• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

California Considers $1,000 Fine for Waiters Offering Unsolicited Plastic Straws

There is a materials mass almost twice the size of Texas in our oceans; does the private sector have a profit motive to Capitalize on material reclamation; or, should socialists, have a democratic referendum regarding directing our command economy, to command economize that materials mass.

Giga-Recycling factories are a solution, in Any case.
 
PirateMk1 said:
I had no idea someone was banning a PDG whatever the **** that is. I don't support the banning of anything. I am not fine with the banning of straws or anything else for that matter. The world keeps their nose out of my business and we get along fabulously. They don't we gonna have problems.
Click to expand...

Yeah. If I want to dump toxic sludge in the nearest river, that’s my business. Who are they to ban it?
 
Deuce said:
Yeah. If I want to dump toxic sludge in the nearest river, that’s my business. Who are they to ban it?
Click to expand...


Why ban when you can sue for damage? Sue people for the problems the cause. More stuff is made better because people take care of their problems themselves.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Why ban when you can sue for damage? Sue people for the problems the cause. More stuff is made better because people take care of their problems themselves.
Click to expand...

No it isn't. How many times have polluters and big corporations won such lawsuits, not had to pay, even after the damage was massive? And they kept on doing the polluting? This isn't a utopia where things always work out for those fighting to protect the environment.

Hell, even when heavy polluters are fined, they continue to dump. And now, people have been limited on their ability to bring class action lawsuits against such things. Which means each of those less financially sound people have to hire a lawyer each to sue the big polluter who can simply afford the best team of lawyers to back them up.

You basically are saying that it doesn't matter if the environment is damaged, so long as people are free to do whatever they wish. That is simply a horribly irresponsible position that refuses to recognize that a single person can do a lot of damage to the environment and money gives people power. These two factors are major reasons why we need laws in place to limit that.
 
PirateMk1 said:
Why ban when you can sue for damage? Sue people for the problems the cause. More stuff is made better because people take care of their problems themselves.
Click to expand...

Because that has never in history actually prevented the behavior. This is what happens when you blindly apply ideology. “The market will just fix it” is middle school thinking. The real world doesn’t work that way.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom