Environmental Protection: The Surprising Solution

[Chris]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVi1ey-AAYw

[Common Sense]

Awesome propaganda from the Institute for Humane Studies.

[Common Sense]

These guys over at Learn Liberty have awesome videos.

There's one bout how monopolies shouldn't be illegal. Another about how price gouging isn't really immoral. Cayman island tax shelters are good for the economy!

[del]

he's definitely got a way with a platitude

[Chris]

Hey, Moe, i can't see...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScGPRsHSkaE

[Common Sense]

Sorry Chris, but it's propaganda. You'll never guess who is the chairman of the board over there. He's a real "grassroots" kind of guy.

[Chris]

Sorry Chris, but it's propaganda. You'll never guess who is the chairman of the board over there. He's a real "grassroots" kind of guy.

What is propaganda? All you're doing is shooting the messenger leaving the message standing.

[Common Sense]

What is propaganda? All you're doing is shooting the messenger leaving the message standing.

It's an over simplified message on a very complex issue. That doesn't change the fact that it's propaganda.

[Chris]

It's an over simplified message on a very complex issue. That doesn't change the fact that it's propaganda.

You're still not saying anything intelligent about the message or to counter it. It was a simple message. And?

[del]

You're still not saying anything intelligent about the message or to counter it. It was a simple message. And?

it said nothing constructive

platitudes

[Peter1469]

The OP is correct. Free market capitalists don't destroy their money maker. But when markets are not free people tend to think short term- get what I can get now and get out. They destroy their money maker.

[Chris]

it said nothing constructive

platitudes


IOW, you have no clue what it said.

[del]

IOW, you have no clue what it said.

yeah, it was waaaaaaay too complex for me to grasp.

[Chris]

The OP is correct. Free market capitalists don't destroy their money maker. But when markets are not free people tend to think short term- get what I can get now and get out. They destroy their money maker.

Somebody actually listened to the video. It is indeed a simple message. Free markets depend on private property. We tend to take care of what we own--what we have a stake in--more than we do what others own. Does that solve a complex problem, no, it's just one ingredient to a viable solution.

[nic34]

More looking for and finding what fits the preconception.

Markets aren't free either.........

[Chris]

yeah, it was waaaaaaay too complex for me to grasp.

No one said it was complex, del, it was a simple point. Had you bothered to listen to the video, even you could have grasped it.

[Chris]

More looking for and finding what fits the preconception.

Another one who didn't watch the video and has nothing to contribute.

[del]

if i own a gold mine and i need water to wash away the effluents, what stake do i have in keeping that water clean? what advantage is there for me in keeping the air clean?

same goes for any kind of industrial waste. all i as the owner want to do is get rid of it as cheaply as possible to maximize my profits.

it also assumes no corporate ownership, i guess, because if you aren't showing quick profits (quarterly) as a ceo, you're done.

as i said, platitudes

[del]

No one said it was complex, del, it was a simple point. Had you bothered to listen to the video, even you could have grasped it.

i did

it was simplistic and assumes conditions that do not now and never have existed.

thanks for sharing it

[nic34]

Another one who didn't watch the video and has nothing to contribute.

Is Canada an economically "free" country? Yes? Are they more likely to protect their environment? I'd say yes.

Then why are they allowing oil companies to spoil HUGE areas of northern Alberta with tar sand processing using millions of gallons of fresh water from snow and glacial mountain runoff?

Because they are free in a free market to do so?

[Codename Section]

It depends on the market. If my industry is paper I'm going to replant a hella lot of trees. That's good for the environment. If my market is beef I'm going to raze trees. That's bad for the environment. If the markets were totally free which they are not, people would "settle it" because resources are limited.

I do agree that if there were no government direct action versus 10 years of legal battles and fines would solve things, but we're not there yet. I feel sometimes that libertarians put the cart before the horse and it makes people like say ohhhh nic think that we don't give a shit about the environment and just shilling for big business.

Because fact is if we did try to give more reign to business BEFORE getting government and business surgically removed from each other's dicks then the world would be in worse shape because we'd lack our only recourse of suing these assholes.

