Old Rocks
Diamond Member
And why did the buffalo and geese have to be saved? Dumbest arguement that I have ever seen posted, Walleyes.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Can anyone answer that. What gives coal and oil producers the right to pollute other people's air?
Tell you what.
Why don't you start by pointing me to a pro pollution promoter and we will talk. Until then, you are just another idiot.
koch brothers
And why did the buffalo and geese have to be saved? Dumbest arguement that I have ever seen posted, Walleyes.
And why did the buffalo and geese have to be saved? Dumbest arguement that I have ever seen posted, Walleyes.
Really? Tell that to the Dodo and Passenger Pidgeon.
Nobody wants to drink dirty water or breathe poisoned air, but everyone wants to drive their car and enjoy air conditioning and heat. It's an economic balancing act.
Sure, but any time anyone has suggested we limit any form of pollution, that claim has been that it means the end of the freedom. Without getting into contemporary debates about cap-and-trade and the like, look at the passage the Clean Air Act or the implementation of the EPA's Acid Rain Program.
But seriously, anti-regulation is the free market position. Always has been always will be. But this is one example where the free market, left to it's own devices, fails everyone.
yep... forests and clean, fresh water would only be learned about in history books if the government didn't clamp down on it. similarly, many types of tuna, whales, and sharks, would also be gone... i think the buffalo is a good example to learn from
Actually the buffalo were saved by a buffalo hunter who realised they were approaching extinction and decided to preserve the remaining animals that he could find, and he did it completely on his own because no one else cared. The same thing happened with the Canada Geese, they too were saved by hunters (that's how Ducks Unlimited was founded)
nobody else cared what happened to them, no scientists or zoologists or the embryonic environmental movement, nope it was the hunters that saved them and the buffalo.
Good to see you are your normal, irrational, self.
Which part is irrational?
The part about anti-regulation being the free market position? Um, no. That's more or less the definition of the 'free market'. But don't take my word for it, go read 'Capitalism and Freedom' by Milton Friedman. A good read with a lot of good arguments actually.
Or the part about the free market failing to adequately keep pollution in check? Um no. The evidence on that one proves it to be a slam dunk.
Sorry, not only is it rational, it's fact.
The irrational part is your insistence that the free market is going to fail no matter what. One of the most polluted places on the planet is in what used to be the Soviet Union. Because they had no free market at all, the people were not free to protest against, and force the companies that were polluting to respond to them.
On the other hand, companies here in the United States, once the dangers of pollution became clear, were forced to bow to demands to cut back. It is not the free market that fails to protect the environment, it is the government. That makes you position irrational. Some regulations make sense, but most of them just make things worse. Some of them exist just to keep large corporations from having to compete.
Good to see you are your normal, irrational, self.
Which part is irrational?
The part about anti-regulation being the free market position? Um, no. That's more or less the definition of the 'free market'. But don't take my word for it, go read 'Capitalism and Freedom' by Milton Friedman. A good read with a lot of good arguments actually.
Or the part about the free market failing to adequately keep pollution in check? Um no. The evidence on that one proves it to be a slam dunk.
Sorry, not only is it rational, it's fact.
The irrational part is your insistence that the free market is going to fail no matter what.
exactlywhat about it?
Which part is irrational?
The part about anti-regulation being the free market position? Um, no. That's more or less the definition of the 'free market'. But don't take my word for it, go read 'Capitalism and Freedom' by Milton Friedman. A good read with a lot of good arguments actually.
Or the part about the free market failing to adequately keep pollution in check? Um no. The evidence on that one proves it to be a slam dunk.
Sorry, not only is it rational, it's fact.
The irrational part is your insistence that the free market is going to fail no matter what.
My apologies. I stopped reading there because it's obvious I didn't make myself clear.
I'm not suggesting in any way that the free market fails no matter what. In fact, on most issues I tend to err on the side of more free, less regulation. But in the case of pollution regulations, experience has shown their absence (pure freedom as it were), to be a failure. I don't believe we always achieve optimal regulation all things considered, but what we've done so far pollution-wise is a damn sight better than if we did nothing at all.
That's all I'm saying.
PS: I believe the term 'pro-pollution' to be just as partisanly disingenuos as 'pro-abortion'.
The irrational part is your insistence that the free market is going to fail no matter what.
My apologies. I stopped reading there because it's obvious I didn't make myself clear.
I'm not suggesting in any way that the free market fails no matter what. In fact, on most issues I tend to err on the side of more free, less regulation. But in the case of pollution regulations, experience has shown their absence (pure freedom as it were), to be a failure. I don't believe we always achieve optimal regulation all things considered, but what we've done so far pollution-wise is a damn sight better than if we did nothing at all.
That's all I'm saying.
PS: I believe the term 'pro-pollution' to be just as partisanly disingenuos as 'pro-abortion'.
Experience has never shown that.
The EPA was started because an environmental activist used junk science to overstate the dangers of pesticides, and scared the government into over reacting. People were just beginning to see the long term dangers of pollution, and companies were reacting to social pressure to curb the pollution.
Would it have been enough to make real changes? To be honest, I do not know. But I am sure that no one can say the free market would not work in this area because it never had a chance.
yep... forests and clean, fresh water would only be learned about in history books if the government didn't clamp down on it. similarly, many types of tuna, whales, and sharks, would also be gone... i think the buffalo is a good example to learn from
Actually the buffalo were saved by a buffalo hunter who realised they were approaching extinction and decided to preserve the remaining animals that he could find, and he did it completely on his own because no one else cared. The same thing happened with the Canada Geese, they too were saved by hunters (that's how Ducks Unlimited was founded)
nobody else cared what happened to them, no scientists or zoologists or the embryonic environmental movement, nope it was the hunters that saved them and the buffalo.
Nobody cared? This a good example of why your posts are to be taken with a rather large grain of salt. I'd only have to find ONE non-hunter who cared and your thesis would be proven false and you'd look foolish. It's that kind of absolutist thinking that runs all through your posts and makes them worthless at best and damaging to those less knowledgable, at worst.
My apologies. I stopped reading there because it's obvious I didn't make myself clear.
I'm not suggesting in any way that the free market fails no matter what. In fact, on most issues I tend to err on the side of more free, less regulation. But in the case of pollution regulations, experience has shown their absence (pure freedom as it were), to be a failure. I don't believe we always achieve optimal regulation all things considered, but what we've done so far pollution-wise is a damn sight better than if we did nothing at all.
That's all I'm saying.
PS: I believe the term 'pro-pollution' to be just as partisanly disingenuos as 'pro-abortion'.
Experience has never shown that.
The EPA was started because an environmental activist used junk science to overstate the dangers of pesticides, and scared the government into over reacting. People were just beginning to see the long term dangers of pollution, and companies were reacting to social pressure to curb the pollution.
Would it have been enough to make real changes? To be honest, I do not know. But I am sure that no one can say the free market would not work in this area because it never had a chance.
I can't argue with this. I concede this point.
But in the end, it comes down to a judgement call. And in my judgement doing nothing would have been worse. And while I concede the theoretical argument to you, I question the wisdom of a person who honestly believes, all things considered, that doing nothing was the wise choice.
My apologies. I stopped reading there because it's obvious I didn't make myself clear.
I'm not suggesting in any way that the free market fails no matter what. In fact, on most issues I tend to err on the side of more free, less regulation. But in the case of pollution regulations, experience has shown their absence (pure freedom as it were), to be a failure. I don't believe we always achieve optimal regulation all things considered, but what we've done so far pollution-wise is a damn sight better than if we did nothing at all.
That's all I'm saying.
PS: I believe the term 'pro-pollution' to be just as partisanly disingenuos as 'pro-abortion'.
Experience has never shown that.
The EPA was started because an environmental activist used junk science to overstate the dangers of pesticides, and scared the government into over reacting. People were just beginning to see the long term dangers of pollution, and companies were reacting to social pressure to curb the pollution.
Would it have been enough to make real changes? To be honest, I do not know. But I am sure that no one can say the free market would not work in this area because it never had a chance.
I can't argue with this. I concede this point.
But in the end, it comes down to a judgement call. And in my judgement doing nothing would have been worse. And while I concede the theoretical argument to you, I question the wisdom of a person who honestly believes, all things considered, that doing nothing was the wise choice.
Tell you what.
Why don't you start by pointing me to a pro pollution promoter and we will talk. Until then, you are just another idiot.
koch brothers
The guys that want to repeal the PATRIOT Act are pro pollution? Or are you just spouting your typical reactionary nonsense?
koch brothers
The guys that want to repeal the PATRIOT Act are pro pollution? Or are you just spouting your typical reactionary nonsense?
WTF does the patriot act and pollution have to do with each other? and koch industries is consitently ranked in the top ten biggest polluters in the country
Experience has never shown that.
The EPA was started because an environmental activist used junk science to overstate the dangers of pesticides, and scared the government into over reacting. People were just beginning to see the long term dangers of pollution, and companies were reacting to social pressure to curb the pollution.
Would it have been enough to make real changes? To be honest, I do not know. But I am sure that no one can say the free market would not work in this area because it never had a chance.
I can't argue with this. I concede this point.
But in the end, it comes down to a judgement call. And in my judgement doing nothing would have been worse. And while I concede the theoretical argument to you, I question the wisdom of a person who honestly believes, all things considered, that doing nothing was the wise choice.
I am not saying doing nothing would have been wise. The government had a clear, and constitutional, role in acting once the danger was understood. The problem is not that they reacted, it is that they over reacted. That, in the long run, made things worse. Not necessarily for the environment, but it did prevent some technologies that would have made things better from being implemented.