What is a Libertarian solution to the Great Lakes cleanup?

[Brian Defferding]

I just recently read that Obama and the feds are dumping billions of dollars to clean up the Great Lakes, to which many of it will be used to stop carp multiplying and spreading among its non-native areas.

http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2010/02/asian_carp_may_swallow_federal.html

I wanted to know: what is a good Libertarian solution to this issue - both the cleaning up part, and the carp issue? I would love to hear your thoughts.

[Bucjason]

Great Lakes restoration charity organizations , of course.

If you could get HALF as many movie stars to do a telethon for a cause in this country as we did for stupid Haiti , I'm sure you could raise a shit-load of money...

[fisharmor]

I wanted to know: what is a good Libertarian solution to this issue - both the cleaning up part, and the carp issue? I would love to hear your thoughts.

PRIVATIZATION.

Don't stop there. Privatize the oceans, too.
Sure, it would be overturning centuries of law. But it can't be worse than it is now.

[KAYA]

I just recently read that Obama and the feds are dumping billions of dollars to clean up the Great Lakes, to which many of it will be used to stop carp multiplying and spreading among its non-native areas.

http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2010/02/asian_carp_may_swallow_federal.html

I wanted to know: what is a good Libertarian solution to this issue - both the cleaning up part, and the carp issue? I would love to hear your thoughts.

Actually being that the Great Lakes are publicly owned waterways I would say its perfectly within the libertarian philosophy to allow the respective government jurisdictions to pay for the maintenance of its own property. Libertarians accept that the government does have a necessary but limited role and I would argue that maintenance of publicly owned waterways would fit such a role. Libertarians aren't anarchist.

Btw, anyone know if the US portion of the Great Lakes are considered to be federal or state waters?

[KAYA]

PRIVATIZATION.

Don't stop there. Privatize the oceans, too.
Sure, it would be overturning centuries of law. But it can't be worse than it is now.

Please tell me you're joking... Why don't we privatize the skies and patent H2O while we're at it?

[Elwar]

http://mises.org/journals/scholar/waterprivate.pdf

[pcosmar]

First off,
Do you know anything about the Great Lakes? (aside from present propaganda)

Secondly, Do you have any knowledge of Agenda 21?

Now do you understand that the Mississippi river (where the Carp problem is) and the Great lakes are not even connected?

There is no doubt going to be a lot of money given out to those that suck at the tit of the state.

[tmosley]

Please tell me you're joking... Why don't we privatize the skies and patent H2O while we're at it?

The Somalis are doing a good job of it.

There is nothing wrong with privatizing waterways, any more than it is wrong to privatize land. If you can lay a claim to it and defend it, it can and should be yours. If it becomes polluted, there is now an aggrieved party, and it can be settled in court.

People do, in fact, own the airspace above their land, up to a government mandated limit. This means you can't buzz residential neighborhoods with jet planes. There is no reason that they shouldn't be allowed to lay claim to airspace higher up, IF they can homestead it and defend it. This is currently impractical, but then, it was impractical for Europeans to settle America in the 12th century, but it happened eventually.

Patents are government force, and are not allowed under a libertarian system.

[pcosmar]

Btw, anyone know if the US portion of the Great Lakes are considered to be federal or state waters?

Agenda 21 is UN organized. It disregards sovereignty. :(

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?p=1449338

It has nothing to do with "clean up" . (the water is good to drink)
It has nothing to do with Carp, (a non problem )
It has to do with CONTROL.

[tmosley]

Come to think of it, a better system may be to simply have people claim the different areas of the ocean floor. They can buy and sell the ocean floor (or homestead/defend), and treat the water the same way we treat the air above our land. People are free to pass, but no dumping is allowed without permission, and pollution is an offense that allows for a lawsuit.

This really is a nasty problem that needs to be fixed. People currently blame overfishing and pollution of waterways on the free market, when it is actually the fault of socialism.

[constituent]

move somewhere else?

