Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 79 (8897 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 03-20-2019 6:55 AM
133 online now:
Phat (AdminPhat) (1 member, 132 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 848,478 Year: 3,515/19,786 Month: 510/1,087 Week: 100/212 Day: 16/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2526272829
30
Author Topic:   How Does Republican Platform Help Middle Class?
marc9000
Member
Posts: 965
From: Ky U.S.
Joined: 12-25-2009


Message 436 of 440 (614216)
05-02-2011 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 434 by ZenMonkey
05-02-2011 1:10 AM


So it's good if a business owner loses business because consumers won't buy products from a known polluter, but it's bad if he loses business because government regulations restrict his ability to be a polluter?

Yes. In a free society, voluntary, free market transactions (the public at large) are to be trusted far more than government regulations, (made by a small handful of bureaucrats) to judge losses in business.

I'm wondering, how exactly are consumers supposed to find out on their own who's a polluter? Blogs? The National Enquirer? Fox News? Are you personally going to investigate whether or not there's jet fuel in your milk, DDT in your carrots, and PCBs in your drinking water?

If milk, carrots, and drinking water tasted bad, it would be a good indicator. If one companys milk or carrots tasted better than another companys, company #1 would get the business and make more money. Of course I realize that one company isnt in a position to test another companys product, and taste isnt always foolproof, some poison is tasteless. If testing is required, it should be up to the states to do it, each in their own way as they see fit.

It's not historical revisionism to note that industries simply don't regulate themselves for the common good. Meat processing plants didn't voluntarily stop allowing rat droppings, the rats themselves, and workers' fingers from being mixed in with the sausage. Coal mine owners didn't decide on their own to stop sending men and boys down to work 12 hour shifts breathing coal dust. Big agricultural concerns didn't do studies on their own to see what massive use of pesticides was doing to the environment. They didn't do these things until the government, taking seriously its responsibility to the general welfare, got involved.

States, each in their own way. That way, what works the best and most efficient gets a state bragging rights, and encourages other states to follow that example.

I will admit that every once in a while, companies do respond to consumer demand that they clean up their act. For example, Nike finally decided, after years of protests about its use of sweatshops in other countries, to stop attacking its critics and start monitoring working conditions abroad. However, they still make almost all of their goods in countries like China, where there is no environmental regulation, no labor laws, and workers make less than $2 a day. The point remains: companies will do whatever they can get away with in order to maximize their profits. Capitalism is founded on the principle that companies should do whatever they can get away with to maximize their profits.

And tyrannies are founded on the principle that people are too stupid to look out for themselves, when voluntarily dealing in free markets. And the peoples well being always comes in second behind the tyrant(s) acquisition of power and money for himself.

By the way, the case of China illustrates why it takes federal regulation, not state regulation, to restrict harmful practices. Just as the US government is in no position to tell China to not dump toxic waste, if you depended on state regulation, Florida would be powerless to prevent hog farms in Georgia from flushing their waste downstream and across the state line. Environmental regulation is manifestly a federal issue.

They could appeal to the federal government on a case-by-case basis. Most environmental issues arent about pollution crossing state lines that one state finds objectionable while another does not.

So given the above, can you come up with any companies that have actually gone out of business due to environmental regulation? Names and dates, please.

http://dailycaller.com/...ant-out-of-business-more-to-follow

Large scale ones are easy to find on the net, but the smaller scale ones arent nearly as documented. Runaway environmentalism indirectly cripples business and destroys livelihoods / liberty. For example, from 1980 to 1990, the cost of auto paint in the U.S multiplied by about seven times, far more than most any other product. Mostly because of stringent new standards paint companies had to face during that decade. I was in the business at that time, thats how I know. Im sure someone in the laundry business for a long period, or any business that uses chemicals, could tell similar stories. Its effects run deep throughout a society.

Seems that the only liberty you seem concerned with is the liberty to make as much money as you can.

I'm concerned with a society that trusts their safety to government agents who often have the same disposition and attitude of a motor vehicle clerk, or IRS agent.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 434 by ZenMonkey, posted 05-02-2011 1:10 AM ZenMonkey has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 438 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-02-2011 9:33 PM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 439 by Dr Adequate, posted 05-03-2011 12:09 AM marc9000 has not yet responded
 Message 440 by Theodoric, posted 05-03-2011 10:31 AM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 437 of 440 (614223)
05-02-2011 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 435 by marc9000
05-02-2011 7:15 PM


So therefore, it has nothing to do with this entire thread.

You are, of course, lying.

Why did you bring it up? Because, like most liberals, the phrase enrich themselves at the expense of others is a demonization of free markets ...

You are, of course, lying.

and youre now backpedaling

You are, of course, lying.

Is this the worst smoking youve ever gotten before at EvC?

I am unfamiliar with your argot, but if "getting a smoking" means "being amused at the antics of a pathetic liar", and if the badness of the smoking correlates with the egregiousness of the lies, then you may not even be in the top ten. Remember that creationists post here.

History revisionism isnt going too well for you.

You are inadvertently telling the truth, since I am not engaging in historical revisionism. This is why you can't point to a single thing that I actually said that was false.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 435 by marc9000, posted 05-02-2011 7:15 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


(1)
Message 438 of 440 (614225)
05-02-2011 9:33 PM
Reply to: Message 436 by marc9000
05-02-2011 7:25 PM


Free Markets Explained For Idiots And Conservatives ...
... but I repeat myself.

Yes. In a free society, voluntary, free market transactions ...

Yes, marc. Voluntary, free market transactions.

These words actually have a meaning.

If Alice pays Bob to put arsenic in Charlie's drinking water, this is not a voluntary free market transaction. It was voluntary on the part of Alice and Bob, but there is a third party involved, namely Charlie, who did not agree to his part in the transaction. Therefore, this is not an example of the free market. The fact that Bob made money out of it does not magically make it an example of the free market. Profit, greed, self-interest --- these alone do not make a free market; the element of freedom must also be present. This is why they're called free markets.

When Bob poisons Charlie for profit, he is unjustly enriching himself at Charlie's expense, and the reason why it is unjust is precisely the reason why it is not an example of the free market --- Charlie did not consent.

Note that this analysis applies equally if Alice actively wants Charlie dead or if she just thinks that his drinking water is a convenient place to put her arsenic and merely has a callous disregard for his life. Charlie's lack of control over and consent to what goes in his water is the same in both cases.

Clearly market forces alone cannot prevent such unfree transactions, since there is no economic disincentive to deter Bob from poisoning Charlie. It is therefore the legitimate concern of the government to ensure the freedom of the economic relations between its citizens by providing a legal disincentive.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by marc9000, posted 05-02-2011 7:25 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16085
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 439 of 440 (614237)
05-03-2011 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 436 by marc9000
05-02-2011 7:25 PM


So given the above, can you come up with any companies that have actually gone out of business due to environmental regulation? Names and dates, please.

http://dailycaller.com/...ant-out-of-business-more-to-follow

For a company that's gone out of business, Exelon's shares are way overvalued at ~$42 apiece. Maybe you should start shorting their stock before anyone else notices that they've gone out of business. Other investors are unlikely to catch on while Exelon continues to make annual profits of two-and-a-half billion dollars.

In our next installment of "Economics For Idiots And Conservatives", we'll be learning what a company is.

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by marc9000, posted 05-02-2011 7:25 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

  
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 5953
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 440 of 440 (614271)
05-03-2011 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 436 by marc9000
05-02-2011 7:25 PM


If milk, carrots, and drinking water tasted bad, it would be a good indicator. If one companys milk or carrots tasted better than another companys, company #1 would get the business and make more money. Of course I realize that one company isnt in a position to test another companys product, and taste isnt always foolproof, some poison is tasteless. If testing is required, it should be up to the states to do it, each in their own way as they see fit.

This is as asinine an argument as you have ever made. You do realize that the companies selling the veggies to the public are not the companies that would be doing the polluting. The original polluters could be hundreds or thousands of miles away. Do you think there is some sort of magic barrier at state lines?

Most environmental issues arent about pollution crossing state lines that one state finds objectionable while another does not.

Bullshit. This is just one of your unevidenced assertions. Does reality mean anything to you. Please explain how environmental issues are stopped by statelines. Did the BP blowout just effect one state? Why do you think states banded together to combat unregulated smokestack emissions?

This isn't even dogma. You are spouting crap that can be very easily shown to be blatantly false.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
This message is a reply to:
 Message 436 by marc9000, posted 05-02-2011 7:25 PM marc9000 has not yet responded

    
RewPrev1
...
2526272829
30
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019