dagblog - Comments for "The Koch Brothers"

While I won't call you a

Atheist — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 14:42:18 +0000

In reply to If thinking Ayn Rand is evil

While I won't call you a moron, David, I'm going to go with my friend Hanlon on this one: never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. I think Ayn Rand really believed the stuff she wrote.

If thinking Ayn Rand is evil

David Seaton — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 12:35:01 +0000

In reply to Ayn Rand is one of most evil

If thinking Ayn Rand is evil is to be a moron, I'll wear the badge with pride.

Ayn Rand is one of most evil

johnny — Mon, 13 Sep 2010 12:16:48 +0000

In reply to The Koch Brothers

Ayn Rand is one of most evil human beings? Oh my God, you are a moron, David.

Your reasoning is all very

Atheist — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 21:00:44 +0000

In reply to It takes three things to form

Your reasoning is all very sound. The problem, in my opnion, is what you're taking as your axioms. The justice system is slow. It would most likely be even slower if it were being funded through some sort of libertarian basis. (How would libertarians fund the justice system?) Additionally, the justice system relies on a system of law. As your example demonstrates, it's not trivial for a judge to decide either what constitutes injury or a decrease in property values. Don't get me wrong: our current system has numerous flaws as well. I just think it's far easier to do worse than to do better.

Counter tip: Read my screed.

Gary Trieste — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 20:56:48 +0000

In reply to Absolutely. Follow your own

Counter tip:

Read my screed. Libertarianism is not no-government. Libertarianism is not Anarchism.

Somalia is close to Anarchy. I wouldn't want to live there, or hire my own army.

It takes three things to form

Gary Trieste — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 20:51:05 +0000

In reply to If you are saying that they

It takes three things to form a civil tort; [1] a legal duty to another person, [2] a failure to uphold that duty, and [3] and injury caused by that failure.

If someone is the cause of pollution, it is not up to them to conclude or not-conclude it to be a problem. It is an assertion that a plaintiff makes. If the plaintiff can prove all three elements to a trier of fact, be it in arbitration or at a court trial, then he has proven his tort claim, he then has a legal right to collect damages against the polluter.

Of course you would have to prove all elements. It is a standard civil claim.

Recently there was a court decision handed down from the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals, reversing a jury decision finding damages for property owners who sued because of plutonium contamination in their soil from an old weapons mfr who apparently didn't contain the waste properly.

They sued on two points, [1] that the risk of illness from the plutonium was an injury per se, and [2] that their property values were depressed due to the presence of plutonium.

The appellate court ruled that the plaintiffs should lose on both claims, asserting that a risk of injury was not an injury, and that the property values were not affected by the presence of plutonium.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/09/03/1807491/court-throws-out-926-million-rocky.html

I could perhaps agree with the first conclusion, although it is iffy, but the second conclusion is a travesty of justice. Obviously a property w/o plutonium in the soil is going to worth more than that same property with radioactive soil.

That travesty notwithstanding, this is how pollution should be addressed; an aggrieved plaintiff taking on the aggressor. Only, it needs to be done in a lot faster fashion, the delays themselves are breach of due process in my opinion.

I support collective

Gary Trieste — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 14:02:12 +0000

In reply to You only wish you had gotten

I support collective ownership, and even administration of what is owned by the government - if that ownership arrangement is voluntary, and there is a strict accounting for the monies involved (collected and spent) in that administration, and direct (collective) say in how it is administered. (Also no govt monopoly, and no compulsory participation, on those administrative services)

Sometimes it is more practical to have the government administer something than a private concern. But the key here is voluntaryism (or volition).

Nobody should be forced to pay for services they don't want to use. Nobody should be forced to use one specific services provider, and there should never be a disconnect between the costs of administration and the fees/taxes collected for those services.

And I agree that many libertarians do not have a good answer to the collective action problem, in my opinion. What I say here, although still purely libertarian, is often knee-jerk rejected by most libertarians, because it has scary words in it for them, like "collective ownership" and "government services". But that is more of a symptom of a young political movement, than of a fundamental problem with libertarianism.

If you are saying that they

Atheist — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 13:52:39 +0000

In reply to Are the Koch's libertarian?

If you are saying that they don't consider it their legal responsibility, when they are not the cause of the pollution, then yes that would be a libertarian view.

But what if they are the cause of the pollution, but don't think the pollution is a problem? Or, what if they don't consider something (e.g., CO₂) to be pollution, while others do? Are they then allowed to foist it on to us, free of charge?

Are the Koch's libertarian?

Gary Trieste — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 13:47:15 +0000

In reply to Typical assumption from the

Are the Koch's libertarian? If they (or those who support them) support the removal of someone else's right to breathe then they are not. That would be an active infringement on someone else's liberty.

If you are saying that they don't consider it their legal responsibility, when they are not the cause of the pollution, then yes that would be a libertarian view. But it is also the current legal view, so I don't know what distinction you are making.

Or are you just making a random comment from your opinion implying that it is everyone's legal obligation to stop one polluter from polluting another person's property? That would be the socialist way - everybody's problem is your own.

The biggest problem for

Atheist — Tue, 07 Sep 2010 13:32:22 +0000

In reply to Of course its not

The biggest problem for libertarianism is its inability in general to treat problems like "the tragedy of the commons". Simiarly, it's not good at internalizing costs that are easily externalized (such as pollution).