[Ethek]

With rights come responsibility. To use resources you must also have the responsibility to use them in a way. We are a society and currently there are rules society lives by. I am not for total privatization of everything. With privatization comes a monopoly on opportunity preventing people born in future generations from having outlets becuase they were born to late... so I take a track similiar to Paine that 'the commons' was not all bad. However there are definitely efficiencies that come from private property. Navigable waterways are a commons as is the air we breath. We all have a responsibility to treat them in a way that is non-polluting.


I would favor private accreditation agencies with an ISO 9001 process to prevent and open non-corporatist framework. The agencies would accredit business that show responsibility. Perhaps anyone else that wants to use 'commons' would be required to show open processes for using the commons and allow independent organizations to evaluate. If they are doing something negligent then they would be liable.

[KAYA]

First off,
Do you know anything about the Great Lakes? (aside from present propaganda)

Secondly, Do you have any knowledge of Agenda 21?

Now do you understand that the Mississippi river (where the Carp problem is) and the Great lakes are not even connected?

There is no doubt going to be a lot of money given out to those that suck at the tit of the state.

I think you misunderstood me. It was actually my intention to respond more to the broader question proposed by the title of this thread "What is a Libertarian solution to the Great Lakes cleanup?" not to any specific agenda item or proposed plan. No, I have no idea what the fed's current plans are for the Great Lakes and whether it is a legitimate activity or not but I didn't intend to comment on that specifically.

[pcosmar]

I just recently read that Obama and the feds are dumping billions of dollars to clean up the Great Lakes, to which many of it will be used to stop carp multiplying and spreading among its non-native areas.

.

WHAT CARP ?

Damn :(
Ask the simple questions first.
Answer. There is no Asian Carp problem in the Great Lakes.

Deductive Reasoning > this isn't about Carp.

[KAYA]

Come to think of it, a better system may be to simply have people claim the different areas of the ocean floor. They can buy and sell the ocean floor (or homestead/defend), and treat the water the same way we treat the air above our land. People are free to pass, but no dumping is allowed without permission, and pollution is an offense that allows for a lawsuit.

This really is a nasty problem that needs to be fixed. People currently blame overfishing and pollution of waterways on the free market, when it is actually the fault of socialism.

I'd say it the fault of the people who over fish and pollute.

[mediahasyou]

Allow people to claim portions of the great lakes as property.

[pcosmar]

I think you misunderstood me. It was actually my intention to respond more to the broader question proposed by the title of this thread "What is a Libertarian solution to the Great Lakes cleanup?" not to any specific agenda item or proposed plan. No, I have no idea what the fed's current plans are for the Great Lakes and whether it is a legitimate activity or not but I didn't intend to comment on that specifically.

Yes, but there is an assumption that a "clean up" is needed. When in fact the Lakes have been cleaned up.
The article posted is full of hype and misinformation to intended to misdirect.

The question (and thread title) should be,
What is the Libertarian solution to a non problem created to promote a Globalist Agenda?

[BenIsForRon]

I just recently read that Obama and the feds are dumping billions of dollars to clean up the Great Lakes, to which many of it will be used to stop carp multiplying and spreading among its non-native areas.

http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2010/02/asian_carp_may_swallow_federal.html

I wanted to know: what is a good Libertarian solution to this issue - both the cleaning up part, and the carp issue? I would love to hear your thoughts.

Have the waterways be government regulated. Either federally, or have a joint agreement between the concerned states and Canada.

I don't know what tmosley's talking about. If you owned part of Lake Erie, there is nothing you could do to your part of the lake that wouldn't have an effect on the other parts, except float on it.

So if you're going to be bringing boats in from the canal, or using them for any other industrial purpose, government regulations is the most feasible solution. Of course it has downsides, but I can't see a 50 million person "lake-owners association" being any more efficient.

[Ninja Homer]

Get rid of the EPA. The EPA tells corporations how much they are allowed to pollute into the Great Lakes. So down the road, if it's found that a corporation's pollution is screwing up people's land or water, then the people can't go back and sue the corporation because they did all their polluting legally.

The EPA is a gatekeeper that allows corporations to pollute and screw up the environment without penalty. The EPA does the exact opposite of what it's supposed to do.

So to answer the original question... not having an EPA would have prevented the problem from coming about in the first place. The solution to cleaning it up now is to get rid of the EPA, figure out who screwed up the Great Lakes, and then sue those people responsible for cleanup costs. I do realize that it would never play out that way right now because the responsible corporations would just move funds around, declare bankruptcy, and the actual people responsible for the mess probably wouldn't end up paying a dime, but I believe that would be the proper libertarian solution.

[Imperial]

Great Lakes restoration charity organizations , of course.

If you could get HALF as many movie stars to do a telethon for a cause in this country as we did for stupid Haiti , I'm sure you could raise a shit-load of money...

Wow, so when hundreds of thousands are left in devestation that is no real problem, but when our lakes are infested with some foreign fish suddenly its a CRISIS?

Talk about apathy.

[tmosley]

I'd say it the fault of the people who over fish and pollute.

Funny, my Uncle owned a HUGE hunting lease outside of San Antonio, and didn't once have a problem with overhunting, and certainly not with pollution.

How would you know that you are overfishing an area that doesn't belong to you? You don't know how much the other fishermen are bringing in, and you don't have an incentive to spend a bunch of money making the area more productive for fishing, as that would simply advantage those who DON'T spend any money on such things.

If you own it, you can lease it out to fishermen, and control the numbers that they remove, just like on a hunting lease. If some company dumps pollution, you can sue them.

It's not an issue of who's to blame, it's an issue of having someone LEGITIMATELY controlling the actions of others. The ONLY way to legitimately control the actions of others is through private property laws. If you attempt to handle it in any other way, you end up with either a socialist or fascist system, which will inevitably lead to collapse, because neither of those systems does a good job of allocating resources and policing use.

[Brian Defferding]

By the way, I live in Appleton, WI, and the Fox river which runs through the city derives from Lake Michigan. The Fox River has had carp in its lakes for decades. Ever since I was a baby, and probably for years before then. The carp was brought here from somewhere in China, and the owner dumped the carp into the Fox river. Now they are everywhere, and for the large part they are inedible unless someone feeds them a certain kind of food and puts them in cleaner waters.

I would not be surprised to hear if the carp has moved upstream to Lake Michigan and started multiplying prolifically there.

So yes, there is a carp problem, but obviously I don't think it's a government job to do it. A simple "privatization" term is nice, but there has to be a practical way to execute that, because it's water, not land, thus it's not as cut-and-dry as we would prefer it to be.

[pcosmar]

btw, I live in the Upper Peninsula of Michigan. less than 5 miles from the Lake Superior shoreline. I grew up on Lime Island on the St Mary's River.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carp

Various species of carp have been domesticated and reared as food fish across Europe and Asia for thousands of years. These various species appear to have been domesticated independently, as the various domesticated carp species are native to different parts of Eurasia. For example, the Common carp Cyprinus carpio are originally from Central Europe.[3] Several carp species (collectively known as Asian carp) were domesticated in East Asia. Carp that are originally from South Asia, for example catla (Gibelion catla), rohu (Labeo rohita) and mrigal (Cirrhinus cirrhosus), are known as Indian carp. Their hardiness and adaptability have allowed domesticated species to be propagated all around the world.

We have always been at war with East Asia.

Carp Fishing USA
http://www.carp-usa.info/

http://seagrant.wisc.edu/greatlakesfish/carp.html

For centuries, Old World fish farmers have esteemed the carp as an easily domesticated food fish, so immigrant farmers welcomed these familiar fish when the U.S. Fish Commission first brought them to North America in the late 1800s.

But the carp soon left the farm for the continent's open lakes and streams. As a result, the carp harvest from the Great Lakes has grown steadily since the first recorded catch in 1893. They inhabit shallow, weedy shorelines, particularly along the southeastern end of Lake Michigan and in lower Green Bay, where they are extremely abundant.

:cool:

[silverhandorder]

Americans hate carp for no reason. In my experience a lot of people think it is unclean meat when it is perfectly normal fish.

Anyways my solution to this is to first to identify if the effort is worth it and if it is a problem. Ofcourse because of my kind of thinking private system might buckle at the weight of stopping such dissaster if it is in fact a dissaster.

I think ultimately the green movement should be able to weild the capital that is required to combat this problem. If they can't then it is indictive of how little people care about it. And if such is the case the wise government deciding for us is something that should turn off everyone. Starting with libertarians and ending with 51% moral majority democrats.

[LibForestPaul]

So yes, there is a carp problem, but obviously I don't think it's a government job to do it. A simple "privatization" term is nice, but there has to be a practical way to execute that, because it's water, not land, thus it's not as cut-and-dry as we would prefer it to be.


China to release 20m carp into lake
Authorities started using fish to try to clean up the lake in February last year when they released 10 million mostly green and silver carp into the water, after the algae tainted the drinking supply of millions of residents.

-One mans problem is another mans solution apparently.


Che Jiahu, a local fisheries official in Zhongmiao, a small town North of Lake Chaohu, isn't worried about what to do with the fish; the Chinese have always been carp eaters.

In the United States, Mike Schafer, owner of Schafer Fisheries in Thomson, Ill., declared he sold more than 900 tons of silver carp annually to Asian American communities in New York, Chicago and California.

-People actually buying, selling, and utilizing carp.

[pcosmar]

-One mans problem is another mans solution apparently.


-People actually buying, selling, and utilizing carp.

YUP.

As a result, the carp harvest from the Great Lakes has grown steadily since the first recorded catch in 1893.

So then we have eliminated the Non-Problem.
The only thing left is getting Libertarian support for the UN takeover of the Great Lakes. :rolleyes:

[Brian Defferding]

Yeah, carp selling is a perfect solution. The problem is that there isn't enough carp farmers yet (yet) to catch and harvest them all to put them under control, and of course the public will probably think it then means the market has "failed." (I hope I'm wrong here)

[BenIsForRon]

Brian, don't forget about invasive species that have no economic value. Who's going to spend their money trying to control those? Maybe a conservation organization, but if the ships that are inadvertently bringing in the invasive species are making more money in their trade, then its just straight up not economical. Enter regulation.

Thomas Paine said government is a necessary evil, and I think that applies to this situation. It's up to the citizens at that point to ensure it is effectively executed.

[silverhandorder]

Ben if citizens care about protecting environement they do not need a government to organize.

[pcosmar]

Brian, don't forget about invasive species that have no economic value. Who's going to spend their money trying to control those? Maybe a conservation organization, but if the ships that are inadvertently bringing in the invasive species are making more money in their trade, then its just straight up not economical. Enter regulation.

Thomas Paine said government is a necessary evil, and I think that applies to this situation. It's up to the citizens at that point to ensure it is effectively executed.

:confused:

For centuries, Old World fish farmers have esteemed the carp as an easily domesticated food fish, so immigrant farmers welcomed these familiar fish when the U.S. Fish Commission first brought them to North America in the late 1800s.

What Ships?
Or do you mean the ficticous ships coming from the Mississippi River into the Great Lakes???

This bullshit story is so full of holes you could drive the Stewart J. Cort (http://www.boatnerd.com/pictures/fleet/cort.htm) through it.

[BenIsForRon]

There are other types of invasive species, like the Zebra Mussel, that got imported through ships.

I would like see the USFWS cut out of the recreation engineering business myself, and have them just stick to preservation.

[BenIsForRon]

Ben if citizens care about protecting environement they do not need a government to organize.

I answered this question in my post. The industries with the ships make a lot of money, so the concerned citizens may not be able to afford to pay them to change their practices.

Government regulation would force them to do something different with their ballast water.

[pcosmar]

The Only "Invasive Species" in the Great Lakes that is any problem is the Sea Lamprey.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_lamprey

It has been a problem through my whole lifetime and before. They travel down the St Laurence Seaway. On their own.
It is a widely known and long fought pest.

[silverhandorder]

I answered this question in my post. The industries with the ships make a lot of money, so the concerned citizens may not be able to afford to pay them to change their practices.

Government regulation would force them to do something different with their ballast water.

And the same industries can thwart these citizens by lobbying government. They have more resources as you said and I bet they would also be more organized. Otherwise we would not see EPA allowing corporations to dump waste into waterways.

