I think that's the general idea behind getting rid of the EPA, or indeed any kind of publicly funded monitoring and research. That Libertarian ideals of the perfect state always seem to line up so well with the wet dreams of big polluters is sheer coincidence, of course.
And how is a legislature under a Libertarian system going to be able to fix shenanigans of this kind? Since it would largely be blocked from involving itself in private property disputes, about the only thing it could do is to seek the removal of the judge in question. If a court has decided that Evil Oil Company did not poison groundwater, that's pretty much the end of the show (disregarding an appellate process, of course).
I get the feeling that you're probably a bit of a pragmatist and you don't see a pure Libertarian state at all.
The plan made sense when SCO was actually worth something. Now it's basically worthless, other than it's highly dubious claims against IBM. It looks more to me like IBM is trying to get a court to squash the case once and for all.
No, that's not my argument at all. My argument is that it would likely be the same, but you would no longer have any other branch of government with the power to step in. Once the neighbor had lost his court case against the big evil oil company that was poisoning his well, where exactly does he go? He can't plead with his elected representatives, because even if they wanted to help him, well, it's a private property dispute and the legislature has no business in that.
The problem with Libertarianism isn't the courts, the problem is that every other check and balance against such abuses has been removed.
Our system is better because at least there is some other safety valve; the legislative branch, which can, even if it is often a broad brush and ends up like a bull in a china shop, impose some sort of legislative solution. A pure Libertarian state would have an impotent legislature, specifically banned from getting involved in such disputes.
It's not that our system is any damned good. It's just that a Libertarian system would be orders of a magnitude worse.
I don't buy into the Occupy Movement either. Disorganized, without any central point, basically a bunch of homeless turds and kids trying to be like their hippy grandparents. That doesn't mean I think oil companies should get a free ride because of some bizarre idea that money is more important than the basic necessities of life. But if you think it is, I'm sure we kid all get together and start pumping crude through your taps instead of H2O.
As I pointed out, in the situation where Evil Oil Company fouls up your water supply, you won't have a state that can do anything for you at all. It will be so small, so minimal, so absolutely useless because it is forbidden in any substantative or qualitative way the actions of Evil Oil Company on its own land, and with courts no better than current courts, the screwed citizen has absolutely nowhere to go. He can't go plead to his representatives in his legislature, because, well, even if they were sympathetic, you now have state that is basically forbidden from acting.
Libertarianism would deliver any jurisdiction being run by it into the hands of the uber-wealthy more quickly than probably any other political system ever developed. It's underlying philosophy is state non-interference, so even if you have a legislature that sees Evil Oil Company fouling water, because a court has been convinced that it isn't happening due to the ever-present vulnerabilities of legal systems, their hands are tied.
Keep your Libertarian state. It's as unreasonable, unworkable and would be ultimate as repugnant as a Communist state. There are lesser evils and greater evils, and the current system, while no doubt flawed and at times even outright malicious, is a lesser evil compared to a Libertarian state which would have absolutely no capacity to protect citizens from this sort of abuse of process.
Are Libertarian courts going to magically work differently than other courts? You get hauled into court for poisoning your neighbor's water supply, you hire kick-ass legal team and sufficient "researchers" to con a judge and/or jury into believing your neighbor is a whining asshole, and regardless of whether it's a Libertarian state or not, you win. Your neighbor's water is still poisoned, he has insufficient resources to continue the battle, and the tiny, impotent state is utterly incapable of evening the playing field even a little bit. In other words, he's just fucked, you make lots of money, which allows you to build even more kick-ass legal teams and hire even more "researchers".
At least with regulations there is some sort of baseline, as opposed to putting your faith utterly and completely in a political ideology that no more seems to be able to stop abuse of process than existing political systems. Things always sound lovely in theory. In theory Communism creates a wonderfully fair system that sees much more even distribution of wealth. In reality it's been a failure, and I suspect a pure Libertarian state would do no better. At the end of the day, you have to have a certain degree of flexibility and pragmatism in your political and economic system, otherwise you will end up riding your ideology into the gutter sooner or later.
Sociopathic fucks like you won't be happy to every aquifer in North America is poisoned so every last ounce of natural gas is extracted, while you live on some nice South Pacific island counting your ill-gotten gain.
Does it matter at the end of the day if peoples' water supply is poisoned because water several thousand feet below is leaching to the surface, or whether it's screwy concrete closer to the surface, or it's just incompetent assholes spilling the chemicals on the ground. About the only thing that wouldn't be the company's fault would be naturally occurring natural gas in wells and aquifers, and maybe the sensible thing to do before developing a new natural gas field is to take six month's or a year's worth of samples. But other than the latter option, it boils down to fracking causing harm to water, and that being the case if a reasonable level of safety and security of groundwater cannot be guaranteed than they shouldn't be allowed to do it.
Either that, or the CEO, the board of directors and the chief engineers are forced to live with bombs strapped to their heads and as soon as evidence of contamination is seen, the townsfolk get to press the button. Methinks that would probably see an extraordinary decrease in contamination.
Tom Petty was going bankrupt even while he had hit records. The Beatles, Pink Floyd, The Eagles and King Crimson all have no lack of horror stories about the record and publishing companies consistently screwing them on royalties, flagrantly violating contracts and in going out of their way to prevent the artists and the lawyers from looking at actual sales.
Whatever artists might be losing to illegal downloads, you can be sure that it is small potatoes to the rackateering that RIAA members have been up to for decades.
If you want to talk about real evil, you should look at the record companies treated artists like Bo Diddley, which amounted to userious contracts and outright theft.
They're job is at the frontlines of public health. Vaccines are key to that. They are taking care of the majority of patients who aren't mental retards who buy into the lies of Andrew Wakefield.
I doubt the doctors in question would throw you out, if the allergy is legitimate. You are not the kind of people being referred to, it's the completely retarded anti-vaccers who are the target of this. It is they who are putting your child at risk. Have a complaint, take it up with the evil fucking monster Andrew Wakefield.
Some of the mitigation fits with other looming problems; namely the end of cheap oil. Sooner or later (some say sooner, some say later) we're going to run out of cheap oil, and it isn't just energy that's going to take the hit. The value of long-chain hydrocarbons to a multitude of industrial, fabrication and industrial processes cannot be minimized. People don't seem to understand that it isn't just the price of a gallon of gas that will skyrocket, a large portion of the things that make the industrialized world go round will suddenly become much more expensive.
So, the potential mitigation of AGW and the solution to peak oil are the same. Stop using oil and other fossil fuels as fuels. The sooner the better. Invest in alternative energies, even if the costs are very high, because the costs when everyone finally agrees peak oil has been reached will be far worse in every possible way. There is every reason to begin to switch from a fossil fuel based economy, and no reason other than laziness and contempt for future generations to continue on the course we have chosen.
I don't think most climatologists talk in terms of catastrophic climate change, so I'm going to call your last sentence a straw man. I realize that it's easier to attack Al Gore-style claims, but perhaps you should actually read what the scientists say, rather than what you seem to think they say.
I'm thinking you have no idea what science is. In fact, I'm not thinking at all. I think your post conclusively proves you have no idea what science is or what a scientific theory is. What did you do, quite school in grade 3?
More than just denial.If it was just guys shaking their fists I wouldn't care. But we're talking about well-funded groups with political and media allies who are quite happy to spread disinformation as widely as possible. For instance, the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph in Britain, on topics like alternative energy sources and AGW are pretty much oil company shills, and not even very shameless about it. Christopher Booker, the guy that denies tobacco harm, asbestos harm and even makes rude noises about evolution, basically has free reign to write any amount of ludicrous anti-AGW crap he wants.
The difference being that ID has maybe two or three actual scientists who work in fields related to biology backing it, and the most important one of those, Michael Behe, doesn't even publish peer reviewed articles that deal with his ID claims. AGW on the other hand, is widely accepted by most researchers in climatology and related fields, the debate being more about the degree of influence of human activity or the speed at which changes will occur.
It is our God-given right to throw plastic away. What kind of America would this be if I couldn't just chuck my non-biodegradable products into the nearest ditch!
Quit your social engineering. What are you, some sort of communist?
It strikes me the OP mucked this up years ago. When he began to let the site basically run itself he should have moved his email hosting elsewhere and redirected from the old address to the new, monitoring who was sending him email. It's a little late now.
Slashdot Mirror
I think that's the general idea behind getting rid of the EPA, or indeed any kind of publicly funded monitoring and research. That Libertarian ideals of the perfect state always seem to line up so well with the wet dreams of big polluters is sheer coincidence, of course.
And how is a legislature under a Libertarian system going to be able to fix shenanigans of this kind? Since it would largely be blocked from involving itself in private property disputes, about the only thing it could do is to seek the removal of the judge in question. If a court has decided that Evil Oil Company did not poison groundwater, that's pretty much the end of the show (disregarding an appellate process, of course).
I get the feeling that you're probably a bit of a pragmatist and you don't see a pure Libertarian state at all.
The plan made sense when SCO was actually worth something. Now it's basically worthless, other than it's highly dubious claims against IBM. It looks more to me like IBM is trying to get a court to squash the case once and for all.
No, that's not my argument at all. My argument is that it would likely be the same, but you would no longer have any other branch of government with the power to step in. Once the neighbor had lost his court case against the big evil oil company that was poisoning his well, where exactly does he go? He can't plead with his elected representatives, because even if they wanted to help him, well, it's a private property dispute and the legislature has no business in that.
The problem with Libertarianism isn't the courts, the problem is that every other check and balance against such abuses has been removed.
Our system is better because at least there is some other safety valve; the legislative branch, which can, even if it is often a broad brush and ends up like a bull in a china shop, impose some sort of legislative solution. A pure Libertarian state would have an impotent legislature, specifically banned from getting involved in such disputes.
It's not that our system is any damned good. It's just that a Libertarian system would be orders of a magnitude worse.
I don't buy into the Occupy Movement either. Disorganized, without any central point, basically a bunch of homeless turds and kids trying to be like their hippy grandparents. That doesn't mean I think oil companies should get a free ride because of some bizarre idea that money is more important than the basic necessities of life. But if you think it is, I'm sure we kid all get together and start pumping crude through your taps instead of H2O.
As I pointed out, in the situation where Evil Oil Company fouls up your water supply, you won't have a state that can do anything for you at all. It will be so small, so minimal, so absolutely useless because it is forbidden in any substantative or qualitative way the actions of Evil Oil Company on its own land, and with courts no better than current courts, the screwed citizen has absolutely nowhere to go. He can't go plead to his representatives in his legislature, because, well, even if they were sympathetic, you now have state that is basically forbidden from acting.
Libertarianism would deliver any jurisdiction being run by it into the hands of the uber-wealthy more quickly than probably any other political system ever developed. It's underlying philosophy is state non-interference, so even if you have a legislature that sees Evil Oil Company fouling water, because a court has been convinced that it isn't happening due to the ever-present vulnerabilities of legal systems, their hands are tied.
Keep your Libertarian state. It's as unreasonable, unworkable and would be ultimate as repugnant as a Communist state. There are lesser evils and greater evils, and the current system, while no doubt flawed and at times even outright malicious, is a lesser evil compared to a Libertarian state which would have absolutely no capacity to protect citizens from this sort of abuse of process.
Are Libertarian courts going to magically work differently than other courts? You get hauled into court for poisoning your neighbor's water supply, you hire kick-ass legal team and sufficient "researchers" to con a judge and/or jury into believing your neighbor is a whining asshole, and regardless of whether it's a Libertarian state or not, you win. Your neighbor's water is still poisoned, he has insufficient resources to continue the battle, and the tiny, impotent state is utterly incapable of evening the playing field even a little bit. In other words, he's just fucked, you make lots of money, which allows you to build even more kick-ass legal teams and hire even more "researchers".
At least with regulations there is some sort of baseline, as opposed to putting your faith utterly and completely in a political ideology that no more seems to be able to stop abuse of process than existing political systems. Things always sound lovely in theory. In theory Communism creates a wonderfully fair system that sees much more even distribution of wealth. In reality it's been a failure, and I suspect a pure Libertarian state would do no better. At the end of the day, you have to have a certain degree of flexibility and pragmatism in your political and economic system, otherwise you will end up riding your ideology into the gutter sooner or later.
Sociopathic fucks like you won't be happy to every aquifer in North America is poisoned so every last ounce of natural gas is extracted, while you live on some nice South Pacific island counting your ill-gotten gain.
Does it matter at the end of the day if peoples' water supply is poisoned because water several thousand feet below is leaching to the surface, or whether it's screwy concrete closer to the surface, or it's just incompetent assholes spilling the chemicals on the ground. About the only thing that wouldn't be the company's fault would be naturally occurring natural gas in wells and aquifers, and maybe the sensible thing to do before developing a new natural gas field is to take six month's or a year's worth of samples. But other than the latter option, it boils down to fracking causing harm to water, and that being the case if a reasonable level of safety and security of groundwater cannot be guaranteed than they shouldn't be allowed to do it.
Either that, or the CEO, the board of directors and the chief engineers are forced to live with bombs strapped to their heads and as soon as evidence of contamination is seen, the townsfolk get to press the button. Methinks that would probably see an extraordinary decrease in contamination.
Don't worry. The true fans will be shelling out for cleaned up outtakes, second rate tracks and "duets" with .
Tom Petty was going bankrupt even while he had hit records. The Beatles, Pink Floyd, The Eagles and King Crimson all have no lack of horror stories about the record and publishing companies consistently screwing them on royalties, flagrantly violating contracts and in going out of their way to prevent the artists and the lawyers from looking at actual sales.
Whatever artists might be losing to illegal downloads, you can be sure that it is small potatoes to the rackateering that RIAA members have been up to for decades.
If you want to talk about real evil, you should look at the record companies treated artists like Bo Diddley, which amounted to userious contracts and outright theft.
I'm advocating a biological weapon that targets IP attorneys.
They're job is at the frontlines of public health. Vaccines are key to that. They are taking care of the majority of patients who aren't mental retards who buy into the lies of Andrew Wakefield.
The overall value is not debatable. It is clear and demonstrated.
I doubt the doctors in question would throw you out, if the allergy is legitimate. You are not the kind of people being referred to, it's the completely retarded anti-vaccers who are the target of this. It is they who are putting your child at risk. Have a complaint, take it up with the evil fucking monster Andrew Wakefield.
How odd, because the climatological community is stating just that. Are you saying they're lying?
Some of the mitigation fits with other looming problems; namely the end of cheap oil. Sooner or later (some say sooner, some say later) we're going to run out of cheap oil, and it isn't just energy that's going to take the hit. The value of long-chain hydrocarbons to a multitude of industrial, fabrication and industrial processes cannot be minimized. People don't seem to understand that it isn't just the price of a gallon of gas that will skyrocket, a large portion of the things that make the industrialized world go round will suddenly become much more expensive.
So, the potential mitigation of AGW and the solution to peak oil are the same. Stop using oil and other fossil fuels as fuels. The sooner the better. Invest in alternative energies, even if the costs are very high, because the costs when everyone finally agrees peak oil has been reached will be far worse in every possible way. There is every reason to begin to switch from a fossil fuel based economy, and no reason other than laziness and contempt for future generations to continue on the course we have chosen.
I don't think most climatologists talk in terms of catastrophic climate change, so I'm going to call your last sentence a straw man. I realize that it's easier to attack Al Gore-style claims, but perhaps you should actually read what the scientists say, rather than what you seem to think they say.
I'm thinking you have no idea what science is. In fact, I'm not thinking at all. I think your post conclusively proves you have no idea what science is or what a scientific theory is. What did you do, quite school in grade 3?
More than just denial.If it was just guys shaking their fists I wouldn't care. But we're talking about well-funded groups with political and media allies who are quite happy to spread disinformation as widely as possible. For instance, the Daily Mail and the Daily Telegraph in Britain, on topics like alternative energy sources and AGW are pretty much oil company shills, and not even very shameless about it. Christopher Booker, the guy that denies tobacco harm, asbestos harm and even makes rude noises about evolution, basically has free reign to write any amount of ludicrous anti-AGW crap he wants.
The difference being that ID has maybe two or three actual scientists who work in fields related to biology backing it, and the most important one of those, Michael Behe, doesn't even publish peer reviewed articles that deal with his ID claims. AGW on the other hand, is widely accepted by most researchers in climatology and related fields, the debate being more about the degree of influence of human activity or the speed at which changes will occur.
In other words, it isn't the same thing at all.
Yes, well, when the shoe is on the other foot and all that...
It is our God-given right to throw plastic away. What kind of America would this be if I couldn't just chuck my non-biodegradable products into the nearest ditch!
Quit your social engineering. What are you, some sort of communist?
It strikes me the OP mucked this up years ago. When he began to let the site basically run itself he should have moved his email hosting elsewhere and redirected from the old address to the new, monitoring who was sending him email. It's a little late now.