Call me Crazy, but...

[Raul08]

As long as recycling efforts and conservation are not dictated by the government and we are given no option, what is so wrong about conserving resources and managing our waste and inefficiencies better? I don't understand the harsh outcry on these forums against programs and movements that would be seem beneficial to humankind as a whole.

I respect rights to do what you want. But I see no problem in those who wish to conserve and use products that do not pollute our earth.

Landfills that can pollute our ground water, and take thousands of years to decompose, while at the same time holding massive amounts of unsafe chemical components seems like a danger to every community that has to deal with them.

Therefore, it WOULD seem like it would be in the best interest of communities to deal with waste and pollution.
These conditions aren't exactly healthy and those trying to remedy the situation are not necessarily 'in' on the whole NWO thing, but instead are concerned citizens trying to make our world a cleaner more efficient one.
I don't care if you don't want to recycle or pressure companies to be more 'green'.
But it seems like any conservation method is being attacked constantly and labeled as part of a conspiracy.

However, let me state again that laws that force people to do certain things or buy a certain product are wrong. I am not here to debate the legitimacy of global warming due to the recent uncovering of emails.
I just think some of the harsh retaliation against the green movement is a little silly.

Don't fight the public programs, fight the laws that limit our freedom.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

As long as recycling efforts and conservation are not dictated by the government and we are given no option, what is so wrong about conserving resources and managing our waste and inefficiencies better? I don't understand the harsh outcry on these forums against programs and movements that would be seem beneficial to humankind as a whole.

I respect rights to do what you want. But I see no problem in those who wish to conserve and use products that do not pollute our earth.

Landfills that can pollute our ground water, and take thousands of years to decompose, while at the same time holding massive amounts of unsafe chemical components seems like a danger to every community that has to deal with them.

Therefore, it WOULD seem like it would be in the best interest of communities to deal with waste and pollution.
These conditions aren't exactly healthy and those trying to remedy the situation are not necessarily 'in' on the whole NWO thing, but instead are concerned citizens trying to make our world a cleaner more efficient one.
I don't care if you don't want to recycle or pressure companies to be more 'green'.
But it seems like any conservation method is being attacked constantly and labeled as part of a conspiracy.

However, let me state again that laws that force people to do certain things or buy a certain product are wrong. I am not here to debate the legitimacy of global warming due to the recent uncovering of emails.
I just think some of the harsh retaliation against the green movement is a little silly.

Don't fight the public programs, fight the laws that limit our freedom.

If we had Laissez-Faire and a State/No State that didn't protect these Corps. pollution wouldn't be a problem. Do you know what the businessman of the 19th Century did? They went out and took the "garbage" of their competitors and used it to reduce prices on their own products. That's what entrepreneuers would be doing, but as it is today the State largely conducts most garbage collection and doesn't care what happens. In a private society where private interests conduct garbage collection they would indubidly have deals with local businesses for this purpose.

So, again, none of us are against environmentalism, but we are clearly against the current aims of the green movement. They do seek to use laws, force, coercion, eugenics, etc. Look at what they are doing in California. Look at the Global Warming faux-movement. These people don't even understand that the State protects the interests of the Corporations and we aren't allowed to sue for damages to our property. It's asinine.

[UnReconstructed]

The problem isn't taking care of the planet, the problem is thinking that the state can do it. Resources flourish when someone owns it, takes responsibility for it and can profit from it. Under the state, no one owns it therefore no one is responsible. Since no one owns it, no one can profit and therefore there is no incentive to maintain the resources.

Also consider how successful the state is in all it's other laws and programs. Private ownership is the answer and not the commons.

[Raul08]

The problem isn't taking care of the planet, the problem is thinking that the state can do it. Resources flourish when someone owns it, takes responsibility for it and can profit from it. Under the state, no one owns it therefore no one is responsible. Since no one owns it, no one can profit and therefore there is no incentive to maintain the resources.

Also consider how successful the state is in all it's other laws and programs. Private ownership is the answer and not the commons.

I don't think the state can do it.

I'm arguing against all the resentment I've heard against every type of program, state programs I fully understand resentment toward, however non profit groups and the like that are run by individuals with a real motivation to help their communities are falling under attack too.

This is what I disagree with.

[V4Vendetta]

Not only did this video challenge my idea that recycling - even if global warming is a hoax, is still a good thing... It changed my mind.

Recorded at the Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama; 20 November 2009. Sponsored by Jeremy S. Davis.


The Economics of Recycling
YouTube - The Economics of Recycling (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PndeWksuTjg)

[The Deacon]

I remember reading somewhere that recycling is extremely inefficient. Most of the time it isn't even worth the energy consumption it takes to pick up the materials, IIRC.

[V4Vendetta]

I remember reading somewhere that recycling is extremely inefficient. Most of the time it isn't even worth the energy consumption it takes to pick up the materials, IIRC.

Correct... that and a few other details make recycling a moot cause, in fact, make it a damaging issue to the economy, and environment.

[UnReconstructed]

I don't think the state can do it.

I'm arguing against all the resentment I've heard against every type of program, state programs I fully understand resentment toward, however non profit groups and the like that are run by individuals with a real motivation to help their communities are falling under attack too.

This is what I disagree with.

What program that does not involve the state? The majority of the people here want to make a profit and they want to keep it. If these incentives that you have in mind evolve from the market then the market will dictate whether or not the idea is a success. People will benefit and conservation, real conservation, benefits people.

[jack555]

[QUOTE=Raul08;2433655]As long as recycling efforts and conservation are not dictated by the government and we are given no option, what is so wrong about conserving resources and managing our waste and inefficiencies better? QUOTE]



nothing, its completely libertarian. shout it loud.

If I am not mistaken more ppl die from pollution related lung illnesses than car accidents in Southern California.


edit- You should read Dr. Pauls writings on the subject. Responsibility lies with the people polluting (the companies etc). Government does need to be involved but ONLY TO PROTECT PROPERTY RIGHTS (make sure no one is polluting your property).

[Oyate]

Raul, I don't think you understand how private property rights are derived from personal rights in our understanding. Somebody telling us what to do with our garbage on our property (or fining us for not listening) is an offense to this on a basic level. Not to mention that we are taxed for running these programs without our consent.

However, I'm pretty environmentally minded and I'll admit our movement (not to mention the Constitution) has a pretty big gap where this is concerned, particularly with the worst pollution--industrial. The best we can come up with is to sue the polluter in civil court if you can prove the polluter actually damaged you or your property. My point is "so go ahead and sue Union Carbide, Dow Chemical, General Electric or any other of the major offenders. Watch how many dozens of lawyers they assign to little old you and your little civil action.

Meanwhile the rivers and waterways are getting contaminated with mercury (don't eat the fish) and when was the last time people felt comfortable drinking from an open water source? We watch athsma, lead poisoning and childhood diseases concentrating in urban and industrial areas and kind of say "gee". Yeah. There's more to environmentalism than Snowy White Owls and the NWO but you really wouldn't know it here.

[tremendoustie]

As long as recycling efforts and conservation are not dictated by the government and we are given no option, what is so wrong about conserving resources and managing our waste and inefficiencies better? I don't understand the harsh outcry on these forums against programs and movements that would be seem beneficial to humankind as a whole.

I respect rights to do what you want. But I see no problem in those who wish to conserve and use products that do not pollute our earth.

Landfills that can pollute our ground water, and take thousands of years to decompose, while at the same time holding massive amounts of unsafe chemical components seems like a danger to every community that has to deal with them.

Therefore, it WOULD seem like it would be in the best interest of communities to deal with waste and pollution.
These conditions aren't exactly healthy and those trying to remedy the situation are not necessarily 'in' on the whole NWO thing, but instead are concerned citizens trying to make our world a cleaner more efficient one.
I don't care if you don't want to recycle or pressure companies to be more 'green'.
But it seems like any conservation method is being attacked constantly and labeled as part of a conspiracy.

However, let me state again that laws that force people to do certain things or buy a certain product are wrong. I am not here to debate the legitimacy of global warming due to the recent uncovering of emails.
I just think some of the harsh retaliation against the green movement is a little silly.

Don't fight the public programs, fight the laws that limit our freedom.

I agree with your general sentiment, but disagree with some of the way you word it. I absolutely support green efforts, including recycling, and alternative energies, if the money and cooperation is obtained voluntarily. So, green business, charity, cooperatives -- all great. A friend of mine, for example, is part of a local land conservation group that buys property for the sake of preserving it.

The problem for me comes when you refer to "public programs". Public, aka government programs are funded by force, so they do constitute a violation of property rights and a limitation of freedom.

In summary -- environmentalist efforts are great. Government efforts are not great -- they, at their core, all rely on the threat of violence.

[YumYum]

Burning old tires? I love watching old tires burn. That black smoke belching into the sky; the sizzling rubber; the heat. If its on my property and they are my tires I should be able to burn all the tires I want. Legally, I own the air space above my property and as a long as the wind doesn't blow it away I haven't hurt anybody. We should rid this planet of all the used tires by burning them. Fuck the ozone.

[Oyate]

Burning old tires? I love watching old tires burn. That black smoke belching into the sky; the sizzling rubber; the heat. If its on my property and they are my tires I should be able to burn all the tires I want. Legally, I own the air space above my property and as a long as the wind doesn't blow it away I haven't hurt anybody. We should rid this planet of all the used tires by burning them. Fuck the ozone.

Yeah there's no such thing as the atmosphere anyway. Al Gore made up all that crap about "respiration".

[Akus]

As long as recycling efforts and conservation are not dictated by the government and we are given no option, what is so wrong about conserving resources and managing our waste and inefficiencies better? I don't understand the harsh outcry on these forums against programs and movements that would be seem beneficial to humankind as a whole.

I respect rights to do what you want. But I see no problem in those who wish to conserve and use products that do not pollute our earth.

Landfills that can pollute our ground water, and take thousands of years to decompose, while at the same time holding massive amounts of unsafe chemical components seems like a danger to every community that has to deal with them.

Therefore, it WOULD seem like it would be in the best interest of communities to deal with waste and pollution.
These conditions aren't exactly healthy and those trying to remedy the situation are not necessarily 'in' on the whole NWO thing, but instead are concerned citizens trying to make our world a cleaner more efficient one.
I don't care if you don't want to recycle or pressure companies to be more 'green'.
But it seems like any conservation method is being attacked constantly and labeled as part of a conspiracy.

However, let me state again that laws that force people to do certain things or buy a certain product are wrong. I am not here to debate the legitimacy of global warming due to the recent uncovering of emails.
I just think some of the harsh retaliation against the green movement is a little silly.

Don't fight the public programs, fight the laws that limit our freedom.
Our monetary policy overhaul would solve about 70-80% of our environmental woes, as $ would be backed by gold not oil. What sense does it make to really get going on the alternative energies such as sun and wind when oil runs the finances, the bloodflow of the America (read:world)?

If government were your friend that problem would be if not solved, at the very least, openly talked about from podiums with the Presidential seal on them.

[Vessol]

The state didn't care about the environment until they saw the money in it. Even then, they didn't care about it, they just want to exploit worry about it.

The environmentalist movement has been hijacked. It isn't about scientists working towards sustainability, the government and the corporations that push them, and destroy projects like this. It's about taxes and less individual rights.

Developing nuclear energy(the best placeholder for now, clean and very efficient), the development of electric cars, geo-thermal energy, effective solar energy.

The free market and entrepreneurs were pushing this years ago and are still pushing this, but the big names in the government and the big pushers in the government won't allow it.

[Promontorium]

If I am not mistaken more ppl die from pollution related lung illnesses than car accidents in Southern California.



That claim sounds absolutely absurd. First of all, what's Southern California? There's no pollution in San Diego! (except when it's on fire). L.A. is certainly one of the most polluted cities I can think of in California, so I looked up stats on that:

Los Angeles County
Leading causes of premature death 2003:

1. Coronary heart disease
2. Homicide
3. Motor vehicle crash
4. Suicide
5. Lung cancer
6. Drug overdose
7. Liver disease
8. Stroke
9. Diabetes
10. HIV

http://www.laalmanac.com/vitals/vi14b.htm


Even if all deaths by lung cancer were the result of pollution, it wouldn't beat car accidents.





For anyone who thinks government recycling is a good idea, check out Penn and Teller's Bullshit! episode "Recycling".

[V4Vendetta]

pwned