Glibertarians are slave maskers
Bob Tiernan
Timmy Travis scribbled with a crayon:
> Mike Thompson wrote:
> > I'll even bet there's been a Libertarian sometime who
> > has attempted to squash someone's personal liberty.
> Frankly, I believe that is whole point of Glibertarianism--at
> least to those who are smart enough to be using it to do the
> opposite of what they claim they are doing.
"Smart enough"? You mean that the real Libertarians who
truly believe in the rights of the indidvidual, including
rights that even you know are not exactly protected and
defended by two major parties, are *not* considered smart
by your standards? The others are not exactly smart,
but a dishonest. You speak low of people who only desire
to protect all of your rights.
> Of course, those who just write to newsgroups about their
> desire to preserve liberty don't get how they are being used.
So you believe that those lbertarians on this newsgroup *are*
honest about protecting rights, but are being used by the
bad ones? Thanks for admitting that me, and Steph, and Gary
and so on are not deceiving anyone.
> Come on, if someone were going to subvert liberty wouldn't
> they actually claim they were preserving it?
Of course. Libertarians have been warning people about
this for a long time, as have been others who were
libertarians long before the party existed (von Mises,
Hayek, Spooner, Nock, etc). For deception, check
out the Progressive/Fabian games.
> The Glibertarians in this news group have no problem
> whatsoever with preventing people from using their personal
> liberty to get together and use government to solve problems
> (some of which have to do with putting some limits on the
> predations of heroes a la Taggart and Reardon).
Give me some examples of these "personal liberties" that
can be used; the methods; and the "problems" hinted at.
> The predators (and the piss ants who identify with them)
> always piss and moan when the prey try to get together
> to even things out.
This is all very interesting. If big business/corporations
needed to be "reigned in" back when, why was it they were
in many cases *asking* and *lobbying* for the regulations
that we have been taught ever since had "rescued" America
from having only one company in the end? Big Business,
despite the myths of the so-called laissez-faire period
of American history, was having a very difficult time
with the free enterprise system and wanted "help" in
keeping their niches, so they turned to government which
passed privileged legislation under the guise of "fighting
big business".
> It's called Glibertarianism and that's one of the ways
> it works. Personal liberty, indeed!!!
Tim, there *is* a philosophy of personal liberty, both
socially and economically. It has a name, too. Whatever
it is (Libertarianism, Glopism, or whatever name *you*
want to give it) Will you ackowledge that there is such a
philosophy and people who are loyal to it without then
accusing them all of being deceptive?
Bob T.
"The ultimate result of shielding men from the
effects of folly is to fill the world with fools".
-- Herbert Spencer
Timothy
Bob Tiernan wrote:
> Timmy Travis scribbled with a crayon:
>
absolutely. you think they let me have anything sharp in here?
>
>
> > Of course, those who just write to newsgroups about their
> > desire to preserve liberty don't get how they are being used.
>
> Thanks for admitting that me, and Steph, and Gary
> and so on are not deceiving anyone.
except yourselves
> > The Glibertarians in this news group have no problem
> > whatsoever with preventing people from using their personal
> > liberty to get together and use government to solve problems
> > (some of which have to do with putting some limits on the
> > predations of heroes a la Taggart and Reardon).
>
> Give me some examples of these "personal liberties" that
> can be used; the methods; and the "problems" hinted at.
start with land use laws...
>
>
> > The predators (and the piss ants who identify with them)
> > always piss and moan when the prey try to get together
> > to even things out.
>
> Big Business,
> despite the myths of the so-called laissez-faire period
> of American history, was having a very difficult time
> with the free enterprise system and wanted "help" in
> keeping their niches, so they turned to government which
> passed privileged legislation under the guise of "fighting
> big business".
no argument from me about this. so what? You're saying that it was all
hunky dorey before this dark age of government regulation and I say
that's either ignorance or a determined ignoring of what the world was
like. You are claiming that all that government does is evil and that is
not so. General Mills/Motors/Electric is not behind everything that
government does. Government is corrupt? Wow!!! News flash. But so
are you, and I...that makes us totally unworthy of any credit? Are you
really into original sin, like that? Your whole philosophy is based on
a rejection of those kinds of notions...you go back to that French guy
with his noble savage...you don't go back to Locke.
>
>
> > It's called Glibertarianism and that's one of the ways
> > it works. Personal liberty, indeed!!!
>
> Tim, there *is* a philosophy of personal liberty, both
> socially and economically. It has a name, too. Whatever
> it is (Libertarianism, Glopism, or whatever name *you*
> want to give it) Will you ackowledge that there is such a
> philosophy and people who are loyal to it without then
> accusing them all of being deceptive?
all but the last part. (although I have yet to hear you say anything
near this in regard to those with whom you disagree. They are are all
unprincipled boobs).(as opposed to principled boobs).
the philosophy of personal liberty that you express is deceptive. It
does not apply to human beings, only to angels. If people were perfect
... never mind. You get the point. There are many things in heaven
and earth...child molesting, for example, in which letting everyone do
whatever their powers allow them to do just breaks up as bankrupt.
Here's a news flash. Human nature--as recorded by science and
history--seems to be that people will do what is expedient and in their
short term interest. Makes it hard to think, given that, that
Glibertarianism has any relevance to the real world in which I have
problems to face and solve. Nice tool--useless.
>
>
> Bob T.
>
> "The ultimate result of shielding men from the
> effects of folly is to fill the world with fools".
>
> -- Herbert Spencer
as I have said before (ya gotta get a new slogan) the world is gonna
be full of fools whether you shelter people or not. We gotta do our
best, man.
Bob Tiernan
On 28 Feb 1998, Timothy wrote:
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > "The ultimate result of shielding men from the
> > effects of folly is to fill the world with fools".
> >
> > -- Herbert Spencer
> as I have said before (ya gotta get a new slogan) the world is gonna
> be full of fools whether you shelter people or not. We gotta do our
> best, man.
This sig has not been there that long, and I usually change
them monthly. Stay tuned for a new one, to be changed
every other week if I remember to.
Bob T.
dR.DavE
In <34F83699...@SpiritOne.com> Timothy <Tim...@SpiritOne.com> writes:
>Bob Tiernan wrote:
>> Timmy Travis scribbled with a crayon:
>>
>> > Of course, those who just write to newsgroups about their
>> > desire to preserve liberty don't get how they are being used.
>>
>> Thanks for admitting that me, and Steph, and Gary
>> and so on are not deceiving anyone.
>except yourselves
So what's your solution?
>> > The Glibertarians in this news group have no problem
>> > whatsoever with preventing people from using their personal
>> > liberty to get together and use government to solve problems
>> > (some of which have to do with putting some limits on the
>> > predations of heroes a la Taggart and Reardon).
>>
>> Give me some examples of these "personal liberties" that
>> can be used; the methods; and the "problems" hinted at.
>start with land use laws...
Geez, do you always type one sentence at a time with no supporting ideas?
Okay, I guess I'll try to divine what you're getting at....
Land use laws. Basically, they're a way of dictating to people what they
can or can't do with their property. What do land use laws buy you? It
lets you tell your neighbour not to be ugly, basically. That's what land
use laws have always come down to. Now, really, in America, I can't see
that as being an adequate reason for using government force to tell people
what they can or can't do with their own property.
Better yet, let's look at the real results of land use laws. Developers
are making money hand over fist from inflated housing prices, caused by a
shortage of land available. But it's a direct consequence of the UGB, a
basic feature of our land use laws.
And land use laws are not necessary, if you're willing to respect the
rights of others. In Florida, deed-restricted communities are very common.
Before you buy land in one, you have to acknowledge the restrictions on the
land. Everyone does so voluntarily when they enter into a purchase
agreement. In some ways, city ordinances function the same way. So long
as the original owner consented to the limitations, those limitations can
be passed on.
But what you're talking about is taking a vote, and then if people vote in
favor of it, compelling all those who voted against it to go along with it
anyway. I have a problem with that. How come you don't?
>> > The predators (and the piss ants who identify with them)
>> > always piss and moan when the prey try to get together
>> > to even things out.
>>
>> Big Business, despite the myths of the so-called laissez-faire period
>> of American history, was having a very difficult time
>> with the free enterprise system and wanted "help" in
>> keeping their niches, so they turned to government which
>> passed privileged legislation under the guise of "fighting
>> big business".
>no argument from me about this. so what? You're saying that it was all
>hunky dorey before this dark age of government regulation and I say
>that's either ignorance or a determined ignoring of what the world was
>like. You are claiming that all that government does is evil and that is
>not so. General Mills/Motors/Electric is not behind everything that
>government does. Government is corrupt? Wow!!! News flash. But so
>are you, and I...that makes us totally unworthy of any credit? Are you
>really into original sin, like that? Your whole philosophy is based on
>a rejection of those kinds of notions...you go back to that French guy
>with his noble savage...you don't go back to Locke.
Wow, elaboration! This I can work with.
You're partially right, and partially wrong, and I'm now going to provide
the additional details that Bob left out, and I think you'll see where he
was going.
I am not claiming that all that government does is evil; but when it's
allowed to wander beyond the basic function of protecting people from
violence and fraud, it opens itself up to manipulation that benefits those
with the power and money to do so.
But there is a documented history that corporations have colluded with
government in the past. The National Guard should never have been called
out against strikers. Preston Tucker should never have been put out of
business. We should not have gone along with regulations that, while on
the surface seem to benefit us, actually had the intention of limiting
competition. We should not have gone to the Middle East to do war on
behalf of oil companies. Corporations don't deserve limited liability.
You know the roster of corporate welfare by now, I'm sure.
But neither should government be used to gouge corporations either. Being
successful isn't a crime in this country. Having more stuff than someone
else is not immoral. Indulging in class envy is unamerican. Since you
made noise about Atlas Shrugged, then you should be able to see that
Taggart and Reardon were basically fending off just these sorts of attacks.
They weren't using government to get ahead. If anything, Taggart and
Reardon should be held up as ideal captains of industry, because they were
good, they knew it, and all they wanted was to be left alone to be
brilliant. The whole point of Atlas Shrugged was to underscore how
government force is used in business by inferior companies to attack
successful ones. That Taggart and Reardon were so plastic that you could
smell the 1 percent body fat 40 pages into the book is more the fault of
Rand's writing ability than anything else.
>> > It's called Glibertarianism and that's one of the ways
>> > it works. Personal liberty, indeed!!!
>>
>> Tim, there *is* a philosophy of personal liberty, both
>> socially and economically. It has a name, too. Whatever
>> it is (Libertarianism, Glopism, or whatever name *you*
>> want to give it) Will you ackowledge that there is such a
>> philosophy and people who are loyal to it without then
>> accusing them all of being deceptive?
>all but the last part. (although I have yet to hear you say anything
>near this in regard to those with whom you disagree. They are are all
>unprincipled boobs).(as opposed to principled boobs).
I never accuse anyone here of being basically deceptive, regardless of what
political persuasion they espouse. Everyone here, on the other hand, has
occastionally been at least disingenuous in order to further a point of
debate, but that is not important in the long run, since anyone who does so
should be called on their bluff. I have no problem with that.
But there are particular times when I *do* know that I am right. I've done
the homework, I've put the brainpower into it, and (if I may be arrogant
for a moment) I have educated people and changed people's minds about
Libertarianism (and now we shall have the obligatory potshots from
Guerilla, Talltom, et al.). We're all just human. I don't think anyone
here purposely tries to be deceptive. Can Libertarians be manipulated by
powerful people? Probably. But then, so can anyone. (And as we look
around America, we can see that in fact, anyone has.)
I would never call someone an unprincipled boob. There are times when I
see someone talking, and what they are saying is wrong because of (a) a
basic difference in philosophy from myself, or (b) depending on
misinformation that I have the knowledge to correct. With that comes the
risk that I myself may be judged as being wrong on a basic point of
philosophy, or that my own information is in error. I can't do much about
the first problem, but when the second problem arises, I'm more than
willing to look at the contradictory data that you have and evaluate it.
> the philosophy of personal liberty that you express is deceptive. It
>does not apply to human beings, only to angels. If people were perfect
>... never mind. You get the point. There are many things in heaven
>and earth...child molesting, for example, in which letting everyone do
>whatever their powers allow them to do just breaks up as bankrupt.
Oh, please. You just described *every* system of political thought ever
devised. That's hardly an indictment of libertarianism.
>Here's a news flash. Human nature--as recorded by science and
>history--seems to be that people will do what is expedient and in their
>short term interest. Makes it hard to think, given that, that
>Glibertarianism has any relevance to the real world in which I have
>problems to face and solve. Nice tool--useless.
It has all sorts of relevance, and is hardly useless. Give me a real world
situation, and I'll show how it applies, with as many benefits and costs,
positives and negatives as I can think of. By all means, let's have it
out.
>> "The ultimate result of shielding men from the
>> effects of folly is to fill the world with fools".
>>
>> -- Herbert Spencer
> as I have said before (ya gotta get a new slogan) the world is gonna
>be full of fools whether you shelter people or not. We gotta do our
>best, man.
If we're stuck with fools at any rate, why shelter them? What does that
gain us? Of course we gotta do our best, but to me, that means not
sheltering the fools.
"My dad put a 900 pound television on top of at 25 pound TV tray. His
attitude was, 'Let him pull it on his head a few times. He'll learn.'"
-- Jeff Foxworthy
--
**dR.DavE**..............making the world safe for intelligent dance music
David L. Vessell | dr....@pobox.com | http://www.teleport.com/~drdav3
Media Director, Libertarian Party of Oregon | http://www.teleport.com/~lpo
Timothy
dR.DavE wrote:
> Land use laws. Basically, they're a way of dictating to people what they
> can or can't do with their property. What do land use laws buy you? It
> lets you tell your neighbour not to be ugly, basically.
ugly? yeah. ugly like not to create development messes that the rest of us
have to clean up while they retire with the dough. not ugly like a mud fence
but ugly like toxic waste and like that. that kind of ugly.
> That's what land
> use laws have always come down to. Now, really, in America, I can't see
> that as being an adequate reason for using government force to tell people
> what they can or can't do with their own property.
how about you cannot create waste dumps, take the profits of that away, and
leave the rest of us to fund super fund and the like?. How about you cannot
create strip malls and leave the rest of us to pick up the tab? Is that so
unreasonable?
>
>
> Better yet, let's look at the real results of land use laws. Developers
> are making money hand over fist from inflated housing prices, caused by a
> shortage of land available.
so? the alternative is that the rest of us subsidize their costs of doing
business by installing the infrastructure to support that little piece of heaven
that they got rich creating ten miles beyond the end of the sewer hook up. More
something for nothing Glibertarianism. Will you people never act responsibly?
Land use laws make people accountable and keep one generation from lousing up
the next.
> But it's a direct consequence of the UGB, a
> basic feature of our land use laws.
>
> And land use laws are not necessary, if you're willing to respect the
> rights of others.
and who is, when there is a dollar on the table? Not the developers. They
don't respect anyone's rights. Talk to those people who are over there watching
their homes fall into the ocean. Is the developer there, helping them? No. Was
the developer there, being responsible when s/he carved out the lots? No.
> In Florida, deed-restricted communities are very common.
right, restrictive covenants have a long history. Look at Houston, Texas.
Better yet, move there. Oh, that's right, they finally adopted zoning because
the Glibertarian heaven was getting...messy...people didn't want to live there
anymore.
> Before you buy land in one, you have to acknowledge the restrictions on the
> land.
sure, like no selling to "those kinds of people." that's the kind of
restriction you get with that system, nothing to do with paying for sewer
systems. no one puts restrictions on deeds that limit the ability to cash out
later and leave the neighbors with the bills.
> Everyone does so voluntarily when they enter into a purchase
> agreement. In some ways, city ordinances function the same way. So long
> as the original owner consented to the limitations, those limitations can
> be passed on.
to people who do not consent to them? oooops!!! one more reason for
Glibertarian Cato crats to get up in the air.
>
>
> But what you're talking about is taking a vote, and then if people vote in
> favor of it, compelling all those who voted against it to go along with it
> anyway. I have a problem with that. How come you don't?
cause it's democracy? Cause it's better than thug rule? I know it's not
perfect to vote on things. It would be great if we all got our way all the
time. But, hey, what are you gonna do? Libertarianism boils down to those who
have the gold make the rules. Sorry, I don't buy that. I know that cream
floats to the top. But I also know that cream is not the only thing that
floats.
>
>
> >> > The predators (and the piss ants who identify with them)
> >> > always piss and moan when the prey try to get together
> >> > to even things out.
> >>
> >> Big Business, despite the myths of the so-called laissez-faire period
> >> of American history, was having a very difficult time
> >> with the free enterprise system and wanted "help" in
> >> keeping their niches, so they turned to government which
> >> passed privileged legislation under the guise of "fighting
> >> big business".
>
> >no argument from me about this. so what? You're saying that it was all
> >hunky dorey before this dark age of government regulation and I say
> >that's either ignorance or a determined ignoring of what the world was
> >like. You are claiming that all that government does is evil and that is
> >not so. General Mills/Motors/Electric is not behind everything that
> >government does. Government is corrupt? Wow!!! News flash. But so
> >are you, and I...that makes us totally unworthy of any credit? Are you
> >really into original sin, like that? Your whole philosophy is based on
> >a rejection of those kinds of notions...you go back to that French guy
> >with his noble savage...you don't go back to Locke.
>
> Wow, elaboration! This I can work with.
>
> You're partially right, and partially wrong,
most of us are.
> But there is a documented history that corporations have colluded with
> government in the past. The National Guard should never have been called
> out against strikers.
and, of course, under Glibertarianism they never would have been.
> Preston Tucker should never have been put out of
> business. We should not have gone along with regulations that, while on
> the surface seem to benefit us, actually had the intention of limiting
> competition.
I like competition limited. I don't like people competing with me at gun point.
call me silly...
> We should not have gone to the Middle East to do war on
> behalf of oil companies.
so? What does this have to do with people who live in our community and put
financial pressure on the rest of us having to pay property taxes? Come home!!!
> Corporations don't deserve limited liability.
I agree.
> You know the roster of corporate welfare by now, I'm sure.
>
> But neither should government be used to gouge corporations either. Being
> successful isn't a crime in this country. Having more stuff than someone
> else is not immoral.
no, it just obligates you to pay more to maintain the machinery that is paying
off for you than those for whom it not paying off.
> Indulging in class envy is unamerican.
at least saying you do is. Class conflict is inevitable as long as those who
have wage war against those who do not in order to keep what they have and
augment it.
trickle down? how? when I invest a dollar I exect a dollar and ten to twelve
back ('member when it was six?). So if I am getting twelve more back than I
sent out where is the tricle down? Sounds like it's coming up, to me. Class
warfare.
the only people who complain about class warfare are those who have been waging
it, on the quiet, all along, when suddenly someone wages it on them..
> Since you
> made noise about Atlas Shrugged, then you should be able to see that
> Taggart and Reardon were basically fending off just these sorts of attacks.
> They weren't using government to get ahead. If anything, Taggart and
> Reardon should be held up as ideal captains of industry, because they were
> good, they knew it, and all they wanted was to be left alone to be
> brilliant. The whole point of Atlas Shrugged was to underscore how
> government force is used in business by inferior companies to attack
> successful ones. That Taggart and Reardon were so plastic that you could
> smell the 1 percent body fat 40 pages into the book is more the fault of
> Rand's writing ability than anything else.
no. it is the "fault" of the fact that they do not describe anyone who really
lived. Both the heroes and the villains are fantasy and so their exploits and
conflicts cannot inform or help us figure out what we should do..
>
>
> We're all just human. I don't think anyone
> here purposely tries to be deceptive. Can Libertarians be manipulated by
> powerful people? Probably. But then, so can anyone. (And as we look
> around America, we can see that in fact, anyone has.)
right on.
>
>
> I would never call someone an unprincipled boob.
I might. But most of the posts I see here, I put down to princpled boobs.
> > the philosophy of personal liberty that you express is deceptive. It
> >does not apply to human beings, only to angels. If people were perfect
> >... never mind. You get the point. There are many things in heaven
> >and earth...child molesting, for example, in which letting everyone do
> >whatever their powers allow them to do just breaks up as bankrupt.
>
> Oh, please. You just described *every* system of political thought ever
> devised. That's hardly an indictment of libertarianism.
if it describes EVERY system of political thought how is it not an indictment of
Glibertarianism which is, after all, a system of political thought?
>
>
> >. Nice tool--useless.
>
> It has all sorts of relevance, and is hardly useless. Give me a real world
> situation, and I'll show how it applies, with as many benefits and costs,
> positives and negatives as I can think of. By all means, let's have it
> out.
>
> >> "The ultimate result of shielding men from the
> >> effects of folly is to fill the world with fools".
> >>
> >> -- Herbert Spencer
>
> > as I have said before (ya gotta get a new slogan) the world is gonna
> >be full of fools whether you shelter people or not. We gotta do our
> >best, man.
>
> If we're stuck with fools at any rate, why shelter them? What does that
> gain us? Of course we gotta do our best, but to me, that means not
> sheltering the fools.
if all the fools were put on ice flows--well, there we would all be!!! My point
is that no one on earth can live up to Libertarian/Cato ism. No one is Hank, no
one is Dagney. They are as fanciful as Job. They serve the same purpose as
Job, as symbols. But they are not real. And if you plan a world for Hank or
Dagney or Job then you are building a world in which none of us can really
live. Come on, live in the real world. Stop tying to make reality conform to
the way you think it would be best if it were. That's my gripe with any
ideology. I know that many here think I am a socialist but I reject that as much
as I do Glibertarianism or (as BT calls them) Democans and Republicrats. .
>
>
> "My dad put a 900 pound television on top of at 25 pound TV tray. His
> attitude was, 'Let him pull it on his head a few times. He'll learn.'"
> -- Jeff Foxworthy
yeah, let that tv tray--like the rest of us--figure out what would be best for
us because, after all, reality is no barrier. In the words of another slave
masker
"Be all that you can be...in the Army."
>
>
> --
> peace
Timothy
Matthew Montchalin
dR.DavE may have written:
>> Land use laws. Basically, they're a way of dictating to people what they
>> can or can't do with their property. What do land use laws buy you? It
>> lets you tell your neighbour not to be ugly, basically.
Timothy wrote:
>ugly? yeah. ugly like not to create development messes that the rest of us
>have to clean up while they retire with the dough. not ugly like a mud fence
>but ugly like toxic waste and like that. that kind of ugly.
Well, that sounds like a principle that I would agree with. -The ugliness
must be injurious, and harmful, not merely unsightful. (Although
generally, even /certain/ kinds of unsightliness have generally been made
subjects of legislation, and vehicles for correction.)
To illustrate this principle, however, consider this: somebody dumps a
load of old automobile tires on some vacant land. Nobody minds, at least
for a few years. The tires, however, become old, and start to break down
from the natural weathering processes. Rainwater washes over the tires,
and sooner or later, the fibers and filaments and rubber molecules
degenerate to such a point that they become water soluble. Rainwater
washes the rubber particles into the ground, and sooner or later the stuff
seeps into a nearby stream or river, which, for the sake of argument, is a
navigable waterway, not a private water reservoir, or private water
treatment facility meant to receive that sort of thing.
The stuff is detected in the river, and violates a pollution standard,
let's say, a standard established by the Legislative Assembly. The
evidence is amassed, and handed over to the Atty. Gen., who brings an
action against the landowner for storing a mess of tires. Quite rightly,
intent doesn't need to be an element of this scenario: show the injury
(pollution), and require the landowner to clean it up. This is an
ugliness that the state may reasonably compel reversal, and correction,
and I am sure that no Libertarians would strenuously disagree here.
--
At enim vela pendent liminibus grammaticarum scholarum, sed non illa magis
honorem secreti quam tegimentum erroris significant. -Confessiones St. Aug.
dR.DavE
Timothy wrote:
>dR.DavE wrote:
>> Land use laws. Basically, they're a way of dictating to people what they
>> can or can't do with their property. What do land use laws buy you? It
>> lets you tell your neighbour not to be ugly, basically.
>ugly? yeah. ugly like not to create development messes that the rest of us
>have to clean up while they retire with the dough. not ugly like a mud fence
>but ugly like toxic waste and like that. that kind of ugly.
None of that requires land use laws. It requires buyers to buy smartly.
It requires us to hold developers accountable for their mistakes (rather
than shrug it off, as Oregonians seem bent on doing). Why do you let them
retire with the dough? Go after them, dammit!
Toxic waste is a little trickier, but I can definitely say that if any
toxicity leaves the property, by any means, then it's actionable. If it
can be proven that toxicity leaving is inevitable, *then* direct action can
be taken.
>> That's what land
>> use laws have always come down to. Now, really, in America, I can't see
>> that as being an adequate reason for using government force to tell people
>> what they can or can't do with their own property.
>how about you cannot create waste dumps, take the profits of that away, and
>leave the rest of us to fund super fund and the like?. How about you cannot
>create strip malls and leave the rest of us to pick up the tab? Is that so
>unreasonable?
Not at all. Developers of strip malls should pay form them themselves,
just like any business venture. Waste dumps I addressed above. And
instead of Superfund, how about the property owner paying for the cleanup?
>> Better yet, let's look at the real results of land use laws. Developers
>> are making money hand over fist from inflated housing prices, caused by a
>> shortage of land available.
>so? the alternative is that the rest of us subsidize their costs of doing
>business by installing the infrastructure to support that little piece of heav
>that they got rich creating ten miles beyond the end of the sewer hook up. Mo
>something for nothing libertarianism. Will you people never act responsibly?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Libertarians act responsibly most of the time, I would say, your ravings to
the contrary.
Let's talk about infrastructure for a moment. If a developer put a
development 10 miles beyond the sewer system, why would you then turn right
around and build them their infrastructure? Hmm? Could it be because
you're stupid? Why on earth would you do that?
>Land use laws make people accountable and keep one generation from lousing up
>the next.
So does proper enforcement of property rights, without the prior restraint
and without the emotional capriciousness.
>> But it's a direct consequence of the UGB, a
>> basic feature of our land use laws.
>>
>> And land use laws are not necessary, if you're willing to respect the
>> rights of others.
>and who is, when there is a dollar on the table? Not the developers. They
>don't respect anyone's rights. Talk to those people who are over there watchi
>their homes fall into the ocean. Is the developer there, helping them? No. W
>the developer there, being responsible when s/he carved out the lots? No.
That's why we have the civil courts. To hold the developers responsible.
Why aren't you holding the developers responsible?
In the particular case of The Capes, every single one of those lots had
their precious building permits, which I assume you think is God's Seal of
Approval. So why not also hold the issuer of your precious permits
responsible?
I don't have a sentimental spot for the Capes owners, to be sure. I think
living on the beach is a stupid idea, whether it's here or in Florida.
Ignornace is no reason for the government to bail you out. If the
developers were fraudulent, then we must hold them responsible. But the
buyers bear part of the responsibility as well. Are you willing to shirk
that responsibility? Hypocrite.
>> In Florida, deed-restricted communities are very common.
>right, restrictive covenants have a long history. Look at Houston, Texas.
>Better yet, move there. Oh, that's right, they finally adopted zoning because
>the libertarian heaven was getting...messy...people didn't want to live there
>anymore.
I do not know the situation in Houston. Someone more knowledgable than I
can speak to that point.
>> Before you buy land in one, you have to acknowledge the restrictions on the
>> land.
>sure, like no selling to "those kinds of people." that's the kind of
>restriction you get with that system, nothing to do with paying for sewer
>systems. no one puts restrictions on deeds that limit the ability to cash out
>later and leave the neighbors with the bills.
Who cares what the restrictions are? It's private property. They can do
what they want as long as they're responsible for it, no?
And of course, you're playing the racism card. So typical of liberals to
feign concern for "your oppressed brethren" while perpetuating the
institutions that keep them enslaved. You're pathetic.
>> Everyone does so voluntarily when they enter into a purchase
>> agreement. In some ways, city ordinances function the same way. So long
>> as the original owner consented to the limitations, those limitations can
>> be passed on.
>to people who do not consent to them? oooops!!! one more reason for
>libertarian Cato crats to get up in the air.
I didn't say that. What are you, 15 years old? Not to people who already
live there. They can't be forced into accepting those limitations. But if
you move into a city, it's your responsibility to check out the ordinances
and decide whether you want to buy there or not.
>> But what you're talking about is taking a vote, and then if people vote in
>> favor of it, compelling all those who voted against it to go along with it
>> anyway. I have a problem with that. How come you don't?
>cause it's democracy? Cause it's better than thug rule? I know it's not
>perfect to vote on things. It would be great if we all got our way all the
>time. But, hey, what are you gonna do? Libertarianism boils down to those who
>have the gold make the rules. Sorry, I don't buy that. I know that cream
>floats to the top. But I also know that cream is not the only thing that
>floats.
Limited government. Democracy tempered with protection of individual
rights. Or are you too dense to deal with anything other than extremes?
Your definition of libertarianism is simply wrong, and you can't weasel out
of it without being ignorant or lying.
>> >no argument from me about this. so what? You're saying that it was all
>> >hunky dorey before this dark age of government regulation and I say
>> >that's either ignorance or a determined ignoring of what the world was
>> >like. You are claiming that all that government does is evil and that is
>> >not so. General Mills/Motors/Electric is not behind everything that
>> >government does. Government is corrupt? Wow!!! News flash. But so
>> >are you, and I...that makes us totally unworthy of any credit? Are you
>> >really into original sin, like that? Your whole philosophy is based on
>> >a rejection of those kinds of notions...you go back to that French guy
>> >with his noble savage...you don't go back to Locke.
>>
>> Wow, elaboration! This I can work with.
>>
>> You're partially right, and partially wrong,
>most of us are.
No shit. I'm the first to admit that I'm not always right (though I like
think I'm right more often than I'm wrong). So stop slandering
libertarians already.
>> But there is a documented history that corporations have colluded with
>> government in the past. The National Guard should never have been called
>> out against strikers.
>and, of course, under libertarianism they never would have been.
That is correct.
>> Preston Tucker should never have been put out of
>> business. We should not have gone along with regulations that, while on
>> the surface seem to benefit us, actually had the intention of limiting
>> competition.
>I like competition limited. I don't like people competing with me at
>gun point call me silly...
Oh, don't be dense. I obviously meant peaceful competition, without
violence or coercion. Your attempts at obfuscation only make you look that
much more like an nut.
>> We should not have gone to the Middle East to do war on
>> behalf of oil companies.
>so? What does this have to do with people who live in our community and put
>financial pressure on the rest of us having to pay property taxes? Come home!
All politics are local. Do you honestly think that this has no effect on
your community? That it's not part and parcel of entire attitude we have
towards government? If we have a problem, go get a big stick and beat
someone with it? It doesn't matter if you're using your stick on some
other country or on someone in your community.
>> Corporations don't deserve limited liability.
>I agree.
I think you'll find, if you take a deep breath and set your hostility aside
for a moment, that we agree more frequently than you might realize.
>> You know the roster of corporate welfare by now, I'm sure.
>>
>> But neither should government be used to gouge corporations either. Being
>> successful isn't a crime in this country. Having more stuff than someone
>> else is not immoral.
>no, it just obligates you to pay more to maintain the machinery that is paying
>off for you than those for whom it not paying off.
I don't understand what you're saying here.
>> Indulging in class envy is unamerican.
>at least saying you do is. Class conflict is inevitable as long as those who
>have wage war against those who do not in order to keep what they have and
>augment it.
The ideal is that everybody is equal before the law. Is that reality? No.
But that doesn't mean that we should abandon pursuit of that ideal in
favour of tit-for-tat retaliation. You're probably right, class envy is a
human failure that we can't avoid, but that doesn't mean we should base
policy on it. I don't think that rich people should be allowed to use the
force of law to keep people down, but it's equally wrong to use the law to
get your evens. The only way that can be accomplished is with limited
government. If you make government's role clear and consistent, instead of
trying to retain the power for yourself to do "good" while trying to rig
the system so that those who disagree with you can't do "evil", it's better
to define ahead of time what is the government's purview, make sure that
definition is consistent, Constitutional, and in sync with individual
rights.
>trickle down? how? when I invest a dollar I exect a dollar and ten to twelve
>back ('member when it was six?). So if I am getting twelve more back than I
>sent out where is the tricle down? Sounds like it's coming up, to me. Class
>warfare.
I never used the term "trickle down", and I consider that to be a poorly
defined, emotionally charged term, and I won't indulge you in an argument
over it.
>the only people who complain about class warfare are those who have been waging
>it, on the quiet, all along, when suddenly someone wages it on them..
No. I complain about class warfare when the force of government is
manipulated to serve one group's interest or another. I don't care which
group wages it. I don't play favourites. Most Libertarians don't.
>> Since you
>> made noise about Atlas Shrugged, then you should be able to see that
>> Taggart and Reardon were basically fending off just these sorts of attacks.
>> They weren't using government to get ahead. If anything, Taggart and
>> Reardon should be held up as ideal captains of industry, because they were
>> good, they knew it, and all they wanted was to be left alone to be
>> brilliant. The whole point of Atlas Shrugged was to underscore how
>> government force is used in business by inferior companies to attack
>> successful ones. That Taggart and Reardon were so plastic that you could
>> smell the 1 percent body fat 40 pages into the book is more the fault of
>> Rand's writing ability than anything else.
>no. it is the "fault" of the fact that they do not describe anyone who really
>lived. Both the heroes and the villains are fantasy and so their exploits and
>conflicts cannot inform or help us figure out what we should do..
I don't agree with that. Obviously, Rand was exaggerating to make her
point, I'll grant you that. Taggart and Reardon represent ideals, and
you're right, they don't exist in real life. But that doesn't mean that
what they represent isn't valid and usable. If Jesus Christ were just a
mythological figure, would his message be any less valid? (I'm not
comparing the morality of Rand and Christ directly, but rather referring to
the fact that both are ideals in their fields.)
>> We're all just human. I don't think anyone
>> here purposely tries to be deceptive. Can Libertarians be manipulated by
>> powerful people? Probably. But then, so can anyone. (And as we look
>> around America, we can see that in fact, anyone has.)
>right on.
>> I would never call someone an unprincipled boob.
>I might. But most of the posts I see here, I put down to princpled boobs.
I'll be more specific. I try very hard not to call people names, period.
Don't call me a boob, principle, unprincipled, or otherwise, and you'll
likely get a lot warmer response from me (and everyone else, there is such
a thing as common courtesy and baseline respect, you know).
>> > the philosophy of personal liberty that you express is deceptive. It
>> >does not apply to human beings, only to angels. If people were perfect
>> >... never mind. You get the point. There are many things in heaven
>> >and earth...child molesting, for example, in which letting everyone do
>> >whatever their powers allow them to do just breaks up as bankrupt.
>>
>> Oh, please. You just described *every* system of political thought ever
>> devised. That's hardly an indictment of libertarianism.
>if it describes EVERY system of political thought how is it not an indictment
>of libertarianism which is, after all, a system of political thought?
It is not an indictment exclusive to libertarianism, which is how I read
your original assertion.
>> If we're stuck with fools at any rate, why shelter them? What does that
>> gain us? Of course we gotta do our best, but to me, that means not
>> sheltering the fools.
>if all the fools were put on ice flows--well, there we would all be!!! My poi
>is that no one on earth can live up to Libertarian/Cato ism. No one is Hank,
>one is Dagney. They are as fanciful as Job. They serve the same purpose as
>Job, as symbols. But they are not real. And if you plan a world for Hank or
>Dagney or Job then you are building a world in which none of us can really
>live. Come on, live in the real world. Stop tying to make reality conform to
>the way you think it would be best if it were. That's my gripe with any
>ideology. I know that many here think I am a socialist but I reject that as mu
>as I do libertarianism or (as BT calls them) Democans and Republicrats. .
I recognize all of that. That doesn't mean that I should just chuck the
whole thing to the wind and follow my emotions. (Please keep in mind, too,
that what Rand was describing was the philosophy of Objectivism, not the
political philosophy of libertarianism. Granted, the former heavily
influenced the latter, and even I'm unclear of the exact distinctions (I'm
sure some of our resident objectivists could provide insight there).)
I am living in the real world, but so far there are very few situations and
circumstances where I've not found a reasonable application of
libertarianism to apply quite nicely. Are there situations where it
doesn't fit well? Sure. But it still fits better than any other
consistent system of thought. And yes, consistency is important, if there
is to be an equal protection of individual rights. If you can articulate
specific situations that you think libertaranism doesn't apply, I'd be
happy to address it for you. But the existence of those exceptions doesn't
invalidate the ideal. Utopia is not an option.
The problem with your gripe with all ideologies--that they're all trying to
make reality conform to the way its proponents want--is that you're pretty
much made it wholly convenient to not believe in anything.
>> "My dad put a 900 pound television on top of at 25 pound TV tray. His
>> attitude was, 'Let him pull it on his head a few times. He'll learn.'"
>> -- Jeff Foxworthy
>yeah, let that tv tray--like the rest of us--figure out what would be best for
>us because, after all, reality is no barrier. In the words of another slave
>masker
>"Be all that you can be...in the Army."
You completely miss the point of the quote (either purposely or otherwise).
The point is that you can only shelter people from reality for so long,
before you must give them the opportunity to learn the hard lessons and
grow from it. Far from saying "reality is no barrier", the quote actually
says that reality *will* assert itself, and the sooner you learn basic
truths, the better.
dR.DavE
mmon...@orednet.org (Matthew Montchalin) writes:
>dR.DavE may have written:
I did write this.
>>> Land use laws. Basically, they're a way of dictating to people what they
>>> can or can't do with their property. What do land use laws buy you? It
>>> lets you tell your neighbour not to be ugly, basically.
>Timothy wrote:
>>ugly? yeah. ugly like not to create development messes that the rest of us
>>have to clean up while they retire with the dough. not ugly like a mud fence
>>but ugly like toxic waste and like that. that kind of ugly.
>Well, that sounds like a principle that I would agree with. -The ugliness
>must be injurious, and harmful, not merely unsightful. (Although
>generally, even /certain/ kinds of unsightliness have generally been made
>subjects of legislation, and vehicles for correction.)
I also agree, for the most part.
>action against the landowner for storing a mess of tires. Quite rightly,
>intent doesn't need to be an element of this scenario: show the injury
>(pollution), and require the landowner to clean it up. This is an
>ugliness that the state may reasonably compel reversal, and correction,
>and I am sure that no Libertarians would strenuously disagree here.
You are correct. But let's be honest with ourselves. That is not what
generally happens with land use or zoning laws. If it were limited to
that, Libertarians wouldn't have a gripe. But most of the time they're
used because their neighbour has an unkempt house, or old cars, or they
want to keep businesses away from their home. Not exactly injurious and/or
harmful situations. And yet, that's pretty much how they're used and how
they're intended. And that's why I object to them.
Bill Shatzer
In a previous article, drd...@user2.teleport.com (dR.DavE) says:
-snips-
>Not at all. Developers of strip malls should pay form them themselves,
>just like any business venture. Waste dumps I addressed above. And
>instead of Superfund, how about the property owner paying for the cleanup?
Er, Dave, that is the way the Superfund works - the property owner
(and the polluter, if different from the owner) is primarily
responsible for the costs of clean up. There are some exceptions
for "innocent owners" (like banks who foreclosed on polluted
property) but pretty much the scheme is the owner (and polluter)
pay IF ya' can find 'em and if they have the funds to pay.
The government gets involved when the owner lacks sufficient resources
to pay the costs - there is a blood/turnip problem, after all.
Or, owners ya' just can't find - they picked up and moved on a
long time ago and left the locality to deal with the pollution.
For instance, the old creosote plant out on Marine Drive which
is supposedly the most badly polluted land in Oregon. The
creosote plant shut down sometime in the late '60's - the
company is long since out of business and the owners are
long gone - and probably dead. Even if ya' could find 'em,
what are the chances they have any appreciable portion of the
tens of millions it's costing to clean this place up? How ya'
gonna get them pay for the clean up? If it is gonna get
cleaned up, the government, in some form, is gonna have to
do it 'cause there just ain't no one else available.
Please get real, Dave. Property owners DO pay for clean ups -
when ya' can find 'em and when they have the funds to pay.
Alas, that is not always the case.
Peace and justice,
--
Bill Shatzer - bsha...@orednet.org
" There's worser things than marchin' from Umballa to Cawnpore"
GaryLDye
In article <6dhu66$j...@ednet2.orednet.org>, bsha...@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer)
writes:
>Please get real, Dave. Property owners DO pay for clean ups - when ya' can
>find 'em and when they have the funds to pay. Alas, that is not always the
>case.
There's also another case: when a company did something wrong decades ago (and
might not have known it at the time), but present-day stockowners are forced to
foot the bill, even those that might have purchased the stock the day before.
This demonstrates another justification technique the government uses whenever
it can: robbing the deep pockets.
G Lyndon
And on the eighth day, Man created God in his own image, and called it
Government.
Scott Johnson
GaryLDye wrote:
>
> In article <6dhu66$j...@ednet2.orednet.org>, bsha...@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer)
> writes:
>
> >Please get real, Dave. Property owners DO pay for clean ups - when ya' can
> >find 'em and when they have the funds to pay. Alas, that is not always the
> >case.
>
> There's also another case: when a company did something wrong decades > ago (and might not have known it at the time), but present-day
> stockowners are forced to foot the bill,
Only through decreased dividends, and/or a lower stock price.
When you buy stock, you are speculating in a company; that includes
anything the company does, and ever did. I see no problem.
Would you rather have the gubmint pay for the cleanup in this case? Or
just throw up your hands, not bother to clean it up, and ignore the
health effects if the toxins leak into the groundwater?
I though Libertarians (didn't like limited liabilty...
Scott
GaryLDye
In article <3500AD...@nospam.aracnet.com>, Scott Johnson
<sj_n...@nospam.aracnet.com> writes:
>> There's also another case: when a company did something wrong decades >
>ago (and might not have known it at the time), but present-day
>> stockowners are forced to foot the bill,
>
>Only through decreased dividends, and/or a lower stock price.
But that's the only reason a person buys stock -- for dividends and stock
appreciation. If the government takes some of this away, then they are
penalizing present day stockowners.
>
>
>When you buy stock, you are speculating in a company; that includes
>anything the company does, and ever did. I see no problem.
When you buy into a company, you are speculating on their present and future
activities. There is nothing you can do about their past. What good is it to
penalize a person for actions he has no power over? In other words, there
should be no ex post facto laws.
I see a problem with the government penalizing a person when that person did
nothing wrong. If the government wants to penalize someone, they should figure
out who owned the stock of the company at the time the crime was perpetrated,
and go after them. This should be very easy to do, as stockholders are in the
public record.
An analogy: Someone owns a gas station, and mixes in diesel with the gasoline
to gain some extra profit. He sells the station. Customers find out about the
previous practice, and go to the government. Should the government penalize
the new gas station owner or the old?
I hope I've made my point.
>
>Would you rather have the gubmint pay for the cleanup in this case? Or
>just throw up your hands, not bother to clean it up, and ignore the
>health effects if the toxins leak into the groundwater?
The government needs to go after the directors of the company who did it and
the owners of the company at the time of the crime.
Timothy
GaryLDye wrote:
> In article <6dhu66$j...@ednet2.orednet.org>, bsha...@orednet.org (Bill Shatzer)
> writes:
>
> >Please get real, Dave. Property owners DO pay for clean ups - when ya' can
> >find 'em and when they have the funds to pay. Alas, that is not always the
> >case.
>
> There's also another case: when a company did something wrong decades ago (and
> might not have known it at the time), but present-day stockowners are forced to
> foot the bill, even those that might have purchased the stock the day before.
> This demonstrates another justification technique the government uses whenever
> it can: robbing the deep pockets.
>
so those who are harmed should just go home (boo hoo) because no one can be blamed
and it's not fair to blame anyone anyway because they created jobs back then and
this is America, after all, where victims deserve what they get and if they didn't
they would have been born predators and not prey anyway.
"On the eighth day God invented fallacies and sprinkled them liberally over...qed."
Timothy
Scott Johnson wrote:
> When you buy stock, you are speculating in a company; that includes
> anything the company does, and ever did. I see no problem.
no, you miss the point. this is something for nothing ville, here. there's not risk in buying stock because it's a free market. get it?
no? well, it's like mathmatics. the proof is there but some of us are too dense to see it.
Peace
Timothy
>
Timothy
GaryLDye wrote:
In other words, there
> should be no ex post facto laws.
those are other words, Gary. Ex Post Facto has to do with criminal activities.
The liability for chemical spills was always there (the common law theory goes back
to the water cases--you can look this up). the fact that the liability was not
discovered for a long time doesn't mean it wasn't always there.
but, your line of thinking is consistent: let the money makers walk away and those
who are harmed can just pound sand.
>
>
> I see a problem with the government penalizing a person when that person did
> nothing wrong. If the government wants to penalize someone, they should figure
> out who owned the stock of the company at the time the crime was perpetrated,
> and go after them. This should be very easy to do, as stockholders are in the
> public record.
right. penalize their grandchildren rather than the legal successors in interest
to the perpetrators.
>
>
> An analogy: Someone owns a gas station, and mixes in diesel with the gasoline
> to gain some extra profit. He sells the station. Customers find out about the
> previous practice, and go to the government. Should the government penalize
> the new gas station owner or the old?
a fallacy is not the same as an analogy.
>
>
> I hope I've made my point.
right. apples. oranges. sure. round, brightly colored, sweet juice. the same.
>
>
> >
peace n love Gary
Timothy
Stephanie Spanhel
In or.politics Timothy <Tim...@SpiritOne.com> wrote:
> "On the eighth day God invented fallacies and sprinkled them liberally over...qed."
And on the ninth day, God invented the return key.
And on the tenth day, God created the lil key that turns line wrap OFF.
--
"Politicians ARE interested in people. Not that this is always a virtue.
Fleas are interested in dogs." -- P J O'Rourke st...@aracnet.com
GaryLDye
In article <35023C79...@SpiritOne.com>, Timothy <Tim...@SpiritOne.com>
writes:
>> There's also another case: when a company did something wrong decades ago
>>(and might not have known it at the time), but present-day stockowners are
>>forced to foot the bill, even those that might have purchased the stock the
day
>>before. This demonstrates another justification technique the government uses
>>whenever it can: robbing the deep pockets.
>>
>
>so those who are harmed should just go home (boo hoo) because no one can be
>blamed and it's not fair to blame anyone anyway because they created jobs back
>then and this is America, after all, where victims deserve what they get and
if they
>didn't they would have been born predators and not prey anyway.
It is better to send them home than to penalize someone who had nothing to do
with their misfortune.
GaryLDye
In article <35023E3E...@SpiritOne.com>, Timothy <Tim...@SpiritOne.com>
writes:
>GaryLDye wrote:
>
>In other words, there
>
>> should be no ex post facto laws.
>
>those are other words, Gary. Ex Post Facto has to do with criminal
>activities. The liability for chemical spills was always there (the common law
theory
>goes back to the water cases--you can look this up). the fact that the
liability was
>not discovered for a long time doesn't mean it wasn't always there.
Breaking envoronmental laws is a crime.
If you use a substance in your business, and later on it is found that the
substance is harmful, it is wrong to label it a crime to have exposed people to
the substance. ONe such reason it is wrong is the principal of ex post facto
laws, i.e. a new law should not be passed penalizing previous behavior.
>
>but, your line of thinking is consistent: let the money makers walk away and
>those who are harmed can just pound sand.
Consistency is the ultimate good, I agree.
>
>>
>>
>> I see a problem with the government penalizing a person when that person
>did nothing wrong. If the government wants to penalize someone, they should
>figure
>> out who owned the stock of the company at the time the crime was
perpetrated,
>> and go after them. This should be very easy to do, as stockholders are in
the
>> public record.
>
>right. penalize their grandchildren rather than the legal successors in
>interest to the perpetrators.
Follow the money.
>
>>
>>
>> An analogy: Someone owns a gas station, and mixes in diesel with the
gasoline
>> to gain some extra profit. He sells the station. Customers find out about
the
>> previous practice, and go to the government. Should the government penalize
>> the new gas station owner or the old?
>
>a fallacy is not the same as an analogy.
A one liner is not the same as a debate.
Thurston
>>>>
Prozac takes its toll with another unsuspecting citizen.
Let's see, you invest your m-o-n-e-y in a company. If that company does
well, you get a return on your investment. If it doesn't do well, you lose
money- maybe most, if not all, of it. Something for nothing?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dR.DavE
gary...@aol.com (GaryLDye) writes:
>Timothy <Tim...@SpiritOne.com> writes:
>>those are other words, Gary. Ex Post Facto has to do with criminal
>>activities. The liability for chemical spills was always there (the common law
>theory
>>goes back to the water cases--you can look this up). the fact that the
>liability was
>>not discovered for a long time doesn't mean it wasn't always there.
>Breaking envoronmental laws is a crime.
>If you use a substance in your business, and later on it is found that the
>substance is harmful, it is wrong to label it a crime to have exposed people to
>the substance. ONe such reason it is wrong is the principal of ex post facto
>laws, i.e. a new law should not be passed penalizing previous behavior.
That does not excuse them from liability, though. It simply makes it a
civil, rather than criminal, matter.
GaryLDye
In article <6e1bmj$jtm$1...@user2.teleport.com>, drd...@user2.teleport.com
(dR.DavE) writes:
>>If you use a substance in your business, and later on it is found that the
>>substance is harmful, it is wrong to label it a crime to have exposed people
>to
>>the substance. ONe such reason it is wrong is the principal of ex post
>facto
>>laws, i.e. a new law should not be passed penalizing previous behavior.
>
>That does not excuse them from liability, though. It simply makes it a
>civil, rather than criminal, matter.
>
>
I don't think so. If the property owner and society had no idea that the
substance was harmful while it was deposited, and then it was found that the
substance was harmful, there should be no liability. Not even civil.
Jeff Holloway
> > "On the eighth day God invented fallacies and sprinkled them liberally over...qed."
> And on the ninth day, God invented the return key.
> And on the tenth day, God created the lil key that turns line wrap OFF.
And on the eleventh day, God created help files, for idiots who don't know
where the lil key is....
Jeff
--
Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur.
Jeff Holloway | If you can't figure out how to send me mail, I
je...@tech7.com.nospam | wouldn't want to hear from you anyway....
The year 2000 is STILL the 20th century
Timothy
GaryLDye wrote: >
> >but, your line of thinking is consistent: let the money makers walk away and
> >those who are harmed can just pound sand.
>
> Consistency is the ultimate good, I agree.
I know you do. and consistency is the hobgoblin of ...
> >a fallacy is not the same as an analogy.
>
> A one liner is not the same as a debate.
granted. so replace your fallacy (and your subsequent one liner) with an analogy
or an argument and we can move along...
prayin for ya
tim tim
Timothy
Thurston, Rus...@teleport.com wrote:
>
>
> Prozac takes its toll with another unsuspecting citizen.
>
> Let's see, you invest your m-o-n-e-y in a company. If that company does
> well, you get a return on your investment. If it doesn't do well, you lose
> money- maybe most, if not all, of it. Something for nothing?
sorry, I was being sarcastic.
Peace
Timothy
>
>
Timothy
GaryLDye wrote:
> I don't think so. If the property owner and society had no idea that the
> substance was harmful while it was deposited, and then it was found that the
> substance was harmful, there should be no liability. Not even civil.
of course not. fits right in with your something for nothing philosophy. take
the profits but externalize all the costs.
Peace
Tim Jim