login
Anchorman 2 (Page 3)
-
No new posts
|
 2014-01-30 12:45 PM in reply to: Jackemy1 |
Champion  6993      Chicago, Illinois |  Subject: RE: Anchorman 2Originally posted by Jackemy1 The thing is that often times regulations subsidizes the polluter for polluting. IMHO, the government is a terrible steward of public and common property. Jackemy1 that kinda sickens me. I guess its a way the government is either trying to help business or not hurt there donors. Maybe it should be called smoke and mirror law. This way a congressman get a bill passed that will make the people feel good like something is being done but not actually hurt the company who donated to those congressman's' campaigns. One things that scares me in the libertarian Utopia, no would have to pay anything. It would be up to everyone to self regulate. There would be no fines against it because there would be no regulations against it. While maybe its not need 95% of the time. Trouble is when its bad its bad. I also figure people like the rationalize like its just a little population and lake Erie is just so big. |
| 2014-01-30 12:50 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Champion 6993 Chicago, Illinois | Subject: RE: Anchorman 2 Originally posted by tuwood I guess this is an example of a cap and trade style system. We still get to pollute, but we pay somebody else to feel better about it. That is bad. The key there is you did not populate yourself unless you did it knowing what the results would be. |
| 2014-01-30 12:59 PM in reply to: chirunner134 |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Anchorman 2 Originally posted by chirunner134 Originally posted by Jackemy1 The thing is that often times regulations subsidizes the polluter for polluting. IMHO, the government is a terrible steward of public and common property. Jackemy1 that kinda sickens me. I guess its a way the government is either trying to help business or not hurt there donors. Maybe it should be called smoke and mirror law. This way a congressman get a bill passed that will make the people feel good like something is being done but not actually hurt the company who donated to those congressman's' campaigns. One things that scares me in the libertarian Utopia, no would have to pay anything. It would be up to everyone to self regulate. There would be no fines against it because there would be no regulations against it. While maybe its not need 95% of the time. Trouble is when its bad its bad. I also figure people like the rationalize like its just a little population and lake Erie is just so big. The Pollution Solution: Stopping the environment's worst enemy I don't know if I'd call it the Libertarian official position, but it's quite different than letting everyone self regulate. If anything their position is that the fox guarding the hen house is the biggest problem. |
| 2014-01-30 2:09 PM in reply to: chirunner134 |
Member 465 | Subject: RE: Anchorman 2 Originally posted by chirunner134 Originally posted by Jackemy1 The thing is that often times regulations subsidizes the polluter for polluting. IMHO, the government is a terrible steward of public and common property. Jackemy1 that kinda sickens me. I guess its a way the government is either trying to help business or not hurt there donors. Maybe it should be called smoke and mirror law. This way a congressman get a bill passed that will make the people feel good like something is being done but not actually hurt the company who donated to those congressman's' campaigns. One things that scares me in the libertarian Utopia, no would have to pay anything. It would be up to everyone to self regulate. There would be no fines against it because there would be no regulations against it. While maybe its not need 95% of the time. Trouble is when its bad its bad. I also figure people like the rationalize like its just a little population and lake Erie is just so big. Let me clarify something first. There is no Utopia in libertarianism. Libertarian is the anti-Utopia an the absolute rejection of an Utopian state. I also think you have the wrong concept on the libertarian view towards matters such as pollution. Libertarian is not anarchy and not a absence of civil institutions. It is actually, the reliance of strong civil institution such as a civil judicial system to referee fairly. It is also the recognition of individual rights which include property rights over the rights of the State. So in a libertarian framework, polluters can't freely pollute because they are infringing on the rights of the individual. So how do the does the polluter pay in this system? This is done through the recognition of property rights through the civil court system or outside the system through private interest groups who can sell pollution rights or deny them to potential polluters. So instead of the government collecting fines and maybe property owners and individuals getting cents on the dollar for there rights getting infringed, individuals will get full market compensation for the infringement. I agree that the real world has too many factors to eliminate all centralized government regulation in favor of private libertarian models of regulation. But, in my opinion any time you have the opportunity strengthen property right and maintain the integrity of the civil court system to protect the rights of the individual then it should be done. |
| 2014-01-30 2:18 PM in reply to: Jackemy1 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Anchorman 2 Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by chirunner134 Let me clarify something first. There is no Utopia in libertarianism. Libertarian is the anti-Utopia an the absolute rejection of an Utopian state. I also think you have the wrong concept on the libertarian view towards matters such as pollution. Libertarian is not anarchy and not a absence of civil institutions. It is actually, the reliance of strong civil institution such as a civil judicial system to referee fairly. It is also the recognition of individual rights which include property rights over the rights of the State. So in a libertarian framework, polluters can't freely pollute because they are infringing on the rights of the individual. So how do the does the polluter pay in this system? This is done through the recognition of property rights through the civil court system or outside the system through private interest groups who can sell pollution rights or deny them to potential polluters. So instead of the government collecting fines and maybe property owners and individuals getting cents on the dollar for there rights getting infringed, individuals will get full market compensation for the infringement. I agree that the real world has too many factors to eliminate all centralized government regulation in favor of private libertarian models of regulation. But, in my opinion any time you have the opportunity strengthen property right and maintain the integrity of the civil court system to protect the rights of the individual then it should be done. Originally posted by Jackemy1 The thing is that often times regulations subsidizes the polluter for polluting. IMHO, the government is a terrible steward of public and common property. Jackemy1 that kinda sickens me. I guess its a way the government is either trying to help business or not hurt there donors. Maybe it should be called smoke and mirror law. This way a congressman get a bill passed that will make the people feel good like something is being done but not actually hurt the company who donated to those congressman's' campaigns. One things that scares me in the libertarian Utopia, no would have to pay anything. It would be up to everyone to self regulate. There would be no fines against it because there would be no regulations against it. While maybe its not need 95% of the time. Trouble is when its bad its bad. I also figure people like the rationalize like its just a little population and lake Erie is just so big. So what happens when people break the law? I don't see how you can say "instead of fines" because there will always be a certain percentage of people who will not stay within the framework of the law.....in this case purchasing pollution rights. |
| 2014-01-30 2:36 PM in reply to: 0 |
Member 465 | Subject: RE: Anchorman 2 Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by chirunner134 Let me clarify something first. There is no Utopia in libertarianism. Libertarian is the anti-Utopia an the absolute rejection of an Utopian state. I also think you have the wrong concept on the libertarian view towards matters such as pollution. Libertarian is not anarchy and not a absence of civil institutions. It is actually, the reliance of strong civil institution such as a civil judicial system to referee fairly. It is also the recognition of individual rights which include property rights over the rights of the State. So in a libertarian framework, polluters can't freely pollute because they are infringing on the rights of the individual. So how do the does the polluter pay in this system? This is done through the recognition of property rights through the civil court system or outside the system through private interest groups who can sell pollution rights or deny them to potential polluters. So instead of the government collecting fines and maybe property owners and individuals getting cents on the dollar for there rights getting infringed, individuals will get full market compensation for the infringement. I agree that the real world has too many factors to eliminate all centralized government regulation in favor of private libertarian models of regulation. But, in my opinion any time you have the opportunity strengthen property right and maintain the integrity of the civil court system to protect the rights of the individual then it should be done. Originally posted by Jackemy1 The thing is that often times regulations subsidizes the polluter for polluting. IMHO, the government is a terrible steward of public and common property. Jackemy1 that kinda sickens me. I guess its a way the government is either trying to help business or not hurt there donors. Maybe it should be called smoke and mirror law. This way a congressman get a bill passed that will make the people feel good like something is being done but not actually hurt the company who donated to those congressman's' campaigns. One things that scares me in the libertarian Utopia, no would have to pay anything. It would be up to everyone to self regulate. There would be no fines against it because there would be no regulations against it. While maybe its not need 95% of the time. Trouble is when its bad its bad. I also figure people like the rationalize like its just a little population and lake Erie is just so big. So what happens when people break the law? I don't see how you can say "instead of fines" because there will always be a certain percentage of people who will not stay within the framework of the law.....in this case purchasing pollution rights. Again, liberatianism is not anarchy - absent of laws and civil institutions. If a law is broken, the law breaker geso to jail and/or pay restitution to the injured party. If a contract was broken, in our example a pollution contract, the injured party would have a claim to be made whole through the civil system. It works no different than any any other private contract today. Edited by Jackemy1 2014-01-30 2:37 PM |
| 2014-01-30 2:40 PM in reply to: Jackemy1 |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Anchorman 2 Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by Left Brain Again, liberatianism is not anarchy and absent of law ans civil institution. If a law is broken, they go to jail and/or pay restitution to the injured party. If a contract was broken, in our example a pollution contract, the injured party would have a claim to be made whole through the civil system. It works no different than any any other private contract today. Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by chirunner134 Let me clarify something first. There is no Utopia in libertarianism. Libertarian is the anti-Utopia an the absolute rejection of an Utopian state. I also think you have the wrong concept on the libertarian view towards matters such as pollution. Libertarian is not anarchy and not a absence of civil institutions. It is actually, the reliance of strong civil institution such as a civil judicial system to referee fairly. It is also the recognition of individual rights which include property rights over the rights of the State. So in a libertarian framework, polluters can't freely pollute because they are infringing on the rights of the individual. So how do the does the polluter pay in this system? This is done through the recognition of property rights through the civil court system or outside the system through private interest groups who can sell pollution rights or deny them to potential polluters. So instead of the government collecting fines and maybe property owners and individuals getting cents on the dollar for there rights getting infringed, individuals will get full market compensation for the infringement. I agree that the real world has too many factors to eliminate all centralized government regulation in favor of private libertarian models of regulation. But, in my opinion any time you have the opportunity strengthen property right and maintain the integrity of the civil court system to protect the rights of the individual then it should be done. Originally posted by Jackemy1 The thing is that often times regulations subsidizes the polluter for polluting. IMHO, the government is a terrible steward of public and common property. Jackemy1 that kinda sickens me. I guess its a way the government is either trying to help business or not hurt there donors. Maybe it should be called smoke and mirror law. This way a congressman get a bill passed that will make the people feel good like something is being done but not actually hurt the company who donated to those congressman's' campaigns. One things that scares me in the libertarian Utopia, no would have to pay anything. It would be up to everyone to self regulate. There would be no fines against it because there would be no regulations against it. While maybe its not need 95% of the time. Trouble is when its bad its bad. I also figure people like the rationalize like its just a little population and lake Erie is just so big. So what happens when people break the law? I don't see how you can say "instead of fines" because there will always be a certain percentage of people who will not stay within the framework of the law.....in this case purchasing pollution rights. Wait.....isn't that like Gore wanting to sell "carbon credits"?......or something like that. I'm not trying to be a jerk.....I'm still trying ot figure out how my liberties are being eroded. We already get fined for breaking the law......so you mean the only thing we're missing is being able to pay up front to break the law? Depending on the law, I could maybe get behind that. |
| 2014-01-30 3:04 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Anchorman 2 Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by Left Brain Again, liberatianism is not anarchy and absent of law ans civil institution. If a law is broken, they go to jail and/or pay restitution to the injured party. If a contract was broken, in our example a pollution contract, the injured party would have a claim to be made whole through the civil system. It works no different than any any other private contract today. Originally posted by Jackemy1 Originally posted by chirunner134 Let me clarify something first. There is no Utopia in libertarianism. Libertarian is the anti-Utopia an the absolute rejection of an Utopian state. I also think you have the wrong concept on the libertarian view towards matters such as pollution. Libertarian is not anarchy and not a absence of civil institutions. It is actually, the reliance of strong civil institution such as a civil judicial system to referee fairly. It is also the recognition of individual rights which include property rights over the rights of the State. So in a libertarian framework, polluters can't freely pollute because they are infringing on the rights of the individual. So how do the does the polluter pay in this system? This is done through the recognition of property rights through the civil court system or outside the system through private interest groups who can sell pollution rights or deny them to potential polluters. So instead of the government collecting fines and maybe property owners and individuals getting cents on the dollar for there rights getting infringed, individuals will get full market compensation for the infringement. I agree that the real world has too many factors to eliminate all centralized government regulation in favor of private libertarian models of regulation. But, in my opinion any time you have the opportunity strengthen property right and maintain the integrity of the civil court system to protect the rights of the individual then it should be done. Originally posted by Jackemy1 The thing is that often times regulations subsidizes the polluter for polluting. IMHO, the government is a terrible steward of public and common property. Jackemy1 that kinda sickens me. I guess its a way the government is either trying to help business or not hurt there donors. Maybe it should be called smoke and mirror law. This way a congressman get a bill passed that will make the people feel good like something is being done but not actually hurt the company who donated to those congressman's' campaigns. One things that scares me in the libertarian Utopia, no would have to pay anything. It would be up to everyone to self regulate. There would be no fines against it because there would be no regulations against it. While maybe its not need 95% of the time. Trouble is when its bad its bad. I also figure people like the rationalize like its just a little population and lake Erie is just so big. So what happens when people break the law? I don't see how you can say "instead of fines" because there will always be a certain percentage of people who will not stay within the framework of the law.....in this case purchasing pollution rights. Wait.....isn't that like Gore wanting to sell "carbon credits"?......or something like that. I'm not trying to be a jerk.....I'm still trying ot figure out how my liberties are being eroded. We already get fined for breaking the law......so you mean the only thing we're missing is being able to pay up front to break the law? Depending on the law, I could maybe get behind that. lol, i might be able to as well. |
| 2014-01-30 9:39 PM in reply to: tuwood |
Elite 4564 Boise | Subject: RE: Anchorman 2 LB there is a great article I wish I could find that I think does a good job explaining why the erosion of the 4th amendment is a big deal and how it does affect our liberties. A brief summary (I'll keep looking for it), by allowing the government to collect all of this data on us, they are also effectively putting a damper on our 1st amendment rights. You want to speak out about something? Now they have as much information on you as humanly possible. I wish I could do a better job of relaying this point, but I think it does cast a shadow over everything. John Roberts voted to uphold Obamacare? Did the NSA have something on him and Obama threatened him? Probably not, but now the thought is out there. Also, how is it only 1 other person commented on Anchorman 2? |
| 2014-01-31 12:15 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Member 465 | Subject: RE: Anchorman 2 Originally posted by Left Brain Wait.....isn't that like Gore wanting to sell "carbon credits"?......or something like that. I'm not trying to be a jerk.....I'm still trying ot figure out how my liberties are being eroded. We already get fined for breaking the law......so you mean the only thing we're missing is being able to pay up front to break the law? Depending on the law, I could maybe get behind that. I think we left the eroded liberty discussion a long time ago.... But yeah, sort of like the Al Gore's Carbon Credits and Cap and Trade but implemented very differently. Both are original libertarian ideas bastardized by Democrat Corporatist to pay off their buddies. |
| 2014-01-31 3:21 PM in reply to: JoshR |
Pro 15655 | Subject: RE: Anchorman 2 Originally posted by JoshR LB there is a great article I wish I could find that I think does a good job explaining why the erosion of the 4th amendment is a big deal and how it does affect our liberties. A brief summary (I'll keep looking for it), by allowing the government to collect all of this data on us, they are also effectively putting a damper on our 1st amendment rights. You want to speak out about something? Now they have as much information on you as humanly possible. I wish I could do a better job of relaying this point, but I think it does cast a shadow over everything. John Roberts voted to uphold Obamacare? Did the NSA have something on him and Obama threatened him? Probably not, but now the thought is out there. Also, how is it only 1 other person commented on Anchorman 2? I don't know.....I can tell you the thought is NOT out there in my head.....in fact, I never think about something like that, partially since it's been going on since politics were invented. I have no idea whether the NSA has any of my phone records. I guess I care if they do or not, but it still doesn't infringe on my liberty or freedom as far as I can tell. I'm not living my life worried about something I don't need to worry about. I'll b e happy to fight against a loss of freedom when it happens......but right now I'm content to have a few beers and enjoy my life with my family. |
| 2014-01-31 4:37 PM in reply to: Left Brain |
Pro 9391 Omaha, NE | Subject: RE: Anchorman 2 Originally posted by Left Brain Originally posted by JoshR LB there is a great article I wish I could find that I think does a good job explaining why the erosion of the 4th amendment is a big deal and how it does affect our liberties. A brief summary (I'll keep looking for it), by allowing the government to collect all of this data on us, they are also effectively putting a damper on our 1st amendment rights. You want to speak out about something? Now they have as much information on you as humanly possible. I wish I could do a better job of relaying this point, but I think it does cast a shadow over everything. John Roberts voted to uphold Obamacare? Did the NSA have something on him and Obama threatened him? Probably not, but now the thought is out there. Also, how is it only 1 other person commented on Anchorman 2? I don't know.....I can tell you the thought is NOT out there in my head.....in fact, I never think about something like that, partially since it's been going on since politics were invented. I have no idea whether the NSA has any of my phone records. I guess I care if they do or not, but it still doesn't infringe on my liberty or freedom as far as I can tell. I'm not living my life worried about something I don't need to worry about. I'll b e happy to fight against a loss of freedom when it happens......but right now I'm content to have a few beers and enjoy my life with my family. But how far do you let it go until you do stand up against it? I know the "slippery slope" argument gets old, but it is real. In almost every great civilization collapse it was based on a slow erosion of what made the civilization stable. Is the NSA tracking my cellphone calls going to be the end of America? Of course not, but when you start looking at the power structure we have in place and a complete lack of oversight and justice it can get really scary very fast. The biggest issue I have is that the Attorney General works for the Executive branch. The AG selectively decides which laws to enforce based on political pressure from the Whitehouse. Total hypothetical, but what if the NSA or some governing body decided to get in and completely change the election results to skew things towards a candidate, or release negative private information about an opposition candidate to the press in order to effect the outcome of an election. What if the government targets opposition groups by abusing the IRS (oh wait, they already did that) Our system is not heading in the right direction. I really don't care about the eavesdropping because I'm not doing anything wrong and I'm not running for political office. But the potential abuse of these systems scares the "bleep" out of me. The fact that there's nothing but political based legal oversight is even scarier. Seriously, if the NSA was doing something blatantly illegal and unconstitutional who is going to prosecute them? Nobody! One of my biggest gripes is that the Attorney General needs to be removed from the executive branch and de-politicized. I like the idea of a 50 state panel made up of state AG's to determine what gets prosecuted federally. You can't have the executive branch selecting what laws to enforce, and all three branches need to be held accountable when they break the law. Period. This isn't an Obama thing because the Republicans do the same thing and it keeps getting worse election after election.
|
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK