Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

GOP Presidential Candidates Pledge To Revoke EPA's Authority

Page 1 of 2 [ 27 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

25 Jun 2011, 10:16 am

Lets get rid of the EPA but at the same time get rid of corporate personhood.
If the CEOs could go to prison for what their companies do maybe they would act right.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


AstroGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,582

25 Jun 2011, 10:36 am

ruveyn wrote:
AstroGeek wrote:
Great. Canada and the UK elect their first Green MPs, the USA tries to get rid of the EPA. Typical.


The EPA however well intentioned is corrupt and inefficient.

Like NASA.

ruveyn

So I give the same response I give in defence of NASA: clean it up, reorganize it, cut out the fat, but KEEP the actual agency!



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

25 Jun 2011, 11:00 am

AstroGeek wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
AstroGeek wrote:
Great. Canada and the UK elect their first Green MPs, the USA tries to get rid of the EPA. Typical.


The EPA however well intentioned is corrupt and inefficient.

Like NASA.

ruveyn

So I give the same response I give in defence of NASA: clean it up, reorganize it, cut out the fat, but KEEP the actual agency!


That cannot be done. It is the inevitable result with a government agency. Everything the government touches turns brown, sticky and smelly. You seem to believe governments can do good. They can't.; The can do less evil than others but they never can do good.

ruveyn



Inuyasha
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jan 2009
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,745

26 Jun 2011, 1:29 am

JakobVirgil wrote:
Lets get rid of the EPA but at the same time get rid of corporate personhood.
If the CEOs could go to prison for what their companies do maybe they would act right.


CEOs don't always know what is going on in the company at lower levels. Should a CEO be punished for an unethical manager?



pandabear
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Aug 2007
Age: 65
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,402

26 Jun 2011, 9:51 am

Inuyasha wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Lets get rid of the EPA but at the same time get rid of corporate personhood.
If the CEOs could go to prison for what their companies do maybe they would act right.


CEOs don't always know what is going on in the company at lower levels. Should a CEO be punished for an unethical manager?


Yes! Yes! Yes!

[img][800:1494]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/be/Prisoners_whipped.jpg[/img]



JakobVirgil
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 Feb 2011
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,744
Location: yes

26 Jun 2011, 11:39 am

Inuyasha wrote:
JakobVirgil wrote:
Lets get rid of the EPA but at the same time get rid of corporate personhood.
If the CEOs could go to prison for what their companies do maybe they would act right.


CEOs don't always know what is going on in the company at lower levels. Should a CEO be punished for an unethical manager?


I think the chance of a prison sentence would make them more careful about what their managers are doing yes.


_________________
?We must not look at goblin men,
We must not buy their fruits:
Who knows upon what soil they fed
Their hungry thirsty roots??

http://jakobvirgil.blogspot.com/


psychohist
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2010
Age: 64
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,623
Location: Somerville, MA, USA

26 Jun 2011, 11:55 am

JakobVirgil wrote:
think the chance of a prison sentence would make them more careful about what their managers are doing yes.

To the contrary, they would take care not to know what the managers were doing so as to avoid personal responsibility.

Without corporate personhood, there's nothing special tying the CEO to other employees. Unless he gave the order, he wouldn't be criminally liable, any more than you're criminally liable if the person you hire to paint your house uses lead paint without your knowledge.

What would happen would be that low level flunkies would get jailed, but there wouldn't be any corporation to take action against, so it would be more difficult to check corporate behavior, not easier.



AstroGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,582

26 Jun 2011, 7:55 pm

ruveyn wrote:
AstroGeek wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
AstroGeek wrote:
Great. Canada and the UK elect their first Green MPs, the USA tries to get rid of the EPA. Typical.


The EPA however well intentioned is corrupt and inefficient.

Like NASA.

ruveyn

So I give the same response I give in defence of NASA: clean it up, reorganize it, cut out the fat, but KEEP the actual agency!


That cannot be done. It is the inevitable result with a government agency. Everything the government touches turns brown, sticky and smelly. You seem to believe governments can do good. They can't.; The can do less evil than others but they never can do good.

ruveyn

Well, I just graduated from a public school where I got an excellent education. My province's public libraries work very well and offer a great number of free services for those that know they exist. I have only ever met one Canadian that dislike our public health care system (which is still managing, whatever you say). The CBC works well enough and the BBC in Britain works very well. All are government run.

