Conservative Case for Environmentalism

[antagon]

No, private property is the most sound environmental policy.

Pretty weak red herring, BTW.

you still ate it. you believe that complete self-determination on private property will protect ecology.

how do you account for environmental damage done on private property? what are you thinking, that because you own the land you wont ruin it?

how does this apply to a manufacturer with waste products, a landowner looking to accommodate waste on his land (landfill), or another landowner looking to cash in on some of the resources of his land (trees, water, oil...) in a way oversight would otherwise find irresponsible?

all these parties would be motivated and informed by what force, dude? the invisible hand of property ownership?

here's another herring for your breakfast:

property ownership makes you a benevolent person.

 

[Oddball]

I ate nothing, and putting words in my mouth will get you nowhere.

Never said, or even implied, that private property a perfect solution, as perfection cannot be an option....It's merely the best one we have available.

Ruin your property and you debase, or even eliminate, its value to anyone else.

Community property isn't treated as everyone's land...It's treated as nobody's land, and it shows.

 

[antagon]

dude, i'll give you that nothing is perfect and that you havent ate anything...

its clear you didnt digest how sovereignty over one's own property could be used to cash out the value of its factors, regardless of the potential for resale.

you havent even realized that public conserved land, treated as nobody's land, shows the converse of your debased neglect theory.

that you think resale value is the champion of ecology is absurd, buddy. that's that.

there's seeing that environmental policy has to take a seat at a table among many other concerns in our society, and then there's your take that property ownership will speak entirely on its behalf, and and be remotely effective at it.

april fools is tomorrow.

 

[Xenophon]

wonder where all that electricity comes from.

Currently, overwhelmingly from domestic coal.

That is correct.

And what will happen if these producers have to buy 'carbon credits' to supply power with their coal plants until they can get money to rebuild a clean nuclear or solar plant? (good luck getting either zoned BTW)

Who gets the cost of those credits passed on to them from the power companies?

 

[gslack]

dude, i'll give you that nothing is perfect and that you havent ate anything...

its clear you didnt digest how sovereignty over one's own property could be used to cash out the value of its factors, regardless of the potential for resale.

you havent even realized that public conserved land, treated as nobody's land, shows the converse of your debased neglect theory.

that you think resale value is the champion of ecology is absurd, buddy. that's that.

there's seeing that environmental policy has to take a seat at a table among many other concerns in our society, and then there's your take that property ownership will speak entirely on its behalf, and and be remotely effective at it.

april fools is tomorrow.

I think a story I have may clarify dude's point....

I have 2 neighbors across the street in our semi-rural neighborhood. They have an empty lot between them, that at this point is unsold and remains an empty plot.

My house was built 3 years ago and at the time I was the only one in our little cul-de-sac. A year after my house was built the neighbor across and to the left built his home, and 9 months later the man on the right built his. Between them sat this empty lot.

The lot was not as attractive as the other two, as there is a large thicket in the center making it look less appealing. Regardless the lot is in every other way nearly identical to their own. At first the man on the left mowed this area weekly, my guess was he was hoping to use it for some reason or to appear like his yard was bigger(lame yes but its the burbs).

Once the man on the right moved in, he started mowing the area. Then for a time they would each mow 1/2 the area. Soon it became an issue when they were both attempting to mow the same area, and words were exchanged. This exchange ended with both men pointing out to the other that "they" didn't own the property.

After that the land has not been mowed by either of them again. Once every 6 months or so the owner sends a hedgehog out and its cleared, but thats it. The little plot has been let go and the thicket is out of control now making the land harder to sell.

The point in all of that is, both men felt an obligation to mow that area individually, for what ever reasons they had. but that obligation ended once they were awoken to the fact they had no say over that land. Now the land is let go and both men ignore the obvious eyesore because its not their responsibility and they have nothing to gain from it.

That is the reality of private versus public property. On private the owners are motivated to either care for or rape that property by their own desires, wants or needs. On public all the care and or ill treatment of that property has to come by either mandate or by volunteers.

In our state they used to have teams to clean up along the highways. Those teams were in some cases prison inmates, local, county, city or state employees, or local jail mates ordered to do community service.