Neither system is perfect but one does not use coercion.

In the mean time I doubt it is the greatest problem to tackled on right now. As opposed to wars and deficit spending.

[BenIsForRon]

Neither system is perfect but one does not use coercion.


Yes, but the government (coercion) system allows a smaller amount of money to a longer way (in that the people can tell the polluters that they will throw them in jail if they don't comply). Of course, this requires an informed populace.

And of course, once you have an adequately informed populace, in the long run you shouldn't really need government...

It's funny how all these issues go back to fighting ignorance.

[pcosmar]

Yes, but the government (coercion) system allows a smaller amount of money to a longer way (in that the people can tell the polluters that they will throw them in jail if they don't comply). .

:eek::eek:
Assumes Facts Not In Evidence.

[BenIsForRon]

:eek::eek:
Assumes Facts Not In Evidence.

The Clean Air Act has improved air quality. If we prosecuted all polluters for polluting at all, it would halt industry. Therefore, the Clean Air Act is a necessary (in my opinion) compromise.

[pcosmar]

The Clean Air Act has improved air quality. If we prosecuted all polluters for polluting at all, it would halt industry. Therefore, the Clean Air Act is a necessary (in my opinion) compromise.

However the Cost has not been small (as you had asserted) Both in bureaucracy (tax dollars), Jobs lost and manufacturing plants relocating, etc.

It seems that the market could have done the same (had it been allowed to work), without the net negitive effects.

[LibForestPaul]

Brian, don't forget about invasive species that have no economic value. Who's going to spend their money trying to control those? Maybe a conservation organization, but if the ships that are inadvertently bringing in the invasive species are making more money in their trade, then its just straight up not economical. Enter regulation.


If I own the water as private property, I am going to allow ships to inadvertently bring in invasive species, or, will they have to be bonded and inspected and follow my rules to ensure that my industries that i have built upon my private property are not harmed?

[pcosmar]

If I own the water as private property, I am going to allow ships to inadvertently bring in invasive species, or, will they have to be bonded and inspected and follow my rules to ensure that my industries that i have built upon my private property are not harmed?

In a closed system that may be possible.
Of course that is nowhere near reality.

Fact, the Great Lakes are connected to the ocean, by the St Laurence. Nature is not contained.
Sea Lampreys (and likely others) travel on their own through the water.

Now if you want to regulate nature,,,,

[silverhandorder]

Yes, but the government (coercion) system allows a smaller amount of money to a longer way (in that the people can tell the polluters that they will throw them in jail if they don't comply). Of course, this requires an informed populace.

And of course, once you have an adequately informed populace, in the long run you shouldn't really need government...

It's funny how all these issues go back to fighting ignorance.

Slavery works too for the guy owning the slaves. We still advocate abolition in that case no?

I don't see how you can claim what we have now as working. Before EPA english common law settle most disputes and we did not have poluted rivers (paper industry) or polluted farm land (rail roads). So how has EPA really improved anything? These functions were already being addressed by the current system.

The conundrum is that you don't want majority to suffer because a small minority wants progress yet you advocate elitist ideas that majority does not know any better so we have to have select few elite bereucrats deciding on the standards.

[silverhandorder]

In a closed system that may be possible.
Of course that is nowhere near reality.

Fact, the great Lakes are connected to the ocean, by the St Laurence. Nature is not contained.
Sea Lampreys (and likely others) travel on their own through the water.

Now if you want to regulate nature,,,,

That is a different problem from intentional damage.

[pcosmar]

That is a different problem from intentional damage.

And yet, That is what this is about, to large degree.
The lakes were cleaned up years ago, due largely to public interest and action.

This is just a power grab by the UN and Global interests. It is a play on fears based on fiction.

[BenIsForRon]

However the Cost has not been small (as you had asserted) Both in bureaucracy (tax dollars), Jobs lost and manufacturing plants relocating, etc.

It seems that the market could have done the same (had it been allowed to work), without the net negitive effects.

The only way the market itself could stop pollutions is if people stopped buying stuff from polluters. It would be great if that happened, but in the mean time, eliminating the Clean Air Act would not be helpful.


If I own the water as private property, I am going to allow ships to inadvertently bring in invasive species, or, will they have to be bonded and inspected and follow my rules to ensure that my industries that i have built upon my private property are not harmed?

Here's the thing, some people care about the ecosystem, not so much the industry. The invasive species do more damage to the ecosystem, and only effect industry if its something like fishing. Drilling for oil would not be affected.

There could be lasting repercussions for permanently altering the ecosystem, so it is best to try to preserve it.


Slavery works too for the guy owning the slaves. We still advocate abolition in that case no?

I don't see how you can claim what we have now as working. Before EPA english common law settle most disputes and we did not have poluted rivers (paper industry) or polluted farm land (rail roads). So how has EPA really improved anything? These functions were already being addressed by the current system.

The conundrum is that you don't want majority to suffer because a small minority wants progress yet you advocate elitist ideas that majority does not know any better so we have to have select few elite bereucrats deciding on the standards.

I'm trying to reconcile the fact that we already have massive amounts of industry and the fact that we want to preserve our environment. Environmental regulation is the best way I can see to protect the environment without abolishing industry. The EPA, ideally, is the way we make compromise in this complex society.

[silverhandorder]

And yet, That is what this is about, to large degree.
The lakes were cleaned up years ago, due largely to public interest and action.

This is just a power grab by the UN and Global interests. It is a play on fears based on fiction.

Ok that has nothing to do with what I said.


The only way the market itself could stop pollutions is if people stopped buying stuff from polluters. It would be great if that happened, but in the mean time, eliminating the Clean Air Act would not be helpful.
And all the people that vote democrat just going to roll over and take it? Either people care about clean air or people do not. If they do then there will be clean air in w/e system you go with. If they do not then we will have problems in both. In free market it will open disregard and in government system it will be what we have now. Where people have lisences to pollute.



Here's the thing, some people care about the ecosystem, not so much the industry. The invasive species do more damage to the ecosystem, and only effect industry if its something like fishing. Drilling for oil would not be affected.

Drilling oil does not introduce invassive species atleast as far as I know. Depending on how far you willing to take libertanism drilling oil would probbaly not be allowed to pollute adjacent water ways under english common law anyways.


There could be lasting repercussions for permanently altering the ecosystem, so it is best to try to preserve it.
Uh yeah... No one says otherwise.



I'm trying to reconcile the fact that we already have massive amounts of industry and the fact that we want to preserve our environment. Environmental regulation is the best way I can see to protect the environment without abolishing industry. The EPA, ideally, is the way we make compromise in this complex society.

Paper mills did not disappear neither will other industries. They will adapt.

[mczerone]

Please tell me you're joking... Why don't we privatize the skies and patent H2O while we're at it?

What's wrong with allowing specific airlines to define and protect their own routes?

And Patents aren't property to begin with, so your second rhetorical suggestion is off the mark.

You must be joking if you think that the government should be trusted managing the largest freshwater lake system in the world, even if the thieves currently use their monopoly to prevent anyone else from taking ownership of what they actually do use of the lakes.

Even with the broad definition of "Libertarian", I don't see how one could excuse the government for owning property of its own when its role should merely be the "neutral observer" protecting the property of the citizens.

[BenIsForRon]

What's wrong with allowing specific airlines to define and protect their own routes?

And Patents aren't property to begin with, so your second rhetorical suggestion is off the mark.

You must be joking if you think that the government should be trusted managing the largest freshwater lake system in the world, even if the thieves currently use their monopoly to prevent anyone else from taking ownership of what they actually do use of the lakes.

Even with the broad definition of "Libertarian", I don't see how one could excuse the government for owning property of its own when its role should merely be the "neutral observer" protecting the property of the citizens.

Government provides ground rules for use of the lake. Many different factions have many different opinions on how it should be treated.

Government acts (in theory) as a neutral observer in this regard, by banning certain destructive practices.

[reardenstone]

Please tell me you're joking... Why don't we privatize the skies and patent H2O while we're at it?

Oh why not?
Then I can test my air quality and when it becomes polluted by the plastics company down the road, I can sue them for infringing on my air!
This is a way around protecting the environment without the government.

The ludicrous would be to charge for air access when people step onto any other land besides their own.
However, some rights of flyover access are defensible.

You are right: Libertarians can be minarchist as opposed to total anarchists.
I can define minarchism but I can't define anarchism when it has both communists and anarcho-capitalists as advocates.

[reardenstone]

However the Cost has not been small (as you had asserted) Both in bureaucracy (tax dollars), Jobs lost and manufacturing plants relocating, etc.

It seems that the market could have done the same (had it been allowed to work), without the net negitive effects.


I am interested in learning what original motivation the markets would have had without an EPA clean air act?

Air is a ubiquitous resource that circulates around the atmosphere. We can't "contain" air to one location but pollution can be localized but eventually disperses out into outlying regions and later as aerosols in the atmosphere. If the EPA and it's aim had a detrimental effect on industry, what would have been the market incentive to clean up air?

This is the same situation we have with waterways and oceans. One person's pollution will one day end up in my waterway or air.

I want to be open to believing, but what is wrong with a minimum of necessary evils and a rule of law that protects individual rights?

[heavenlyboy34]

Funny, my Uncle owned a HUGE hunting lease outside of San Antonio, and didn't once have a problem with overhunting, and certainly not with pollution.

How would you know that you are overfishing an area that doesn't belong to you? You don't know how much the other fishermen are bringing in, and you don't have an incentive to spend a bunch of money making the area more productive for fishing, as that would simply advantage those who DON'T spend any money on such things.

If you own it, you can lease it out to fishermen, and control the numbers that they remove, just like on a hunting lease. If some company dumps pollution, you can sue them.

It's not an issue of who's to blame, it's an issue of having someone LEGITIMATELY controlling the actions of others. The ONLY way to legitimately control the actions of others is through private property laws. If you attempt to handle it in any other way, you end up with either a socialist or fascist system, which will inevitably lead to collapse, because neither of those systems does a good job of allocating resources and policing use.

qft! :cool:

[BenIsForRon]

qft! :cool:

His uncle land wasn't heavily used for trade and industry. Apples and oranges.

[silverhandorder]

I am interested in learning what original motivation the markets would have had without an EPA clean air act?

Air is a ubiquitous resource that circulates around the atmosphere. We can't "contain" air to one location but pollution can be localized but eventually disperses out into outlying regions and later as aerosols in the atmosphere. If the EPA and it's aim had a detrimental effect on industry, what would have been the market incentive to clean up air?

This is the same situation we have with waterways and oceans. One person's pollution will one day end up in my waterway or air.

I want to be open to believing, but what is wrong with a minimum of necessary evils and a rule of law that protects individual rights?

English common law before EPA was great. You take some one to court and prove their waste has harmed your livelihood and then they must pay reparations. It's not a perfect system but it insured that the perpetrators had to make things right.

It lead to high standards in paper mill industry because no one would ensure them otherwise. It saved many people from growing cities trying to dump their waste into nearby ecosystems.

[Bucjason]

Wow, so when hundreds of thousands are left in devestation that is no real problem, but when our lakes are infested with some foreign fish suddenly its a CRISIS?

Talk about apathy.

It's a crisis for Haiti, not for us.

My tax dollars are not collected in order to bail-out every OTHER country that gets into a jam, it's for essential services in MY country.

It's called non-interventionism , last I checked.

I'm all for people giving to Haiti charity to help out , I am NOT for the government sending money, to Haiti OR the Great lakes. That's what charity is for. Especially when we are trillions in debt.

My point was ...if you can get all of Hollywood together to raise money to send to some third-world dictator, who is going to build a few shacks and then keep and embezzle the rest of the money for himself, you could probably get a few together for a Great lakes Cause also.

[johnrocks]

Some things that are so messed up due to government intervention or long term neglect just doesn't have a "libertarian solution" .

[Ninja Homer]

English common law before EPA was great. You take some one to court and prove their waste has harmed your livelihood and then they must pay reparations. It's not a perfect system but it insured that the perpetrators had to make things right.

It lead to high standards in paper mill industry because no one would ensure them otherwise. It saved many people from growing cities trying to dump their waste into nearby ecosystems.

The beauty of it is that if industries just have the fear of having to pay reparations for their polluting, then they'll figure out how to not pollute in the first place. Cleaning the air, land, and water after the fact costs a hell of a lot more.

One of the biggest problems is allowing corporations to have the rights of people, and yet they can be dissolved and the actual people behind the corporation are not held responsible for their actions.

[fisharmor]

English common law before EPA was great. You take some one to court and prove their waste has harmed your livelihood and then they must pay reparations. It's not a perfect system but it insured that the perpetrators had to make things right.

We should also mention that common law also tends to focus on restitution or reparations. AFAIK in common law, justice is generally not seen as a method of "getting even", but a method of making things right.

We're so accustomed at this point to the idea of spiking trees and letting lab rats loose that we've lost sight of what justice is in a lot of cases. Justice isn't always about executions and life sentences for smoking a joint. Sometimes people can do actual wrong to another, make up for it, and move on.

If libertarians are going to discuss environment, we should probably mention that we're generally not convinced of the great cosmic sin in trying to better our lives at some expense to nature. We focus instead on being good stewards of nature. And as we see it, harsh punishment for damaging nature isn't doing such a great job, and neither is stealing money to pay for nature's "upkeep".

[pcosmar]

It's the Pax The G-23 Paxilon Hydrochlorate that we added to the air processors. ...


Y'all got on this boat for different reasons, but y'all come to the same place. So now I'm asking more of you than I have before. Maybe all. Sure as I know anything, I know this - they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin'. I aim to misbehave.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds:

This is what this is about.
There is no environmental problem in the Great Lakes that requires or justifies this expenditure.
This is nothing other than who will control the water, and it is fueled by people that are looking to profit from the tax dollars.

You can argue semantics, and philosophy, but this is the bottom line. :(

[noxagol]

Simple, sell the lakes and let the new owners deal with it how they see fit.

[pcosmar]

Simple, sell the lakes and let the new owners deal with it how they see fit.

Who get to claim "ownership" in order to sell it?

Might as well sell the planet Earth. Let the new owners decide. :rolleyes:

[Brian Defferding]

I just want to point out that this is a good discussion so far. Just don't demonize other people's point of view and try to avoid the snark (this doesn't apply to anyone in particular, just a general statement).

[tmosley]

His uncle land wasn't heavily used for trade and industry. Apples and oranges.

It has several major highways going through it. Apples and apples.

Also, a good portion of it was used for agriculture, as I remember now. But he never let the farmers use so much fertilizer that it mucked up the streams that were used by the wildlife.

[tmosley]

Who get to claim "ownership" in order to sell it?

Might as well sell the planet Earth. Let the new owners decide. :rolleyes:

Homesteading works quite well, and it has since the beginning of time, right up until all the big governments of yesteryear decided to get together and say that no-one could own property on the high seas, or in Antarctica. Big governments like to halt progress, you see.

[pcosmar]

snark·y
   /ˈsnɑrki/ [snahr-kee]
–adjective,snark·i·er, snark·i·est. Chiefly British Slang.
testy or irritable; short.


Well, I am full of snark, but I live here. I am fighting this on my home front.

I am not an anarchist nor am I a socialist. That seems to be that two main positions here.
I am an Angry American, I tend to be libertarian leaning (more so since meeting Dr. Paul).

Anything to do with the Lakes is a local issue, and should be handled locally. Not dictated from Washington D.C. and especially not by the UN.
Cooperative agreements with our foreign neighbor are good, and there has been some in the past
There have been reforms and clean up done at the local levels.
This UN backed Agenda 21 BULLSHIT will be fought and resisted.
I like to hunt and fish, It i in my interest to preserve that. Having my private well metered and monitored is not.
Having the lakes drained to another part of the country is NOT.
Having the local economy and industry killed off by outside influences is NOT.

But that is exactly what is happening.
:mad: