance. Voluntarily.

That leaves us with one tiny little enforcement arm - the Secret Service - who only go after people they suspect of breaking the laws - and they end up throwing those people in jail.

So, if I get you right, you would regulate the hell out of potentially hazardous chemicals, and make the companies pay 3rd parties to audit them... but isn't that part of what the problem was with the bank collapse? The ratings agencies were paid by the people they were rating, sort of a built-in conflict of interest. One could say, 'well, the banks suffered the consequences in the collapse...' except that they didn't. They got bailed out by the taxpayers.

Likewise, if the chemical-using corporations pay off their auditors and still have spills, are they going to be slammed into bankruptcy by the cost of cleanup, or is the taxpayer going to foot the bill again? I suspect the latter. BP sure as hell isn't paying for the full cost of cleaning up the Gulf.

edit: it would be helpful if you and your fellow libertarians would all sit down and decide together just how much government you want; I've heard other libertarians say that the government should have no role, basically, but policing and courts. Sort of precludes environmental regs. If there were some standard of reference, it would be helpful.
edit: http://www.lp.org/platform
doesn't exactly support the concept of environmental regulation.

The libertarian party does not represent all libertarians - and libertarianism is a very vague political ideology - much like socialism or authoritarianism.

Environmental protections are in place because ecological disasters inherently limit the natural right of people to be healthy in their homes. It's a federal matter because environmental accidents and willful pollution very rarely affect only one state.

Of course it does not, but citing their platform would seem to nip in the bud the "you aren't representing real libertarians!" cry.