Yes, I believe that economic liberty is important and that we are over-regulated but the propaganda is such that pushing for economic liberty when we're in a recession is paddling upstream because TBTB have the mike, so to speak. We need to focus on civil liberties because that is the ONLY place where we've made inroads with independents and even lefties.

Rand's not talking to Berkeley about environmentalism and business freedoms. He's talking about spying and drones.

Pick your battles wisely.

[Chris]

if i own a gold mine and i need water to wash away the effluents, what stake do i have in keeping that water clean? what advantage is there for me in keeping the air clean?

same goes for any kind of industrial waste. all i as the owner want to do is get rid of it as cheaply as possible to maximize my profits.

it also assumes no corporate ownership, i guess, because if you aren't showing quick profits (quarterly) as a ceo, you're done.

as i said, platitudes


Stake isn't the point in your example. Cooperation would be. I'll oversimplify for you: In a mining area you need the cooperation of all miners to protect and preserve property rights, so you form an association and set rules, one of which would be in return for protection of your mining rights you would agree not to infringe on others' rights by polluting downstream.

You can read about this in Anderson and Hill's The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier.


So much for your platitude, del.

[Chris]

i did

it was simplistic and assumes conditions that do not now and never have existed.

thanks for sharing it


If you did you obviously didn't comprehend the simple message.

[del]

Stake isn't the point in your example. Cooperation would be. I'll oversimplify for you: In a mining area you need the cooperation of all miners to protect and preserve property rights, so you form an association and set rules, one of which would be in return for protection of your mining rights you would agree not to infringe on others' rights by polluting downstream.

You can read about this in Anderson and Hill's The Not So Wild, Wild West: Property Rights on the Frontier.


So much for your platitude, del.

what color is the sky on your home planet?

ours is blue

[Chris]

Is Canada an economically "free" country? Yes? Are they more likely to protect their environment? I'd say yes.

Then why are they allowing oil companies to spoil HUGE areas of northern Alberta with tar sand processing using millions of gallons of fresh water from snow and glacial mountain runoff?

Because they are free in a free market to do so?


One, the message of the video is not that economically free countries will absolutely protect their environment and that economically unfree countries absolutely will not. It is that economically free countries are more likely to do so, will expend more effort doing so.

Anyone, nic, can twist a statement into an extreme to knock it down, but all you're doing is knocking down your own twisting.


Two, you're making the assumption that Canada is not protecting Alberta in it efforts to mine shale oil. I know people up there and they assure me the land is protected.


Three, you assume Canada is an absolute free market....

[Chris]

what color is the sky on your home planet?

ours is blue


How long did it take you to come up with that bit of nonsense, del?

[del]

How long did it take you to come up with that bit of nonsense, del?

about a second and a half, which is about a second and a half longer than i should have wasted on your idiocy.

[Chris]

about a second and a half, which is about a second and a half longer than i should have wasted on your idiocy.

It's idiocy to state that one takes care of what one owns more than what one doesn't? That was the message of the video, del.

[Chris]

It depends on the market. If my industry is paper I'm going to replant a hella lot of trees. That's good for the environment. If my market is beef I'm going to raze trees. That's bad for the environment. If the markets were totally free which they are not, people would "settle it" because resources are limited.

I do agree that if there were no government direct action versus 10 years of legal battles and fines would solve things, but we're not there yet. I feel sometimes that libertarians put the cart before the horse and it makes people like say ohhhh nic think that we don't give a shit about the environment and just shilling for big business.

Because fact is if we did try to give more reign to business BEFORE getting government and business surgically removed from each other's dicks then the world would be in worse shape because we'd lack our only recourse of suing these assholes.

Yes, I believe that economic liberty is important and that we are over-regulated but the propaganda is such that pushing for economic liberty when we're in a recession is paddling upstream because TBTB have the mike, so to speak. We need to focus on civil liberties because that is the ONLY place where we've made inroads with independents and even lefties.

Rand's not talking to Berkeley about environmentalism and business freedoms. He's talking about spying and drones.

Pick your battles wisely.


I don't think razing trees will make the land good for cattle. I think you need natural prairie land.


Yes, I believe that economic liberty is important and that we are over-regulated but the propaganda is such that pushing for economic liberty when we're in a recession is paddling upstream because TBTB have the mike, so to speak.

That's very Keynesian. Even Milton Friedman fell for it.

[Common Sense]

19th century England was a very free market with no restrictions (labor, pollution, etc...). They certainly were not good stewards of the environment.

It's an over simplified stupid argument for reducing or eliminating market restrictions. The old invisible hand. It's a fallacy that only works in theoretical situations...and again, it tries to pass itself off as libertarian education when in fact it's corporate propaganda.

[Chris]

19th century England was a very free market with no restrictions (labor, pollution, etc...). They certainly were not good stewards of the environment.

It's an over simplified stupid argument for reducing or eliminating market restrictions. The old invisible hand. It's a fallacy that only works in theoretical situations...and again, it tries to pass itself off as libertarian education when in fact it's corporate propaganda.

You like nic twist the point to extremes. It's not that free markets are the solution, just part of the solution, for reasons given that you do not address in your rush to just call things stupid.

You need to articulate your disagreement.

[Common Sense]

You like nic twist the point to extremes. It's not that free markets are the solution, just part of the solution, for reasons given that you do not address in your rush to just call things stupid.

You need to articulate your disagreement.

I'm not twisting anything to extremes. I'm pointing out an example that flies in the face of the video's theory.

Hong Kong is another example of probably the most economically free place in the world right now. Their biggest problem? Pollution.

The video has an agenda. That agenda is to plant the seed that regulations are bad and that they actually harm the environment. That's simply untrue.

[Chris]

I'm not twisting anything to extremes. I'm pointing out an example that flies in the face of the video's theory.

Hong Kong is another example of probably the most economically free place in the world right now. Their biggest problem? Pollution.

The video has an agenda. That agenda is to plant the seed that regulations are bad and that they actually harm the environment. That's simply untrue.


You have yet to address the point of the video. You are inventing agenda and attacking what you invent.

Coomunist China cities are more polluted. The op point stands.

[del]

You have yet to address the point of the video. You are inventing agenda and attacking what you invent.

Coomunist China cities are more polluted. The op point stands.

communist china is more polluted because of a lack of regulation

the op remains horseshit

lol

[Common Sense]

You have yet to address the point of the video. You are inventing agenda and attacking what you invent.

Coomunist China cities are more polluted. The op point stands.

I'm not inventing agenda. The video and group are supported and chaired by the Koch brothers. Do industrialist have anything to gain by reducing regulations? Of course they do. They're doing the same thing they did with the Tea Party. Making it seem as if these regulations are a hindrance to the poor common man, when in fact it's large corporations that would benefit the most. Yes, the trickle down argument could be inserted after the fact. But truly, that isn't their motivating factor.

The point of the video is clear, regulations and the lack of economic freedom are a cause of environmental degradation. I've given two examples of where that is a fallacy.

[Common Sense]

communist china is more polluted because of a lack of regulation

the op remains horseshit

lol

Exactly. Communist China may have strict controls on some things, industry is not one of those things.

[Chris]

I'm not inventing agenda. The video and group are supported and chaired by the Koch brothers. Do industrialist have anything to gain by reducing regulations? Of course they do. They're doing the same thing they did with the Tea Party. Making it seem as if these regulations are a hindrance to the poor common man, when in fact it's large corporations that would benefit the most. Yes, the trickle down argument could be inserted after the fact. But truly, that isn't their motivating factor.

The point of the video is clear, regulations and the lack of economic freedom are a cause of environmental degradation. I've given two examples of where that is a fallacy.

Ad him is a weak argument.

You again miss the point of the video for agenda you make up, nothing more than the platitudes del whines about.

The video makes the simple point we care more for what we own that what we don't. Do you disagree with that? What's your argument with that? So far it's nothing, nasa, zilch.

[nic34]

One, the message of the video is not that economically free countries will absolutely protect their environment and that economically unfree countries absolutely will not. It is that economically free countries are more likely to do so, will expend more effort doing so.

Anyone, nic, can twist a statement into an extreme to knock it down, but all you're doing is knocking down your own twisting.


Two, you're making the assumption that Canada is not protecting Alberta in it efforts to mine shale oil. I know people up there and they assure me the land is protected.


Three, you assume Canada is an absolute free market....

1. I didn't watch the video and had nothing to contribute, but I am still able to twist a statement into an extreme. Amazing, eh?

2. I don't assume anything, I have facts on my side. Canada is indeed not protecting Alberta in order to continue profitable oil extraction at any cost. See below:


7915


http://www.no-tar-sands.org/what-are-the-tar-sands/


3. Told you there was no free market.

[Chris]

communist china is more polluted because of a lack of regulation

the op remains horseshit

lol


Exactly. Communist China may have strict controls on some things, industry is not one of those things.



Exactly is the point of the video. Communist China with its public ownership cares less that Hong Kong with its private ownership.

Thanks guys for making the point.

[Common Sense]

Ad him is a weak argument.

You again miss the point of the video for agenda you make up, nothing more than the platitudes del whines about.

The video makes the simple point we care more for what we own that what we don't. Do you disagree with that? What's your argument with that? So far it's nothing, nasa, zilch.

The video doesn't talk about ownership, it talks about economic freedom. The term ownership is never mentioned once.

[Refugee]

China doesn't have strict control, the 'Party' has absolute control. China is going through an industrial revolution and is a developing country. It's going through the same factory smoke and pollution the west did 50 years ago, but plus increased traffic pollution as well. Of course parts of it are polluted.

[Common Sense]

Exactly is the point of the video. Communist China with its public ownership cares less that Hong Kong with its private ownership.

Thanks guys for making the point.

It's not public ownership in China anymore. Both Hong Kong and China are going gang busters on industry. Hong Kong is equally polluted.

No points for you...sorry.

[del]

Exactly is the point of the video. Communist China with its public ownership cares less that Hong Kong with its private ownership.

Thanks guys for making the point.

are you in some type of treatment?

hong kong pollution is epic

maybe you'll have better luck if you parrot, excuse me, post the cayman islands banking promo these jamokes put out?

[Common Sense]

China doesn't have strict control, the 'Party' has absolute control. China is going through an industrial revolution and is a developing country. It's going through the same factory smoke and pollution the west did 50 years ago, but plus increased traffic pollution as well. Of course parts of it are polluted.

It's allowed industry a lot of freedom and there are few regulations when it comes to pollution.

[Common Sense]

are you in some type of treatment?

hong kong pollution is epic

maybe you'll have better luck if you parrot, excuse me, post the cayman islands banking promo these jamokes put out?

Yeah, that's an awesome video. They have another that talks about how good monopolies are.

[Chris]

It's not public ownership in China anymore. Both Hong Kong and China are going gang busters on industry. Hong Kong is equally polluted.

No points for you...sorry.

Sorry but China still maintains public ownership. It's transitioning to form of state capitalism.

[Chris]

are you in some type of treatment?

hong kong pollution is epic

maybe you'll have better luck if you parrot, excuse me, post the cayman islands banking promo these jamokes put out?

No one argued HK wasn't polluted. Who are you arguing with?

[Common Sense]

Sorry but China still maintains public ownership. It's transitioning to form of state capitalism.

It does not. The vast majority of corporations in China are private. Jiangsu Shagang Group is a private corporation that makes steel. They had sales of over $32 Billion USD last year.

[Chris]

It does not. The vast majority of corporations in China are private. Jiangsu Shagang Group is a private corporation that makes steel. They had sales of over $32 Billion USD last year.

Controlled by the government. No different than socialist Nazi Germany.

You even admit that above: "It's allowed industry a lot of freedom and there are few regulations when it comes to pollution."

[Common Sense]

No one argued HK wasn't polluted. Who are you arguing with?

They are the most economically free place in the world. That's where he is going with that. The video talks about economic freedom and its positive impact on the environment.

[Common Sense]

Controlled by the government. No different than socialist Nazi Germany.

Not at all. They are private corporations.

[Chris]

It's allowed industry a lot of freedom and there are few regulations when it comes to pollution.


You admitted it already, common, now you argue with yourself?

[Common Sense]

You admitted it already, common, now you argue with yourself?

Admitted what? can you clarify?

[Chris]

Admitted what? can you clarify?

That the Chinese government controls their "private" industry: "It's allowed industry a lot of freedom and there are few regulations when it comes to pollution."

[Chris]

The point of the video still remains, even in the case of China, where the market is freer, HK, than not, Mainland China, pollution is less. Flail away with your ad hom and straw men exaggerations, the point still stands.

[Common Sense]

That the Chinese government controls their "private" industry: "It's allowed industry a lot of freedom and there are few regulations when it comes to pollution."

Allowing them a lot of freedom is controlling them? They have fewer restrictions than US corporations. One of the reasons they can make stuff so cheaply.

[Common Sense]

The point of the video still remains, even in the case of China, where the market is freer, HK, than not, Mainland China, pollution is less. Flail away with your ad hom and straw men exaggerations, the point still stands.

The point doesn't stand. We've seen where economic freedom is greater, there is no regard for the environment.

[Chris]

The point doesn't stand. We've seen where economic freedom is greater, there is no regard for the environment.

You have yet to demonstrate that HK is more polluted than cities in Mainland China. Deal with facts, common, not wishful thinking.

[Common Sense]

You have yet to demonstrate that HK is more polluted than cities in Mainland China. Deal with facts, common, not wishful thinking.

Well, according to your video, Hong Kong shouldn't be polluted at all. It's a bastion of economic freedom. It should be a pristine example of environmental stewardship.

Air pollution in HK is worse than mainland China.

http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2012/02/23/hong-kong%E2%80%99s-killer-pollution/

[Chris]

Well, according to your video, Hong Kong shouldn't be polluted at all. It's a bastion of economic freedom. It should be a pristine example of environmental stewardship.

Air pollution in HK is worse than mainland China.

http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2012/02/23/hong-kong%E2%80%99s-killer-pollution/



There you go twisting arguments to extremes. The video does not claim there should be no pollution in economically free countries, it only claims there should be less.

The WSJ article doesn't say what you claim it does. Try to read carefully.

It’s No Beijing, But Hong Kong Is Choking, Too (http://rendezvous.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/28/its-no-beijing-but-hong-kong-is-choking-too/) says "There are no directly comparable statistics, but by Beijing’s standards, Hong Kong’s air is probably sparkling clean. At least Hong Kong has not had to cancel airline flights because of smog-induced visibility problems."

In short, there is not data to back up your claim.

Try again.

[Common Sense]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

But I thank you and so do the Koch brothers for disseminating their propaganda.

[nic34]

Nice goin' CS you got the last word!

:thumbsup20:

[Chris]

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

But I thank you and so do the Koch brothers for disseminating their propaganda.



My hat is off to you for at least trying to discuss the topic. Thank you.

[Common Sense]

My hat is off to you for at least trying to discuss the topic. Thank you.

...and we did it with little to no insults. that's a win for both of us.

[Chris]

...and we did it with little to no insults. that's a win for both of us.

Free discussion is much like the free market. :-P

[Common Sense]

Free discussion is much like the free market. :-P

I see what you did there...

So I guess if there were no restrictions on how we conducted ourselves in this debate (lying, quote changing, personal insults), ie: forum freedom, we'd have a more constructive dialogue? ;)

[Chris]

I see what you did there...

So I guess if there were no restrictions on how we conducted ourselves in this debate (lying, quote changing, personal insults), ie: forum freedom, we'd have a more constructive dialogue? ;)


Not sure where you get the idea the free market implies no restrictions. See this earlier post for a refutation of that: http://thepoliticalforums.com/threads/27282-Environmental-Protection-The-Surprising-Solution?p=649320&viewfull=1#post649320.

[Kalkin]

The collective is like an angry nest of bees when someone challenges their dogma. Too funny.