A few things happened... The use of prison inmates was dropped because they felt it was demeaning and reminiscent of chain gangs. The local, county, and state governments found it too costly and cut the teams down to nearly none at all. And the local jail mates are used less and less because again its reminiscent of chain gangs.

Recently a few activists, with the help of government started the "adopt a highway" project which seeks out volunteers to clean these areas. Well the roads are cleaner now then they ever were before.

The reason is simple. People do not respond to mandates... You order someone to do something and it becomes a task. You ask them to do it and many will try and help out. Adopt a highway appeals to our good nature, while mandates and punishments appeal to our rebellious side.

 

[antagon]

all of that is great, gslack. there is a requirement to have environmental policy supersede property rights, because property boundaries dont constrain all of the potential for environment damage, and you cant be allowed freedom to destroy the health and welfare of those around you. that concept escapes dude.

can you make an example that has anything to do with national environmental policy such as mine do? while it is great that neighbors look after the value of their property, note that those are residences which are valued as living spaces. what about forests that are valued otherwise? if that plot of land were between two heavy industrial outfits, what would become of it?

can you appreciate how the government is obliged to think about more than suburban neighborly relations when considering environmental policy?

 

[LibocalypseNow]

I think everyone is an Environmentalist in their heart. How do we take better care of the Planet? That's a very important but also very difficult question. Personally,i will never support Global Warming Gestapos who push their agendas with force. There has to be a balanced answer no? An answer that achieves better results for the Environment while at the same time preserving individual Freedom & Liberty. I think this can be done. I guess we'll see though.

 

[Oddball]

dude, i'll give you that nothing is perfect and that you havent ate anything...

its clear you didnt digest how sovereignty over one's own property could be used to cash out the value of its factors, regardless of the potential for resale.

you havent even realized that public conserved land, treated as nobody's land, shows the converse of your debased neglect theory.

that you think resale value is the champion of ecology is absurd, buddy. that's that.

there's seeing that environmental policy has to take a seat at a table among many other concerns in our society, and then there's your take that property ownership will speak entirely on its behalf, and and be remotely effective at it.

april fools is tomorrow.

Wrong, wrong, wrong and wrong.

Land can have multiple purposes and uses. If it started out being used for mining, for example, it can be later used for timber, residential or recreation once the mining operation is exhausted...It all depends upon what's on the mind of the subsequent owner. Another example is that my family's tree farming operation is on former railroad land.

A great example of how communal land is more often than not mismanaged is Yellowstone....The USDA bureaucrats dithered for the better part of three days while the wildfire that ultimately consumed most of its forest raged out of control. Also, several foreign gold mining interests have pulled up stakes and left the EPA to deal with their cyanide sluice ponds, once their operations had run their course. Another great example is how the southern US is practically overrun with kudzu (Google it), yet sprawling places like Biltmore estate have non on their private land.

But there's probably next to zero evidence that you would accept that land owners know more than bureaucrats.

 

[Titanic Sailor]

I'm just going to lob a hand grenade in this cyber room and walk away:

Obama let GM walk away from responsibility for their numerous environmental disaster sites in bankruptcy, and the people have won the cost of the cleanup.

 

[antagon]

dude, the presumption is that landowners know more than bureaucrats. the bureaucrats leverage well-considered environmental policy giving reasonable breadth for landowners to do what is right. ideally, unless you are doing some flagrant environmental damage, there wouldn't be any oversight intervention.

i'm not making any extreme claims, man. i think that there needs to be a balance struck between standards and people. you think that people got it in the bag, entirely, and should be left to their own methods of 'informed' ecology. that's where i think you're off your rocker.

no matter how many anecdotes you can derive to show that people will nurture the environment, like other instances of law enforcement in our society, there needs to be a ref to see that everything is on the up n up, and that places like yosemite are conserved in the first place.

 

[gslack]

all of that is great, gslack. there is a requirement to have environmental policy supersede property rights, because property boundaries dont constrain all of the potential for environment damage, and you cant be allowed freedom to destroy the health and welfare of those around you. that concept escapes dude.

can you make an example that has anything to do with national environmental policy such as mine do? while it is great that neighbors look after the value of their property, note that those are residences which are valued as living spaces. what about forests that are valued otherwise? if that plot of land were between two heavy industrial outfits, what would become of it?

can you appreciate how the government is obliged to think about more than suburban neighborly relations when considering environmental policy?

Did you actually read the post or just browse over a few topical sentences? I think you did the latter...

if you had read the post in its entirety, I feel you would have gotten the point. The response you gave showed beyond a doubt that you either failed to grasp it, or that you failed to actually read it....

If you want a proper debate on this then you should at least give proper attention to the posts you dispute.

 

[ihopehefails]

Here is a conservative solution for enviromentalism.

Step 1: Buy a piece of land

Step 2: Manage it to be your own nirvana

Step 3: Now realize you don't have the right to spread your nirvana to someone elses land

 

[antagon]

all of that is great, gslack. there is a requirement to have environmental policy supersede property rights, because property boundaries dont constrain all of the potential for environment damage, and you cant be allowed freedom to destroy the health and welfare of those around you. that concept escapes dude.

can you make an example that has anything to do with national environmental policy such as mine do? while it is great that neighbors look after the value of their property, note that those are residences which are valued as living spaces. what about forests that are valued otherwise? if that plot of land were between two heavy industrial outfits, what would become of it?

can you appreciate how the government is obliged to think about more than suburban neighborly relations when considering environmental policy?

Did you actually read the post or just browse over a few topical sentences? I think you did the latter...

if you had read the post in its entirety, I feel you would have gotten the point. The response you gave showed beyond a doubt that you either failed to grasp it, or that you failed to actually read it....

If you want a proper debate on this then you should at least give proper attention to the posts you dispute.

i read your post, but it doesnt support dude's claim that environmental policy is redundant to land ownership. reading it, i only picked up on land stewardship anecdotes about picking up trash and mowing lawns. that's great, but the EPA doesnt concern itself as much with any of that as it does polluting industry and the like.

am i missing something?

im not going to pretend i can channel whether or not you read my response, but do you have anything in the way of answers to the simple questions i posed? they poke at the gaping holes in dude's idea that landownership rights inherently promote ecology beyond the need for oversight.

do you also believe the environment would be better off with a to each their own environmental policy?

 

[gslack]

all of that is great, gslack. there is a requirement to have environmental policy supersede property rights, because property boundaries dont constrain all of the potential for environment damage, and you cant be allowed freedom to destroy the health and welfare of those around you. that concept escapes dude.

can you make an example that has anything to do with national environmental policy such as mine do? while it is great that neighbors look after the value of their property, note that those are residences which are valued as living spaces. what about forests that are valued otherwise? if that plot of land were between two heavy industrial outfits, what would become of it?

can you appreciate how the government is obliged to think about more than suburban neighborly relations when considering environmental policy?

Did you actually read the post or just browse over a few topical sentences? I think you did the latter...

if you had read the post in its entirety, I feel you would have gotten the point. The response you gave showed beyond a doubt that you either failed to grasp it, or that you failed to actually read it....

If you want a proper debate on this then you should at least give proper attention to the posts you dispute.

i read your post, but it doesnt support dude's claim that environmental policy is redundant to land ownership. reading it, i only picked up on land stewardship anecdotes about picking up trash and mowing lawns. that's great, but the EPA doesnt concern itself as much with any of that as it does polluting industry and the like.

am i missing something?

im not going to pretend i can channel whether or not you read my response, but do you have anything in the way of answers to the simple questions i posed? they poke at the gaping holes in dude's idea that landownership rights inherently promote ecology beyond the need for oversight.

do you also believe the environment would be better off with a to each their own environmental policy?

You still refuse to actually read it? LOL, okay....

Again if you aren't going to take the time to read it honestly you are in fact not wanting a real debate on merit, but a nay-saying match.

I know categorically you did not read it based on your responses and your explanation of it. If you can't understand the point thats fine, but I think you just are dismissing it off-hand.

No one and I repeat NO ONE, says no oversight.. That was your attempt to oversimplify and dismiss what was said. Over sight certainly, but that is not the same as denying property rights because some eco-mentalist or group there of want to stop a perceived threat to a mosquito...

My story and anecdotes were designed to put the concepts that dude was trying to impart here. Had you actually read the post, you would seen this and responded in a manner that would show this. You haven't and even tell us plainly what you read of it. You saw blah blah blah and it didn't apply... Yeah we know... Thats what you saw, but the people who actually took the time to read it saw something else...

 

[antagon]

Did you actually read the post or just browse over a few topical sentences? I think you did the latter...

if you had read the post in its entirety, I feel you would have gotten the point. The response you gave showed beyond a doubt that you either failed to grasp it, or that you failed to actually read it....

If you want a proper debate on this then you should at least give proper attention to the posts you dispute.

i read your post, but it doesnt support dude's claim that environmental policy is redundant to land ownership. reading it, i only picked up on land stewardship anecdotes about picking up trash and mowing lawns. that's great, but the EPA doesnt concern itself as much with any of that as it does polluting industry and the like.

am i missing something?

im not going to pretend i can channel whether or not you read my response, but do you have anything in the way of answers to the simple questions i posed? they poke at the gaping holes in dude's idea that landownership rights inherently promote ecology beyond the need for oversight.

do you also believe the environment would be better off with a to each their own environmental policy?

You still refuse to actually read it? LOL, okay....

Again if you aren't going to take the time to read it honestly you are in fact not wanting a real debate on merit, but a nay-saying match.

I know categorically you did not read it based on your responses and your explanation of it. If you can't understand the point thats fine, but I think you just are dismissing it off-hand.

No one and I repeat NO ONE, says no oversight.. That was your attempt to oversimplify and dismiss what was said. Over sight certainly, but that is not the same as denying property rights because some eco-mentalist or group there of want to stop a perceived threat to a mosquito...

My story and anecdotes were designed to put the concepts that dude was trying to impart here. Had you actually read the post, you would seen this and responded in a manner that would show this. You haven't and even tell us plainly what you read of it. You saw blah blah blah and it didn't apply... Yeah we know... Thats what you saw, but the people who actually took the time to read it saw something else...

your crystal ball's on the fritz, slack. youve either not read your post yourself or have an overblown idea of how profound it was.

like i sead earlier, i thought that it was great. now that you want some kind of prize or something, im not so sure.

dude's argument is plain: you can be an environmentalist, but only on your land. that property rights supersede reproach even if those rights are being used to compromise the larger environment. he goes on to say that exercise of these rights trump any efforts oversight can/will/had on conservation and environment. you posed a couple stories to support.

what i havent read, was what is going on with some mosquito somewhere, so appreciate i dont carry that same outrage into this argument...

*my personal experiences growing up in the city, in los angeles, in the 80s/90s schooled me on the impact of environmental policy extending beyond people's wherewithal to affect it themselves, or on their own property. when i was a young-buck, you couldnt see the valley floor from the angeles national forest. there was a sheet of smog that covered it, and the skyline would pop out the top. at recess time, there were many days that we wouldnt be able to go outside, called smog alerts. after the realization of legislation, by the early 90s the smog was no longer at that state of volatility and the view from the hills was dramatically different.*

some of this policy sucks. i happen to like the view from the hills as much as i like fast cars to take me driving through there. the former compromised the latter (much as the inverse, i guess). no matter what al gore says in his stupid flick, california is the impetus for auto emissions research, internationally. it certainly was in the 70s 80s and 90s. but that was heavy-handed lawmaking that made a difference, not some invisible hand of benevolent property ownership.

there. now ive tried the pretty story method of argumentation. maybe that may paint my point in the mix more palatably.

 

[gslack]

i read your post, but it doesnt support dude's claim that environmental policy is redundant to land ownership. reading it, i only picked up on land stewardship anecdotes about picking up trash and mowing lawns. that's great, but the EPA doesnt concern itself as much with any of that as it does polluting industry and the like.

am i missing something?

im not going to pretend i can channel whether or not you read my response, but do you have anything in the way of answers to the simple questions i posed? they poke at the gaping holes in dude's idea that landownership rights inherently promote ecology beyond the need for oversight.

do you also believe the environment would be better off with a to each their own environmental policy?

You still refuse to actually read it? LOL, okay....

Again if you aren't going to take the time to read it honestly you are in fact not wanting a real debate on merit, but a nay-saying match.

I know categorically you did not read it based on your responses and your explanation of it. If you can't understand the point thats fine, but I think you just are dismissing it off-hand.

No one and I repeat NO ONE, says no oversight.. That was your attempt to oversimplify and dismiss what was said. Over sight certainly, but that is not the same as denying property rights because some eco-mentalist or group there of want to stop a perceived threat to a mosquito...

My story and anecdotes were designed to put the concepts that dude was trying to impart here. Had you actually read the post, you would seen this and responded in a manner that would show this. You haven't and even tell us plainly what you read of it. You saw blah blah blah and it didn't apply... Yeah we know... Thats what you saw, but the people who actually took the time to read it saw something else...

your crystal ball's on the fritz, slack. youve either not read your post yourself or have an overblown idea of how profound it was.

like i sead earlier, i thought that it was great. now that you want some kind of prize or something, im not so sure.

dude's argument is plain: you can be an environmentalist, but only on your land. that property rights supersede reproach even if those rights are being used to compromise the larger environment. he goes on to say that exercise of these rights trump any efforts oversight can/will/had on conservation and environment. you posed a couple stories to support.

what i havent read, was what is going on with some mosquito somewhere, so appreciate i dont carry that same outrage into this argument...

*my personal experiences growing up in the city, in los angeles, in the 80s/90s schooled me on the impact of environmental policy extending beyond people's wherewithal to affect it themselves, or on their own property. when i was a young-buck, you couldnt see the valley floor from the angeles national forest. there was a sheet of smog that covered it, and the skyline would pop out the top. at recess time, there were many days that we wouldnt be able to go outside, called smog alerts. after the realization of legislation, by the early 90s the smog was no longer at that state of volatility and the view from the hills was dramatically different.*

some of this policy sucks. i happen to like the view from the hills as much as i like fast cars to take me driving through there. the former compromised the latter (much as the inverse, i guess). no matter what al gore says in his stupid flick, california is the impetus for auto emissions research, internationally. it certainly was in the 70s 80s and 90s. but that was heavy-handed lawmaking that made a difference, not some invisible hand of benevolent property ownership.

there. now ive tried the pretty story method of argumentation. maybe that may paint my point in the mix more palatably.

So its resorting to being a douchebag now?

YOU don't get it, because you didn't read it. And the most ridiculous part is after me pointing out you couldn't have from your responses, twice now, and you showing less and less understanding of it, you still haven't read it.... Thats lame seriously lame.....

Okay buddy I will repeat myself just once more and then if you still try to remain dishonest about both what dude was saying and what I wrote. I will consider you another useless poster who cannot be bothered to actually respect others enough to read their post before you try and tell everyone what they said or meant....

The very last part of the first story I told was to show how the concept of "ours" can and usually will become the concept of "theirs".

When a person owns a property whatever they do with that property they do so from a desire to better themselves in one aspect or another. Either they wish to make money off it, or they wish to make it as nice and pure as they can for their own benefit. They do this because they feel a responsibility to.

When the mindset is "ours" and there is no ownership of land or property, it usually ends up a case of everyone looking to the other to do something with it. That results in either nothing being done unless by mandate and that is usually worse than if left alone, or the rape and destruction of that land will occur with no one person or entity to hold responsible.

In a socialist or communist system who is responsible for a ruined eco-system? Why everyone and no one of course...

You are treating this from an idealists perspective. An ideal which in reality mankind is not evolved enough to pull off. Right now people are still motivated by far too many negative factors. We still experience jealousy, and blind rage. We still covet, we still break promises, and we still lie, cheat and steal from one another for our own personal gain. And you really believe this kind of thing won't lead to an elite few dictating to the rest of the world?

HA! This is not sesame street, on this street Al Gore is big bird and this bigbird is a greedy SOB....

That easier for you? Lets see how much of this you read...

 

[antagon]

please stop with the pussy shit about not reading posts, already. i've tried to stay jovial about it, but for some reason the sick up your ass has broken off to a sharp edge over the issue. reading and understanding the points you make is not some monumental task. you can rest assured that i read everything between the first and last word you type.

dare i say you dont read what ive been posting? you have addressed the role that ownership plays in conservation and to a lesser extent when it is ambiguous. i own a rental property, and can relate granularly to the difference between ownership and not, every time a tenant moves out. that point is simple and understood. i want you to feel warm about that, and fuzzy.

property rights dont present a case whereby the necessity for oversight is mitigated when situations escalate from conservation and maintenance of areas meant to be appreciated for their beauty (like homes and freeway shoulders), to mis-use and environmental hazard, such as what you might find if a heavy-industrial landowner occupied the same spot. corporations are entities unto themselves, and despite human control, they have an obligation to look past the motivations of your neighbors and voluteers, toward their profit.

cue the music..

i rented a plot of land in the hills over san diego for my business at the time. it was un-zoned/agri-zoned land i used to store warehouse shelves for sale. next door was this british guy who lived on a trailer and owned his land... this is the only time ive seen the EPA riding in , helicopters vests and guns... in addition to making his home, he piled up jaguars, mgs, triumphs... he had a brit-car graveyard and would export the parts back to the UK for dough.

the EPA has it that you've got to take precautions before you pile rusting metal leaking oil into the ground all around your property. they figured most people wouldnt want their front and back yard full of double-decker busses, and old british cars, much like your neighbors. they knew, however, that some people would fancy that lifestyle and that, being in charge of the environment, they should set some standards. i guess they'd wrote him some letters.

one morning, they came in their crown vics, with cops and fed agents, a helicopter and a paddywagon and took dude and his nephew to jail. they came with wreckers and tractor-trailers and removed the cars. the brit's trailer's sewage was plumbed to a hand-dug sess-pool outside his property line in the adjoining escondido easement area, a reserve around the natural rain-run-off established thousands of years before we came to town. they didnt like how my office trailer was plumbed, even though we didnt use the shower it had. they didnt like that i was painting racks and forklifts there, or that the ironworks folks next door painted their gates without a booth. the only folks who got seriously dinged were the brits, but it was an ass-kickin for them, the environment, and the relatively conscientious neighboring businesses.

alright, cut the music.

this wasnt about picking up trash, and the EPA doesnt trade too much in those concerns. this was about environmental impact on private property. asserting that private property per sa is a protection of the land is perhaps where your presumptions of human nature fail your argument, too.

 

[gslack]

please stop with the pussy shit about not reading posts, already. i've tried to stay jovial about it, but for some reason the sick up your ass has broken off to a sharp edge over the issue. reading and understanding the points you make is not some monumental task. you can rest assured that i read everything between the first and last word you type.

No ya didn't.... You just think you are so all-knowing you only glimpse at it... there is a difference between comprehension and assumption, and you tend to use the latter...

dare i say you dont read what ive been posting? you have addressed the role that ownership plays in conservation and to a lesser extent when it is ambiguous. i own a rental property, and can relate granularly to the difference between ownership and not, every time a tenant moves out. that point is simple and understood. i want you to feel warm about that, and fuzzy.

Well I am glad you want me to feel all warm and fuzzy... But disregarding what I post off-hand and lying or exaggerating what is said by me or by another to give the impression of a polarization to an extreme that was not implied or stated is not going to cut it...

property rights dont present a case whereby the necessity for oversight is mitigated when situations escalate from conservation and maintenance of areas meant to be appreciated for their beauty (like homes and freeway shoulders), to mis-use and environmental hazard, such as what you might find if a heavy-industrial landowner occupied the same spot. corporations are entities unto themselves, and despite human control, they have an obligation to look past the motivations of your neighbors and voluteers, toward their profit.

No one; I repeat again NO ONE here said anything like you are implying. No one said no regulation, no one said ownership negates all regulations or oversight..... Got that?

No one said that, that was what you claimed, not what dude or I said at all.. If you had actually read what I wrote you would realize this.... Or you did realize this, but you would rather be an azzhole and make this implication because its easier to fight... Either way you are being dishonest in what was said...

cue the music..

i rented a plot of land in the hills over san diego for my business at the time. it was un-zoned/agri-zoned land i used to store warehouse shelves for sale. next door was this british guy who lived on a trailer and owned his land... this is the only time ive seen the EPA riding in , helicopters vests and guns... in addition to making his home, he piled up jaguars, mgs, triumphs... he had a brit-car graveyard and would export the parts back to the UK for dough.

the EPA has it that you've got to take precautions before you pile rusting metal leaking oil into the ground all around your property. they figured most people wouldnt want their front and back yard full of double-decker busses, and old british cars, much like your neighbors. they knew, however, that some people would fancy that lifestyle and that, being in charge of the environment, they should set some standards. i guess they'd wrote him some letters.

one morning, they came in their crown vics, with cops and fed agents, a helicopter and a paddywagon and took dude and his nephew to jail. they came with wreckers and tractor-trailers and removed the cars. the brit's trailer's sewage was plumbed to a hand-dug sess-pool outside his property line in the adjoining escondido easement area, a reserve around the natural rain-run-off established thousands of years before we came to town. they didnt like how my office trailer was plumbed, even though we didnt use the shower it had. they didnt like that i was painting racks and forklifts there, or that the ironworks folks next door painted their gates without a booth. the only folks who got seriously dinged were the brits, but it was an ass-kickin for them, the environment, and the relatively conscientious neighboring businesses.

alright, cut the music.

That is an extreme case scenario correct? Yes it was and that was not what either dude or I was talking about.... That is the kind of thing the EPA is for, but the point dude was making was that some EPA regulations are redundant and made ineffective by the pressures of politics and activist groups.

Again you show your need to assign inaccurate and misleading claims of what we say or mean. Either you are a little weasel trying to do it on purpose because its a fight you can make, or you are so polarized in your own head you think any issue with the EPA is a complete opposition to all the EPA.

this wasnt about picking up trash, and the EPA doesnt trade too much in those concerns. this was about environmental impact on private property. asserting that private property per sa is a protection of the land is perhaps where your presumptions of human nature fail your argument, too.

Again you try and make it seem like we are in total opposition to any regulation in particular the EPA.... Are you a lobbyist? Seriously man, no one opposes some regulation please stop lying about that now....

When you are ready to debate what we say as opposed to what you want to bytch about let me know.....

 

[editec]

Depends upon the brand of "environmentalism" you're talking about.

That which usurps property rights in order to protect some rare mosquito is as overbearing and tyrannical as it gets.

Stupid laws are stupid...without doubt.

But the existence of stupid laws does not negate the worth of all laws.

Private property rights to not supercede society's right to protect itself.

If I want to open a pig farm in a city, that city has every right to decide that it is not in its interests to allow me to do so.

This isn't merely theoretical to me.

I own land upon which I cannot build.

Seems a shame, because the land would be an idea location for a home.

But it's only ideal because I am other cannot build close to the stream and wetlands near it.

If we all built homes near that steam and wetlands, then the specialness of that land would be lost.

Sometimes, when one lives in a society, the needs of the society are more important than yours are.

Sucks, but that's life.

 

[antagon]

I'm all for environmentalism, as long as those participating in the practice do so by managing their own piece of the environment.

... and i thought, that wont work from what ive seen...

Depends upon the brand of "environmentalism" you're talking about.

That which usurps property rights in order to protect some rare mosquito is as overbearing and tyrannical as it gets.

i dunno about mosquitos, but does this guy think that the whole country could just go about caring for the environment on their own accord? that people who spend their lives assessing environmental impact are somehow unqualified to raise concerns about environmental hazards on private property?

But there's probably next to zero evidence that you would accept that land owners know more than bureaucrats.

i guess so. this guy cant see the forest from the trees in his own neighborhood. it seems like he does believe landowners are so beneficent to the environment that they dont warrant scrutiny by a third party.

No, private property is the most sound environmental policy.

tough nut, this guy.

...After that the land has not been mowed by either of them again. Once every 6 months or so the owner sends a hedgehog out and its cleared, but thats it. The little plot has been let go and the thicket is out of control now making the land harder to sell.

The point in all of that is, both men felt an obligation to mow that area individually, for what ever reasons they had. but that obligation ended once they were awoken to the fact they had no say over that land. Now the land is let go and both men ignore the obvious eyesore because its not their responsibility and they have nothing to gain from it.

this is a neat story. its more about aesthetics and maintenance, than preventing damage to environments though. where the government has reserved land for nature, i dont think private owners would have the resources, wherewithal, consensus, education, time, motivation and intent to care for it like the government.

has this guy considered that there are more issues than lawn height and suburban neighborhoods at stake on a national scope?

That is the reality of private versus public property. On private the owners are motivated to either care for or rape that property by their own desires, wants or needs. On public all the care and or ill treatment of that property has to come by either mandate or by volunteers.
...

The reason is simple. People do not respond to mandates... You order someone to do something and it becomes a task. You ask them to do it and many will try and help out. Adopt a highway appeals to our good nature, while mandates and punishments appeal to our rebellious side.

well, i guess he has inasmuch as aesthetics and stewardship goes. he seems to say that appeals to good nature is the way to go, but mandates and laws throw a wrench in the mix. he couldnt actually believe that you could stop toxic dumpers and other criminals on this basis, or illicit compliance with best practices for the environment where homes or businesses are concerned, does he? better ask..

Did you actually read the post or just browse over a few topical sentences? I think you did the latter ... If you want a proper debate on this then you should at least give proper attention to the posts you dispute.

wtf?

You still refuse to actually read it? LOL, okay....

Again if you aren't going to take the time to read it honestly you are in fact not wanting a real debate on merit, but a nay-saying match.

gimme a break.

No one and I repeat NO ONE, says no oversight.. That was your attempt to oversimplify and dismiss what was said.

...i thought dude was clear about autonomy on his property this guy speaking for him seems to be a bit more reasonable, but freedom with oversight is the point i was making in the first place when i told dude:

"there's seeing that environmental policy has to take a seat at a table among many other concerns in our society, and then there's your take that property ownership will speak entirely on its behalf, and and be remotely effective at it. "​

and

"dude, the presumption is that landowners know more than bureaucrats. the bureaucrats leverage well-considered environmental policy giving reasonable breadth for landowners to do what is right. ideally, unless you are doing some flagrant environmental damage, there wouldn't be any oversight intervention. "​

maybe we dont really have an argument, that is, except for this post-reading sandy-snatch he's got.

YOU don't get it, because you didn't read it. And the most ridiculous part is after me pointing out you couldn't have from your responses, twice now, and you showing less and less understanding of it, you still haven't read it.... Thats lame seriously lame.....

this guy has a complex about this shit!

No ya didn't.... You just think you are so all-knowing you only glimpse at it... there is a difference between comprehension and assumption, and you tend to use the latter...

what a freak.
wait.. he's speaking for dude again...

That is an extreme case scenario correct? Yes it was and that was not what either dude or I was talking about.... That is the kind of thing the EPA is for, but the point dude was making was that some EPA regulations are redundant and made ineffective by the pressures of politics and activist groups.

i dont think that this guy appreciates how often shit like this happens. this is not extreme at all. this is just typical of what people do with land, waste and overconsumption. im starting to sound like an environmentalist freak, here, but maybe its the better side of the coin to be on than those who dont realize that people have a net negative impact on the environment they inhabit, and that it's important to have some force to check that those effects arent taken past a certain point.

i could tell him the story about the groundwater treatment plant i worked on when i worked for CDM, or the SNEA issue i had with parking my old trucks on my dirt lot a few months ago. he seems to like the stories. nah. i think we're on the same page afterall, and all he wants is a handjob for his contributions to the argument. better let it lay.