Page 26 of 36 FirstFirst ... 162425262728 ... LastLast
Results 251 to 260 of 358

Thread: Bachmann wins Iowa straw poll, keeps momentum

  1. #251
    Owner/Admin
    Benevolent Dictator Schweddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Plano, TX
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    11,512
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Bachmann wins Iowa straw poll, keeps momentum

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    What? No... Not sure what you're saying here. What I am saying is that, for example, if I live next door to a factory that makes say some part for a jet engine, and that factor is dumping waste in the water table I use, I have no recourse without government involvement because I'm not their customer.
    You are accurate here, but not for the reasons you state. There are very often laws against taking any action against that factory. You *should* be able to sue their ass for every {censored} thing they have because they caused harm. Right now, odds are very likely that they would hand out a few grand and tell whomever to STFU and the most anyone would get is a cameo on the evening news. I would argue that is not gov protecting her citizens. This "protection" might only work in our current system if the 'waste' was defined previously in our EPA system, and even then the factory would be fined and get a slap on the wrist.

    In a free market world, companies would be much more careful because they have risk. With the EPA, that risk is on the gov and we can't sue the gov for being stupid or ignorant of what causes harm to persons.

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Lets work off of an example. Come up with a federal regulation of a corporation that doesn't serve any legitimate national interest, it just causes one private party to benefit over another.
    The entire department of education. I would argue that it does not serve in our national interest because as it has failed to enhance the education of our children. A few companies like test makers are making MILLIONS. I know you won't agree here because our definition of "national interest" is different.

    What about the raw milk laws I mentioned earlier?
    Last edited by Schweddy; 08-15-11 at 04:09 PM.
    If you analyse it, I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. -Ronald Reagan

    I am also known as "vauge".

  2. #252
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Bachmann wins Iowa straw poll, keeps momentum

    Quote Originally Posted by ARealConservative View Post
    regardless of the entity you entrust to protect you – it still boils down to if that entity has your interests in heart

    You will always be at the mercy of other individuals hoping that they do what is right, not what is profitable. Whether those individuals work for the government, or work outside of the government, they are just as susceptible to greed and corruption.
    Again, governments are non-profit. Their interest is in getting my vote. That means that they have every incentive to do a good job stopping the factory from polluting the water table. They're the only entity in the game with that incentive.

  3. #253
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Bachmann wins Iowa straw poll, keeps momentum

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Your thinking on all this is very muddled. For example, you claim that the Democrats are both pro-corporation and pro-union, but most corporations that have unions, their number one wish in the world is to be rid of the union.
    All I'm saying is look at the evidence.

    You know that the Obama bailed out corporations, right? You know that Corporations gave big bucks to Obama. You also know that Unions gave big money to Obama. You also know that the private investors with 401K's who invested in these automakers got shafted as well, right? The Unions and their leaders got larger shares than anyone.
    That's like saying that Obama is too pro-Isreal one minute then that he is too pro-Palestine the next.
    No, that's muddled thinking because you're drifting off into other areas.
    Secondly, those bailouts were mostly loans that have already been paid back.
    Is it the job of government to bail out private companies? No one can fail in America anymore? And everyone has not been paid back. Millions have been made on this scam, and it should all have been illegal, and probably was.

    Third, Congress passed those bailouts, not Obama.
    Are you saying Obama and the Democratic Congress (and Senate) didn't support this? It was Obama who was always talking it up, who spear-headed the whole thing, along with his friends.

    Fourth, corporations hate regulations
    No, they don't. All they want is fair regulations under the law and with the same rules for everyone. This didn't happen with those bailouts.
    ,and obviously the Democrats are more pro-regulation and the Republicans more anti-regulation.
    It depends on the regulations. Some are crazy and some necessary.
    Fifth, the bailouts of the banks happened under Bush, not Obama.
    Obama contributed to the banking mess early in his working life, as did many others. By the time it got to Bush much of the damage was already iin place.
    Sixth, unions aren't businesses. They're non-profit.
    LOL!! Sure, tell that to the mob!

  4. #254
    Owner/Admin
    Benevolent Dictator Schweddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Plano, TX
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    11,512
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: Bachmann wins Iowa straw poll, keeps momentum

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Again, governments are non-profit. Their interest is in getting my vote. That means that they have every incentive to do a good job stopping the factory from polluting the water table. They're the only entity in the game with that incentive.
    I am confused. Congress created the EPA. EPA is an entity all in itself that answers to no one. They can create law on a whim for any reason.
    What exact "do good" incentive do they have?
    If you analyse it, I believe the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism. -Ronald Reagan

    I am also known as "vauge".

  5. #255
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Canada, Costa Rica
    Last Seen
    05-16-16 @ 09:45 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    31,645

    Re: Bachmann wins Iowa straw poll, keeps momentum

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Again, taking them to court means turning the issue over to the government to resolve... Court isn't an alternative to government, it IS government.
    And the government can run the courts according to the Constitution, legal precedence and the will of the people. That's fine. But it doesn't have to be involved in everything.

    But, how could private industry do those things? Private industry can't require other corporations to comply with anything or let them test anything or force them to release any information or whatever.
    Private industry can investigate and, if laws are being broken or regulations not being met , they can take this evidence to the courts in order that justice be done.

  6. #256
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Bachmann wins Iowa straw poll, keeps momentum

    Quote Originally Posted by vauge View Post
    I am confused. Congress created the EPA. EPA is an entity all in itself that answers to no one. They can create law on a whim for any reason.
    What exact "do good" incentive do they have?
    No, EPA cannot create laws. What they can do is create regulations to implement laws. They are, of course, part of the executive branch, so they are answerable to the President who is answerable to the people.

    The free market and legal system simply don't work very well when it comes to pollution. Say, for example, that you live in California and your air quality is being degraded by coal plants in the midwest. What are you going to do? Sue every utility in the midwest? How are you going to prove your case?

  7. #257
    cookies crumble
    ARealConservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Last Seen
    04-21-17 @ 09:41 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    14,518

    Re: Bachmann wins Iowa straw poll, keeps momentum

    Quote Originally Posted by teamosil View Post
    Again, governments are non-profit. Their interest is in getting my vote. That means that they have every incentive to do a good job stopping the factory from polluting the water table. They're the only entity in the game with that incentive.
    they only need a majority of votes, not your vote.

  8. #258
    Sage
    teamosil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    San Francisco
    Last Seen
    05-22-14 @ 12:47 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    6,623

    Re: Bachmann wins Iowa straw poll, keeps momentum

    Quote Originally Posted by vauge View Post
    You are accurate here, but not for the reasons you state. There are very often laws against taking any action against that factory. You *should* be able to sue their ass for every {censored} thing they have because they caused harm. Right now, odds are very likely that they would hand out a few grand and tell whomever to STFU and the most anyone would get is a cameo on the evening news. I would argue that is not gov protecting her citizens. This "protection" might only work in our current system if the 'waste' was defined previously in our EPA system, and even then the factory would be fined and get a slap on the wrist.

    In a free market world, companies would be much more careful because they have risk. With the EPA, that risk is on the gov and we can't sue the gov for being stupid or ignorant of what causes harm to persons.
    It is true that there are some circumstances where the government passes a law protecting a company from a lawsuit. They are very rare situations though. For example, there are laws protecting vacine manufacturers from liability. The reasons are pretty good though. Vacines are extremely expensive to research and you can't sell them for much at all because people still get the same benefit if their neighbors get vacinated but they don't, so nobody is willing to pay a lot for them. And, vacines are a calculated risk. We know that some percentage of the people that get vacinated will get sick, but overall that is way less serious of a risk than the diseases they prevent pose. Regardless though, they generate a ton of lawsuits. But they serve an enormous public interest. So, the government limited their exposure to liability for people who get sick as a result of a vacine. Otherwise nobody would make them.

    That's the only example I can think of off the top of my head. Your EPA example is false. If a company is dumping waste in the water table and the EPA has categorized it as toxic or something, certainly you can use that as evidence to prove that the company was aware that they were behaving negligently, but it isn't like if the EPA hasn't classified it as toxic or whatever that you can't sue them. You still definitely could.

    Quote Originally Posted by vauge View Post
    The entire department of education. I would argue that it does not serve in our national interest because as it has failed to enhance the education of our children. A few companies like test makers are making MILLIONS. I know you won't agree here because our definition of "national interest" is different.
    I also oppose no child left behind. That's a Republican thing and most Democrats oppose it. But that doesn't mean it isn't designed to serve a legitimate national interest. Certainly education is a legitimate interest. The notion that policy that huge was created just to benefit test makers seems awfully far fetched.

    Quote Originally Posted by vauge View Post
    What about the raw milk laws I mentioned earlier?
    Pasteurization kills a bunch of bacteria that have caused major health problems in the US. E. Coli for example. The FDA did a series of studies and concluded that it was unsafe to sell milk without pasteurizing it first. Prior to the laws requiring pasteurization 25% of all food or water related sickness was caused by bad milk. After the laws, only 1%. So, you might disagree with the figures or whatever, which is totally fine, they certainly don't always get everything right, but the idea that the regulation isn't there to serve a legitimate national interest is completely false.

  9. #259
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Bachmann wins Iowa straw poll, keeps momentum

    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    No, EPA cannot create laws. What they can do is create regulations to implement laws. They are, of course, part of the executive branch, so they are answerable to the President who is answerable to the people
    Technically you're correct. The EPA does not create laws they create "Regulations", which can be found here:

    FDsys - Browse Code of Federal Regulations (Annual Edition)



    Quote Originally Posted by AdamT View Post
    The free market and legal system simply don't work very well when it comes to pollution. Say, for example, that you live in California and your air quality is being degraded by coal plants in the midwest. What are you going to do? Sue every utility in the midwest? How are you going to prove your case?
    I agree with corporate oversight, I just don't agree that the EPA is autonomous and can pass "regulations" which equate to legal rules without Congressional oversight.
    I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on whats being proposed here, hed agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute. - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  10. #260
    Sage
    AdamT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Last Seen
    02-13-13 @ 04:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    17,773

    Re: Bachmann wins Iowa straw poll, keeps momentum

    Quote Originally Posted by Ockham View Post
    Technically you're correct. The EPA does not create laws they create "Regulations", which can be found here:

    FDsys - Browse Code of Federal Regulations (Annual Edition)

    I agree with corporate oversight, I just don't agree that the EPA is autonomous and can pass "regulations" which equate to legal rules without Congressional oversight.
    Well, that's how our government works. Not just EPA, but every agency. There is no way Congress could ever approve every agency regulation. What they can do, however, if there is a regulation they don't like, is pass a law nullifying it.

Page 26 of 36 FirstFirst ... 162425262728 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •