Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That might explain why we are kicking the economic butts of all the red states around us!
And look at how Texas - the largest red state in the country - is faring in the recession.
Colorado Democrats are probably more fiscally conservative than Democrats in many/most other states; if CO had fiscally liberal policies on the state level, it wouldn't be kicking any butts.
They may not have been on the "least free" list, but Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, and the like were not on the "freest" list either.
It looks at both economic freedom and personal freedom apparently.
I don't agree with it. One doesn't half to have money to enjoy this playground. Sunday was a gay pride parade and there were parties all over and not just for or by gays. Just a celebration NYC wide.
They do that already. Making it illegal creates a scenario where the people most likely to be carrying guns are also the people most likely to use them for evil (not counting those with concealed carry permits, of course).
If it's private property, then the owner of the establishment, not any form of government, should have the final say on whether or not they allow their patrons to smoke. Just because the moral majority doesn't like smoking, doesn't mean that they have a right to outlaw it on private property. It's called tyranny of the majority for a reason. Outlawing smoking on private property is no better than outlawing homosexuality on private property. If you don't like it, go eat somewhere else. If it's really that big of a deal, then non-smoking bars and restaurants would have quite a niche.
Now, there is a case to be made for outlawing smoking on public property (that is, property owned by the government). This is a public good, and thus is open to regulation. You can reasonably tell someone that, if they don't like smoking in a bar or restaurant, that they can simply not go there. You can't, however, tell them that they should to avoid going to the courthouse, using the sidewalk on main street, or visiting a public museum (for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that they payed for them with their tax dollars).
Once again, if you don't like it, then just leave. If you quit working for a company because they treat you poorly, you're doing the rest of the workforce a favor. Sooner or later the company is going to realize that they're losing talented and qualified individuals because they're not treating them right, and that's going to impact their bottom line. If things are really bad, form a union. It's not that I have anything against unions, just any special treatment that they get from the government.
I don't think anybody wants that. There is a time and a place for regulation, and preventing a company, or even just regular folks, from destroying natural resources is a good example. This isn't at all contrary to the libertarian ideology, however, because when you pollute a public good (such as a river), you are in fact infringing upon the rights of others who share that public good with you. The libertarian philosophy goes something like this: You have a right to do anything you please, so long as you don't infringe upon the rights of somebody else.
Do you not see how you contradict yourself betrween your second and last points??
Besides, Libertarians will just say that the company dumping the poisons simply has a common right to use the river as do all others. As they "own" (free and clear of all regulation- property right) their section of the river and the water within.
Last edited by Geechie North; 06-30-2009 at 07:40 PM..
Do you not see how you contradict yourself betrween your second and last points??
Besides, Libertarians will just say that the company dumping the poisons simply has a common right to use the river as do all others. As they "own" (frr and clear of all regulation- property right) their section of the river and the water within.
I don't see the contradiction at all. The air inside a private establishment is not a public good. If the smoke is wafting out on to the street and polluting the air in a public place, then yes, you can establish regulations to prevent that. As it is currently, however, instead of smoking in doors (where the smoke will most likely stay), smokers walk out front to smoke on the sidewalk, where anybody who's passing by is affected by it (and since they are on government property, they have the right not to be).
Also, dumping poisons is not an appropriate use of a river, because it affects the rights others have to use the same river. You don't own the water that's flowing through your property. Water rights are very complicated, and vary from place to place, but basically, you have a right to use water that flows on property you own, and often have the right to consume a small portion of it, so long as you don't seriously impact others downstream who have the right to do the same. The only time a river (and the water it contains) can be considered private property would be if the entire course of the river was located on your property, and the water didn't end up in another stream, river, lake, or ocean not also owned by you. Since it's impractical, if not impossible, to own an entire hydrological system, debating private ownership of a river is academic only.
The libertarian philosophy is really not very complicated at its core. When determining if you have a right to do something, ask yourself, "does it infringe upon the rights of others?" If the answer is "yes," then you do not have a right to do the original thing. If the answer is "no," then you are in the clear.
Using this 'formula,' we can easily determine if it a company has a right to dump toxins in a river. Does it infringe upon the rights of others? Yes, it infringes upon the rights of those downstream by preventing them from using the river. In this case, the river (and the water it contains) is a public good because it crosses more private properties than just those owned by the company. We can also determine if somebody has the right to smoke in bars or restaurants. Does it infringe upon the rights of others? No, because people desiring to patronize the bar or restaurant can decide to patronize another venue or stay home to eat/drink. In this case, the bar/restaurant is not a public good because it exists only on the private property of a single individual/company. You can make the case that the air inside the bar/restaurant is a public good, but only if the smoking inside is seriously impacting the air quality of other properties that are adjacent to the bar/restaurant that are not also owned by the owner of the bar/restaurant.
I don't see the contradiction at all. The air inside a private establishment is not a public good. If the smoke is wafting out on to the street and polluting the air in a public place, then yes, you can establish regulations to prevent that. As it is currently, however, instead of smoking in doors (where the smoke will most likely stay), smokers walk out front to smoke on the sidewalk, where anybody who's passing by is affected by it (and since they are on government property, they have the right not to be).
Also, dumping poisons is not an appropriate use of a river, because it affects the rights others have to use the same river. You don't own the water that's flowing through your property. Water rights are very complicated, and vary from place to place, but basically, you have a right to use water that flows on property you own, and often have the right to consume a small portion of it, so long as you don't seriously impact others downstream who have the right to do the same. The only time a river (and the water it contains) can be considered private property would be if the entire course of the river was located on your property, and the water didn't end up in another stream, river, lake, or ocean not also owned by you. Since it's impractical, if not impossible, to own an entire hydrological system, debating private ownership of a river is academic only.
The libertarian philosophy is really not very complicated at its core. When determining if you have a right to do something, ask yourself, "does it infringe upon the rights of others?" If the answer is "yes," then you do not have a right to do the original thing. If the answer is "no," then you are in the clear.
Using this 'formula,' we can easily determine if it a company has a right to dump toxins in a river. Does it infringe upon the rights of others? Yes, it infringes upon the rights of those downstream by preventing them from using the river. In this case, the river (and the water it contains) is a public good because it crosses more private properties than just those owned by the company. We can also determine if somebody has the right to smoke in bars or restaurants. Does it infringe upon the rights of others? No, because people desiring to patronize the bar or restaurant can decide to patronize another venue or stay home to eat/drink. In this case, the bar/restaurant is not a public good because it exists only on the private property of a single individual/company. You can make the case that the air inside the bar/restaurant is a public good, but only if the smoking inside is seriously impacting the air quality of other properties that are adjacent to the bar/restaurant that are not also owned by the owner of the bar/restaurant.
But that second hand smoke exits the building into the public domain as well.
Does that infringe on the health of others?
How about that water in the river?
What if the pollution is dumped on the company's private land and then ends up in the ground water?
Libertarians have long fought for property rights (over public health) on such issues.
I've worked with Libertarians- esp during the 2004 "election" in Ohio when they teamed to with the Progressives to challenge the fradulent election of GW Bush.
I've found them to be honest, dedicated, and completely clueless as to US History from 1880 uintil today.
Let's see... would I rather live in New York or Idaho? One has jobs, infrastructure, culture, arts, and... people. The other one has... potatoes.
And by the way, CO is not a red state. We have a Democratic Governor and a Democratically controlled state legislature. The mayor of Denver is a Democrat and so are many of the other city officials. Colorado Springs is more conservative, but the rest of the front range is generally moderate. That might explain why we are kicking the economic butts of all the red states around us!
Gee, where would I want to live...NY has overcrowding, pollution, too high taxes, too much government, little personal freedom....not much question for me...
Denver is full of leftist transplants. Most of the rest of CO is quite red.
But that second hand smoke exits the building into the public domain as well.
Does that infringe on the health of others?
It might. It depends on whether or not the second hand smoke exists in quantities that are dangerous to the health of those not choosing to patronize or be employees of the restaurant. I don't think it's very likely that somebody is going to suffer any ill effects from second hand smoke that exits a building and travels on to the street. Second hand smoke isn't very dangerous to begin with, and it's even less dangerous outdoors. Combine that with the fact that, once it actually gets out of the building it's going to be in very dilute quantities. Like I said though, if you could prove that the smoke coming from inside the building was affecting those in public, then yes, it would be innapropriate and thus subject to regulation. Also, to be fair it has to be taken on a case by case basis. Some bars and restaurants exist far away from any property lines, where it would be impossible for people smoking in them to affect anybody else off of the property.
Quote:
How about that water in the river?
What if the pollution is dumped on the company's private land and then ends up in the ground water?
I've explicitly covered this already in previous posts. I don't want to a jerk, but maybe you're not paying attention? You cannot do something that infringes upon the rights of others. You do not have the right to pollute a public water source. If you have sole ownership of the water source, and none of that water is exchanged with adjacent water sources, and it can be reasonably assumed that said water exchange has not happened in the past and will not happen in the future, then pollute away, but you are destroying your property value.
Quote:
Libertarians have long fought for property rights (over public health) on such issues.
I've worked with Libertarians- esp during the 2004 "election" in Ohio when they teamed to with the Progressives to challenge the fradulent election of GW Bush.
I've found them to be honest, dedicated, and completely clueless as to US History from 1880 uintil today.
Just because Libertarians have different answers to the problems that have plagued us in the past does not mean that they are clueless to them. A lot of environmental damage was done by the industrial revolution, but that doesn't mean that the Libertarian philosophy of enforcing strict property rights and protecting consumers against fraud and false advertising is any less apt to deal with said damage than the Progressive philosophy of 'one size fits all' regulation. Freedom and liberty, and environmentalism and consumer advocacy, are not mutually exclusive concepts.
But that second hand smoke exits the building into the public domain as well.
Does that infringe on the health of others?
How about that water in the river?
What if the pollution is dumped on the company's private land and then ends up in the ground water?
Libertarians have long fought for property rights (over public health) on such issues.
I've worked with Libertarians- esp during the 2004 "election" in Ohio when they teamed to with the Progressives to challenge the fradulent election of GW Bush.
I've found them to be honest, dedicated, and completely clueless as to US History from 1880 uintil today.
By the time any second hand smoke exits a building it's not going to pose any real, significant risk to others.
If someone dumps poison into a water supply of any sort it infringes on the rights of others.
Has anyone actually heard of realclearpolitics.com before? It just seems to be some random website thrown together.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One has jobs, infrastructure, culture, arts, and... people. The other one has... potatoes. 