Anyway, how does getting rid of the EPA do anything to protect the environment? That is the issue here.



Jacoby
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 10 Dec 2007
Age: 32
Gender: Male
Posts: 14,284
Location: Permanently banned by power tripping mods lol this forum is trash

26 Jun 2011, 8:05 pm

We should eliminate the EPA. The federal government does not have the authority in the constitution to regulate the environment. It is the states responsibility.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

26 Jun 2011, 9:11 pm

AstroGeek wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
AstroGeek wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
AstroGeek wrote:
Great. Canada and the UK elect their first Green MPs, the USA tries to get rid of the EPA. Typical.


The EPA however well intentioned is corrupt and inefficient.

Like NASA.

ruveyn

So I give the same response I give in defence of NASA: clean it up, reorganize it, cut out the fat, but KEEP the actual agency!


That cannot be done. It is the inevitable result with a government agency. Everything the government touches turns brown, sticky and smelly. You seem to believe governments can do good. They can't.; The can do less evil than others but they never can do good.

ruveyn

Well, I just graduated from a public school where I got an excellent education. My province's public libraries work very well and offer a great number of free services for those that know they exist. I have only ever met one Canadian that dislike our public health care system (which is still managing, whatever you say). The CBC works well enough and the BBC in Britain works very well. All are government run.

Anyway, how does getting rid of the EPA do anything to protect the environment? That is the issue here.


Does keeping the EPA protect the environment? The only way to deal with the polluters is through torts. If they damage someone they should be made to pay for the damage. If polluters are properly charged for the damages they do they will soon stop treating rivers and streams as their own private sewers and the will stop treating the atmosphere as their own private garbage pails. It is call eliminating the externalities. Regulation does not work, suing the living daylights out of tortfeasors does.

ruveyn



AstroGeek
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 28 Jan 2011
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,582

27 Jun 2011, 11:21 am

ruveyn wrote:
AstroGeek wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
AstroGeek wrote:
ruveyn wrote:
AstroGeek wrote:
Great. Canada and the UK elect their first Green MPs, the USA tries to get rid of the EPA. Typical.


The EPA however well intentioned is corrupt and inefficient.

Like NASA.

ruveyn

So I give the same response I give in defence of NASA: clean it up, reorganize it, cut out the fat, but KEEP the actual agency!


That cannot be done. It is the inevitable result with a government agency. Everything the government touches turns brown, sticky and smelly. You seem to believe governments can do good. They can't.; The can do less evil than others but they never can do good.

ruveyn

Well, I just graduated from a public school where I got an excellent education. My province's public libraries work very well and offer a great number of free services for those that know they exist. I have only ever met one Canadian that dislike our public health care system (which is still managing, whatever you say). The CBC works well enough and the BBC in Britain works very well. All are government run.

Anyway, how does getting rid of the EPA do anything to protect the environment? That is the issue here.


Does keeping the EPA protect the environment? The only way to deal with the polluters is through torts. If they damage someone they should be made to pay for the damage. If polluters are properly charged for the damages they do they will soon stop treating rivers and streams as their own private sewers and the will stop treating the atmosphere as their own private garbage pails. It is call eliminating the externalities. Regulation does not work, suing the living daylights out of tortfeasors does.

ruveyn

Sorry, but what are torts?

In any case, I dislike the whole concept of lawsuits for the most part. They are so overused in the USA to the point that it's ridiculous. And I don't think that anyone can be sued for, for instance, excessive emissions of CO2--at least not until after a lot of damage has already been done.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

27 Jun 2011, 12:18 pm

AstroGeek wrote:
Sorry, but what are torts?

In any case, I dislike the whole concept of lawsuits for the most part. They are so overused in the USA to the point that it's ridiculous. And I don't think that anyone can be sued for, for instance, excessive emissions of CO2--at least not until after a lot of damage has already been done.


Torts are civil actions to recover damages. A tort is a civil (non-criminal) wrong doing and is is a way of indemnifying damages.

The problem with regulation rather than damage proceedings is that the regulators very soon get very chummy with the parties they are supposed to regulate. It is a road to corruption and slackness of enforcement. In short, it does not work very well.

ruveyn