• 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!

Nixing EPA regulations: the price of "freedom", in terms of illness and death

HenryChinaski said:
Libertarians crack me up, I find it amusing that they somehow think that Americans are just not quite selfish enough.
Click to expand...

A lot of people laugh at things they don't understand. Its a defense mechanism
 
HenryChinaski said:
That's a position that's nothing to be proud of dude. All libertarians are are anarchists that want police protection from their slaves.
Click to expand...

I was right. You don't have the slightest clue what libertarianism is.
 
Fletch said:
A lot of people laugh at things they don't understand. Its a defense mechanism
Click to expand...

So when I crack up at some things the kids at kindergarten say, it's because I don't understand them?
 
ataraxia said:
Dr. Dockery has already explained that in his quote in the OP.
Click to expand...

If there is evidence of direct harm, then the courts would be the place to go, not the executive branch. But be honest. Obamas war on coal was based 100% on his fealty to the religion of global warming. He didn't give a rats ass about miners or their families.
 
Master PO said:
you don't know about libertarianism.

try reading about minarchist
Click to expand...
At its heart Libertarianism is incredibly selfish. Libertarians won’t call it that, but at its core, Libertarianism is indulgent, narcissistic, and just plain selfish. The other problem is that libertarians have an overly simplistic worldview and simplistic understanding of the human condition. Everything is "black or white" "this or that" and that's not the way the world works. It's just a cult that attracts sociopathic personalities.
 
HenryChinaski said:
At its heart Libertarianism is incredibly selfish. Libertarians won’t call it that, but at its core, Libertarianism is indulgent, narcissistic, and just plain selfish. The other problem is that libertarians have an overly simplistic worldview and simplistic understanding of the human condition. Everything is "black or white" "this or that" and that's not the way the world works. It's just a cult that attracts sociopathic personalities.
Click to expand...

still you don't have any idea
 
ataraxia said:
Yes. A little like your neighbors can have a say in how loud and at what hours you can blast your stereo, or how fast you can drive your car in the neighborhood. It's called living in civil society. You've heard of such things, haven't you?

Besides, getting killed by the property in question is a sort of relation to it.
Click to expand...

Liberals have really lame arguments today.
 
Henrin said:
Tell me why it is ok for the government to decide on it's own that people are guilty of a harm and then force a solution on these so called guilty parties. How exactly does this action by the government not violate property rights?
Click to expand...

Your property right to give me lung damage doesn't exist.
 
Fletch said:
You would first have to demonstrate that a particular power plant caused the death of your family members.
Click to expand...

Thank you for highlighting the fundamental problem with libertarianism when it comes to environmental protection.

Then explain how your life would be somewhat better in the absence of power.
Click to expand...
One of the most pathetic false dichotomies I've ever seen. If you want to continue this discussion, do so honestly.
 
Deuce said:
Thank you for highlighting the fundamental problem with libertarianism when it comes to environmental protection.
Click to expand...

Having to prove your case is pretty much a staple of justice. Nice try though.
 
Henrin said:
And the dumb strawmen continue to attack the gates.
Click to expand...
True or false: Environmental pollution can cause harm to others.

True or false: Harming others is not covered by property rights.

If you can't answer these two questions, we know what your stance is.

Henrin said:
Having to prove your case is pretty much a staple of justice. Nice try though.
Click to expand...

In general, sure.

But when it comes to pollution, this can be difficult or even impossible. Particularly with air pollution.

I'll elaborate when you answer my true/false questions.
 
Last edited:
ataraxia said:
As a target of the Trump administration's most draconian cuts, the EPA is meant to protect American lives and health. It seems the free market and the big corporations don't just magically address that problem if left completely "free" and unoppressed by government regulations.



Too bad that all these Trump supporters have been thwarted from getting rid of their Obamacare healthcare to help them when this hits. Experience is the best teacher. They should be allowed to knock themselves out and do everything they want to do, like get rid of the ACA and cut EPA regulations, all at the same time. Get rid of all that big government tyranny and bureaucratic overreach like they want. And then they can learn the consequences firsthand. Until then, there will be no end to this whining about government tyranny for every sensible measure out there designed to protect them.
Click to expand...

For one the epa has not done much of anything in a while, seems they spend more time trying to be equipped like the army while using funds to get scientists to come up with reasons to ban bbq's.

However trump rolled back regs to pre obama. This is the all or nothing fallacy. Meaning if you do not support 100% of everything pushed, you are 100% against it. I fail to recall how pushing regs back to bush era makes it like the 1920's, how pushing back 8 years of regs somehow magically pushes back 100 years of regs.

Thing is obama had a lot of regs, many of which seemed aimed a killing coal as a primary goal, and carbon taxes etc.
 
Fletch said:
If there is evidence of direct harm, then the courts would be the place to go, not the executive branch. But be honest. Obamas war on coal was based 100% on his fealty to the religion of global warming. He didn't give a rats ass about miners or their families.
Click to expand...

Global warming is not a religion. It's established science and well known fact (outside the rightwing radio pundit world). You might as well call gravity a religion. It's ridiculous.

If this keeps up, those miners and their families better learn to canoe to work every day.
 
Henrin said:
The government dictating solutions to problems they decide exist is reasonable? So basically what you're saying is that it's entirely reasonable for the government to decide to throw out any solution it sees fit to any problem it sees fit. You see, some of us think courts exist for a reason, while others think the government can treat everyone like their bitch.
Click to expand...

So when I need an oil change I can just pull my car into another neighborhood, drain, refill and leave? That's libertarian world?

You can also enjoy more things like this:
Remembering West Explosion | Houston Chronicle - Houston Chronicle

Good old Waco.
 
Henrin said:
What?



Is there something you think is worthy of discussion there?
Click to expand...

What government regulations are okay with you? IOW, what would you allow the government to regulate? Anything?
 
Henrin said:
What?



Is there something you think is worthy of discussion there?
Click to expand...

I think you may be stonewalling here. But I could be wrong. You really need to be a little more articulate in explaining the libertarian position if you think no one here understands it.

The claim you made is that no one should be able to interfere with the use of private property- meaning that you did not think the use of plants by their owners should be regulated. The question posed to you was how that's different than just dumping your car oil change into the street. Maybe there should be no law banning that. Someone would just have to prove harm in court before anyone could go after the person doing the polluting.

We don't see the difference. It seems you do. So please explain. We really are eager to be educated and understand your position.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom