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.
I see that very few really know what being a libertarian is all about. It doesn't include trusting in only local governments, because, for the most part ALL governments are intrusive, ineffective, and inefficient. It doesn't mean allowing lawlessness and rampant criminal acts. It doesn't mean trusting government bureaucrats to make determinations about products over the product manufacturers who have a monetary stake in making safe products. It doesn't mean forcibly taking resources from other individuals to pay for the needs of others. Libertarianism is about allowing the individual to make choices about his/her own property and acting upon those choices as long as they do not violate the property rights of others.
No I think I got it Amazon. This is where personal responsibility comes into play. If I own a business, and my business screws up the environment, and pollutes the drinking water of those that live around me, then it's on me to accept the responsibility and accept the consequences! And that is where the government should step in, because others rights have been violated.
No I think I got it Amazon. This is where personal responsibility comes into play. If I own a business, and my business screws up the environment, and pollutes the drinking water of those that live around me, then it's on me to accept the responsibility and accept the consequences! And that is where the government should step in, because others rights have been violated.
Not necessarily government, but some type of arbitrator who would require compensation be paid by the offender.
Not necessarily government, but some type of arbitrator who would require compensation be paid by the offender.
And what force can such an arbitrator bring upon polluter to a. accept the amount of compensations to be paid, b. paying the amount owed, or c. taking the necessary steps to wring out such a payment when the polluter finds himself without enough liquidity do to so?
No I think I got it Amazon. This is where personal responsibility comes into play. If I own a business, and my business screws up the environment, and pollutes the drinking water of those that live around me, then it's on me to accept the responsibility and accept the consequences! And that is where the government should step in, because others rights have been violated.
It's a bit after-the-fact, though, isn't it? And it doesn't take into account that people may have a different risk assessment than that of their (undoubtedly unintended) victims.
Say somebody's drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. They obviously have to make a cost/benefit decision on stuff like blowout preventers, but their investment is of the high-risk/high-reward type, so they bought one off Craigslist. It has a known failure rate 10%, but they're comfortable with that risk.
The problem is: Once the blowout happens, the drilling operation, even if they were perfectly willing, simply won't be able to cover the cost of the cleanup. Should we abstain from interfering with their drilling operation because they feel willing to take a 10% chance of bankruptcy for a 90% chance of a better ROI? I say no. (Hell no, actually.)
Nobody would run that risk? Chinese companies added melamine to gluten to boost the protein content. They gambled it would be OK (risk assessment again), yet it poisoned thousands of animals. Do you think a pet owner stands a snowball's chance in hell to recoup anything from an obscure Chinese company that's folded in the meantime?
I'm certain that you're a stand-up guy and would do your utmost to offer relief to anyone you unwittingly harmed, but any system works great if you can assume that all the actors are stand-up guys.
Say somebody's drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. They obviously have to make a cost/benefit decision on stuff like blowout preventers, but their investors are of the high-risk/high-reward type, so they bought one off Craigslist. It has a known failure rate 10%, but they're comfortable with that risk.
The problem is: Once the blowout happens, the drilling operation, even if they were perfectly willing, simply won't be able to cover the cost of the cleanup. Should we abstain from interfering with their drilling operation because they feel willing to take a 10% chance of bankruptcy for a 90% chance of a better ROI? I say no. (Hell no, actually.)
As we saw in the Gulf Oil Spill fiasco, the government isn't much better (if any) at increasing these odds. And, in many cases, the chance of failure is increased because of regulatory concerns.
No I think I got it Amazon. This is where personal responsibility comes into play. If I own a business, and my business screws up the environment, and pollutes the drinking water of those that live around me, then it's on me to accept the responsibility and accept the consequences! And that is where the government should step in, because others rights have been violated.
The impending lawsuits would cost everyone involved a hell of a lot of money. A lot more money than it would cost to stick to a government regulation that says "thou shalt not pollute thy neighbor's water." I think any industry in this country believes that true. It's when regulation gets excessive or inconsistent that it creates concern in an industry.
There are Libertarians that believe in limited regulation, but there are many who believe in no regulation, which I think is wrong-headed.
The impending lawsuits would cost everyone involved a hell of a lot of money. A lot more money than it would cost to stick to a government regulation that says "thou shalt not pollute thy neighbor's water." I think any industry in this country believes that true. It's when regulation gets excessive or inconsistent that it creates concern in an industry.
There are Libertarians that believe in limited regulation, but there are many who believe in no regulation, which I think is wrong-headed.
And I didn't say I believe in no regulation. I believe in limited, which is why I said I believe we need checks and balances. What we're seeing in this country nowadays is overkill!
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.
