Would you support taxing corporations that dump waste into public rivers to pay for cleaning the public rivers? I know that the best way is to privatize the river but we are taking public property as a given here.
Same also goes for roads. Roads are public so would you support some kind of intervention like subsidies for car companies to go green or taxing smoke belchers?
Taxing? I think the correct term would be to fine the corporation that's dumping toxic waste.
40 years ago waste was dumped in the Elizabeth River in VA by some logging companies (if I'm correct), and I think the local government just recently (in the past year) got around to cleaning the rivers. There's literally toxic "goo" in the bed of the river, and it's toxic enough that some diver who was diving to retrieve his Rolex watch got "welts" on his face (only uncovered area due to the scuba gear he was wearing).
From experience government is just enefficent, and their intervention is counter-productive. To quote Walter Block, "If it doesn't move, privatize it; if it does move, privatize it...".
So your against fining the corporation on the basis that government is inefficient at cleaning the river? You'd be okay with that diver having welches on his/her face? Are you okay with ever increasing pollution in the roads and rivers since they will never be privatized. Remember, I said the money to clean the river comes from the collected fines and not the general public. Even if it's inefficient, at least there is some effort in cleaning it.
Do you think a company would have an incentive to keep a river clean if it was a portion of river that they owned?
I would let those affected decide for themselves if and how they would want to prevent a company (corporations would not exist without a state. Are we presuming a state in this scenario?) from polluting. Fines, suing, boycott, sabotage, angry mob, etc. Whatever.
Jackson LaRose: I would let those affected decide for themselves if and how they would want to prevent a company (corporations would not exist without a state. Are we presuming a state in this scenario?) from polluting. Fines, suing, boycott, sabotage, angry mob, etc. Whatever.
*shrug* I'm guessing he means to assume a state, since public property doesn't exist without a state. Do you mean the title of corporation doesn't exist without someone to give that title, or that large, money-making industries don't exist without a state? Or some other definition? Are we going with the "corporations have always existed within a state, so there is no reason to go assuming they would exist without one" definition?
Kenneth: So your against fining the corporation on the basis that government is inefficient at cleaning the river? You'd be okay with that diver having welches on his/her face?
So your against fining the corporation on the basis that government is inefficient at cleaning the river? You'd be okay with that diver having welches on his/her face?
You're making things up. I never indicated that. You're turning my words around.
Kenneth: Are you okay with ever increasing pollution in the roads and rivers since they will never be privatized. Remember, I said the money to clean the river comes from the collected fines and not the general public. Even if it's inefficient, at least there is some effort in cleaning it.
Are you okay with ever increasing pollution in the roads and rivers since they will never be privatized. Remember, I said the money to clean the river comes from the collected fines and not the general public. Even if it's inefficient, at least there is some effort in cleaning it.
I'm not okay with pollution, but the way you seem to be insisting to handle it is not efficient. The government fining a company to pay someone else (most likely an arm of the State) to clean a river that is public property? What strikes me as odd is believing that the money collected is the same exact money that will go towards clean up. There's a quicker and more effecient way to fix this: privatize the river and the owner will directly handle the situation. Instead of creating more bureaucratic garbage and plunder we could just let private property work it out.
Well of course looking from a perspective of fish not being emptied from the oceans and not able to get privatization of oceans you at least want quotas on how many fish can be caught. But from a perspective of not persecuting people for a non-crime, eg catching more unowned fish than permitted by government parasites, you do not want quotas.
So what do you do? Hard to say, but what we can say is that clearly on every step existence of the state puts us up before very hard choices - of the sort we would rather avoid which we can only if it is destroyed.
Bert: Kenneth: So your against fining the corporation on the basis that government is inefficient at cleaning the river? You'd be okay with that diver having welches on his/her face? You're making things up. I never indicated that. You're turning my words around.
I will say I'm against fining the company, because it will do no good. There is still no real incentive for them to not pollute if there is no real owner of the property. Second, fining them on top of already extensive taxes doesn't make much sense to me, the government is already taking their money for whatever reasons (I read that oil companies have at least 10 different taxes on them most of which including property), so it just seems like another excuse to take more money (doesn't the government already have a budget for public services that includes cleaning?). I'm against fining the company because I'm against the State (I know that sounds...mediocre), but I repeat myself, privatize the property so individuals can work the problem out through property rights, and not the State imposing their authority over business and property.
Leaded fuel was toxic. It was banned. It seems it was a good move.
This is a situation where we assume there is a state. I agree with your reasoning that there's a state budget for cleaning public property so there's no need to fine.
What I really want to ask is do you support any state intervention to clean public property? We are assuming that a state exists and excluding the solution of privatization. I was not contented with the answer a while ago since you assumed the state already has a budget for cleaning public property.
Valject:Do you mean the title of corporation doesn't exist without someone to give that title, or that large, money-making industries don't exist without a state?
I meant the title (and accompanying legal entitlements) wouldn't exist without a state, although I'm sure there would still be big businesses, I doubt that huge, multi-national sized conglomerates would survive when actually forced to compete without government protections.
Kenneth:What I really want to ask is do you support any state intervention to clean public property? We are assuming that a state exists and excluding the solution of privatization. I was not contented with the answer a while ago since you assumed the state already has a budget for cleaning public property.
I don't, because if people want a public resource maintained, they will figure out a way to maintain it. Maybe a non-profit "clean river fund", or a massive lawsuit, ala Love Canal, or Libby, Montana, or a bomb gets planted in the head office. If people want it done, something will happen.
Kenneth: Would you support taxing corporations that dump waste into public rivers to pay for cleaning the public rivers? I know that the best way is to privatize the river but we are taking public property as a given here. Same also goes for roads. Roads are public so would you support some kind of intervention like subsidies for car companies to go green or taxing smoke belchers?
"Practical"? Hmm.
Surely, the current reality is that government(s) own the rivers, and so the regulation of rivers by it/them is presently inevitable, regardless of whether it is practical or not, yes?
Keep in mind that the same corporations polluting the rivers are the same ones paying the politicians to pass laws and exceptions to laws that allow them to so do- and so here we are- courtesy of government ownership of rivers etc.
Maybe , given the reality [ie nothing will really change with continued government ownership of rivers, despite what its supporters might claim], sue both the incs polluting and the government(s) that for allow them to so do, and the various pols taking kickbacks to pass the fine print exceptions?. Although that might get you killed- unless you have some frinds in high places
Have you read "Healing Our World" by Mary Ruwart? It deals with the issue of government and the environment and possible solutions, if I remember correctly.
Regards, onebornfree.
For more information about onebornfree, please see profile.[ i.e. click on forum name "onebornfree"].
Jackson LaRose: or a bomb gets planted in the head office. If people want it done, something will happen.
Yes, terrorism is a great case against the state.