And thats where States step in Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And the suggestion that environmental standards would not exist otherwise is based on what? As I said they can create their own environmental standards. But the actual movement and the idea that humans are causing it being substantiated thoroughly is still very recent. And this becoming a political topic is even more recent. You have to understand 'laws' are politics and unless the people have knowledge and take action many times laws are not made. Due to the recent awareness there are state agencies that deal with environment and standards. You think if California knew the damages and the whole process they wouldn't have created safeguards and standards? What you are saying is the Federal Government must to it. We're saying the Federal government doesn't have to do it there are other ways. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Environmental_Protection_Agency
Sure, they can try. And then they can listen to Arizona laugh as they dump that chromium into the All-American Canal. It's cheaper than disposing of it safely in Arizona, that's for sure.
The States have right over their state. They can take them to a Federal court for violating their State's property. Because Boeing only manufactures planes. They don't fly them. The Airlines require planes that they can fly anywhere to get customers. To fulfill customer demands, the airlines need to have planes in order to do that. Thus by extension since the Airlines are Boeing's customers they must fulfill their demands. Nebraska instead of making 'new runways' as you suggest could simply create a law that prohibits 'unsafe' planes from flying in Nebraska, which would cause a loss of customer base to Airlines and they will demand the manufacturer to meet their needs. And and that 'money' component combined with the Airports/States/Companies working together will come up with a system without a need of a Federal Agency. Don't quite get you here, excuse my lack of knowledge about how TV stations work. Well the Patriot Act and the NDAA are a great example of attacks on my civil rights. Civil rights are 'mine', and they are attacking them.
The States have right over their state. They can take them to a Federal court for violating their State's property if anything from their State to another. Not only will they get sued they would have to pay the other State for all the damages. 'State Rights' Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Anyways I had no intention on getting into a debate over this. I'm trying to stay away from forums as much as I can. My only comments were about racism and civil liberties. The spin off into the environment- don't really want to go there... cuz this will go on and on. But I think the responses so far should give an idea of where I stand. And I appreciate your own views which are well intentioned I believe. cool Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Quote me just once stating or implying that? Oh right, you can't, because I didn't. The difference is that instead of 5000 people accross 52 states coming to 52 different conclusions, you have 500 people in one location establishing the broadest possible guideline, and a handful of people in each state determining how to apply it. You seem to be suffering from the "If you're disagreeing with me, you're with them" delusion that seems to typify most of my interactions with Americans. My point is, was, and will always be, that both Federal and State governments have a role to play, they're seperate roles. The federal government has the best concentration of resources, and can put forward unifying guidelines, the state governments have the local knowledge to determine how those guidelines apply to them. It's simple, straightforward, and when applied correctly, the most efficient use of resources. Not what I said, not is it implied by anything I said. Please stop trolling. Wrong again. The idea that humans might cause climate change was proposed back in 1900 or 1908 (there were a series of four papers by the same individual). In 1906 or 1908 it was predicted that a doubling of ppCO[sub]2[/sub] would lead to a 5k rise in temperature. By the '70s it was the scientific consensus that warming would occur in the future. The only part of it that's relativiely recent is Hansens testimony that it is happening now. Given what happened in response to Duponts 'lobbying' over the Montreal Protocol, it wouldn't surprise me if they had hypothetically tried, and PG&E successfully blocked it. It also doesn't surprise me to note that California's current stantard for hexavalent chromium contamination of water wasn't developed until after the hinkley case had been settled (may be coincidence, however...) I've also seen, first hand, the lengths that corporations will go to to avoid getting an infringment. No, that's your interpretation of what I'm saying, not what I'm saying at all. What I am, actually, saying is that there are some aspects of environmental management that are better handled by central government, and other aspects that are better handled at a local level, and the only sane approach is to combine the pair of them. Of course, there is also the fact that I'm not American to consider :shrug: Here a bylaw has no teeth unless its supported by an act of parliment (no, I'm not british either), because it's by reference to the act that the bylaw creates an offense.
Of course he's a lunatic. He isn't endorsed, supported, or ok'd by the CIA establishment. (Research Operation Mockingbird) You can say that again. He's always hyper nationalistic, patriotic, etc. The troops are always, "first" this, that, and the other, w/e ever b.s. Supposedly NOTHING is more important to Mr. Hannity. Yet when it comes to Ron Paul? His memory conveniently goes blank concerning what issues are important to our serving men and women. Guess there is a time and a place to listen to them. . . only as window dressing, not as actual people. Hypocrite. :bugeye: Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Until recently that IS how things were done. Imagine what it must be like for a North Korean contemplating private enterprise building a railroad AND their argument being: LOL! Try it and see what happens. Does that make sense??? Because that's what you sound like to me. You may not know this, but when the United States was laying railroad 100 years ago every single government run company went bankrupt and ONLY private railroad companies were financially viable. Why would any sane individual ever think the government can do anything better than private enterprise? It simple doesn't make any sense at all. Have you ever worked for a government agency? They're absolutely cram-packed full to the rim with incompetence and massive MASSIVE waste. Recently a colleague of mine was given $750,000 to complete a project over 5 years. Do you know what he got done - absolutely nothing at all. NOTHING as in NOTHING. Nothing, he did nothing but work on his housing estate he's building in his spare time (which is all day long at work). His housing estate runs on this business model: Indians and Sri Lankan will happily live 6 to a room in 6 bedroom Houses with the barest amenities. He contacts sponsor's and gets those that come and go to University (near his houses) and crams them in these shitty little rooms. It's pathetic. Dirty. Nasty. And you can imagine their shitty University degree in worthlessness (usually business/econ). After he did NOTHING with the $750K he didn't get his contract renewed, not that it mattered as he was then was hired into another government agency, the TGA, at over a $100,000 per year! Do you know why he said he wanted that job? Because he needs the extra free-time (at work) to manage his f*cking housing estate he's investing in building. Another colleague I know who works at the TGA making over $100,000 literally works from 10am until 2pm (and is damn proud of this fact - and that he cannot be fired) stamping a few forms that drug companies submit to his dept. He checks that all the boxes are ticked, stamp, done - THAT'S IT. Most people really have no idea of the tremendous amount of waste and are simply oversold on the "expert" advice given by so-called "experts". You'd be shocked. It's all about hiring more and more and more incompetent people to do less and less and less - and what is done is pretty much meaningless regulatory compliance that creates even MORE need to hire more people to complete with more meaningless bullshit. I haven't even begun to tell you stories about the massive waste of time and resources at the NIH. I know of a lab that uses $350 glass Hamilton syringes (mine are 10 years old) ONE TIME and toss them in the bin!!! It's just f*cking crazy the total amount of waste at the NIH. One time a colleague from the NIH (paid in the hundreds of thousands) was at dinner crapping on about his absolutely useless research when I mentioned to some Japanese how excellent their pronunciation was. He chimed in: Yeah, you speak good American. Believe me, you will not miss these Five Federal Agencies when they are closed. I can 100% promise you that much.
Whoopi. He's right, it's not any more important than this was. Obama Spiritual Mentor: God Damn America Sorry you don't find that satisfactory. Get over it. Guilt by association is juvenile. (Lastly, it should be noted that, The New Republic is a CFR supporting publication, so their accusation of Ron Paul claiming; Anti-Government Paranoia/Conspiracy Theories/Survivalism A fundraising letter from Paul’s 1984 Senate campaign in which Paul complains about the “minions of Kissinger and Rockefeller” and “the big New York banks, and their pals in Texas” who “want me silenced.” Is really just biased B.S., since it IS ostensibly and factually true. The proof. . . look at this smear article, duh???!!! Aren't they trying to silence his campaign? :shrugPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No, much like the rest of your post. For example: Not what I said. Actually, yes, I currently work for a government agency, in environmental law enforcement (at the equivalent of the state level - I work for local government). What's your point? No doubt some of them are, and some of them more so than others. That doesn't argue against anything I have actually suggested though, at best it suggests that in the US the systems in place to prevent such waste need to be examined - in the rest of the civilized world, we have this thing called accountability. Awesome. A personal annecdote. Should I tell you about a certain large (american based) multinational company that my department is dealing with that has hired a friggen QC to get out of paying a $750 fine for spilling some cooking oil in a creek? How about the city council that admitted that they had been advised by their consultant that they could cut custs by discharging lower quality effluent, and operating closer to the levels in their permit? Or the time an Australian company that operates here managed to weasel out of paying a $750 fine, after threatening to waste taxpayer money by dragging it through the courts in a defended hearing, because I hadn't taken samples? (The complainant substantially understated the size of the problem, and I was still new to the job). I mean... If you want to trade personal annecdotes... Personally, I have a BSc in Chemistry, my interest is environmental/aquatic chemistry, and that's why I got the job. More personal annecdote. Sounds to me like somebody else in that agency also isn't doing their job. What's your point here? Human beings are fat stupid and lazy? Are you sure of that? I doubt it. Right, because that, combined with your personal indicate proves that the system is intrinsicaly flawed, right? Well no, not really - remember, in one of my replies I added the caveat "If it is being managed properly". Clearly then your personal annecdote serves to illustrate one thing - it isn't. But that doesn't actually prove anything I have said wrong, which is that leaving industries unregulated is a bad idea, because they have indicated time and again that they'r eincapable of regulating themselves, and the average consumer, in general, just doesn't give a shit. I'm still trying to figure out why you bought North Korea up? Seems like a bit of a strange link to make. Do you think that every country that has any form of government regulation must neccessarily wind up a communist dictatorship? Because that's just funny. That's nice, another personal annecdote. I question your ability to make such an assertion.
Trippy, Perhaps I didn't appreciate your stance. It seems like you are suggesting private companies would do a worse job relative to publicly funded bureaucracies doing the exact same job? You don't think you'd be able to perform your exact same job in a private company? I'm not suggesting your job of environmental protection isn't important, it is. What I'm suggesting is you could probably do it much more effectively and efficiently at a private company with better pay and better resourced. As a matter of fact, probably every single test kit you purchase and chemical analysis you run is done using resources provided to you from a private company. On a side note: The Australian bureaucracy (I have worked in multiple AU public institutions) would make Americans blush. They even MORE wasteful if you can imagine that! It's a good thing for Australian bureaucrats that most Australians are as politically astute as their American cousins and are (at present) beguiled by the illusion that is the Australian housing bubble-debt funded poorly run public services. Case in point: The Carbon Tax. What a joke. Firstly you have to understand that over 90% of the Australian budget was spent decades ago (mostly on entitlements [I have a colleague who advises the government and is privy to the budget details]). That doesn't leave much to work with when you're trying to buy your electorate. Hence the need for more tax revenue. As if politicians give two flying shits about CO2. What a joke. I repeat: What a joke. You're probably aware of the Singaporean chemical company that recently pulled out of a deal to build a chemical plant in AU? It would have hired 800+ employees including over as hundred chemical engineers. Due to the Carbon Tax they're moving to China where they'll put out FOUR TIMES the amount of CO2 and the Gods only know how much environmental pollution. Here's a perfect example, from your very field of expertise, where the government is using violence/force to suck more from the individual and the outcome is exactly the opposite of the stated purpose for the needed violence*. Another perfect example of the government stealing from Peter to pay Paul. A new tax AND more carbon into the atmosphere so the government can hand out money on "new technology" projects that will burn through 100s of millions to produce nothing. *I'm using the word violence here to mean force. To better illustrate this words meaning thinking of how you would feel if you chose not to pay your tax. Now how would you feel if you chose not to buy an iPhone. Getting a letter from the government telling you, you must pay more tax elicits a different feeling versus one that asks you to think about buying a new iPhone5. I've seen these letters and they know how it makes people feel which is why they preface with something along the lines of, you do not need to contact the ATO at this time and this is just a reminder that.... this is done to allay those fears - you're meant to be feeling. Fear and some relief. I better pay.
No, it's just an example of the inefficiencies of government run projects. It's not like North Korea has stopped functioning (hell, they made nuke) - who knows, maybe NK could go on as is indefinitely as is? That's not the point, the reason I brought up NK is you probably would agree we me it's an example of a poorly run bureaucracy. Yet, many North Koreans don't think so. They think they're the most successful country on the planet and it is we who are all living like slaves (which actually isn't that far off the mark but nevermind that). I'm suggesting that you probably think the Australian government is doing a pretty decent to good job. I suggest you're (I should say we all are) just living in a different box of similar illusions. I don't think I am able to explain Libertarianism and have it make sense - - other than to suggest Plato's 'The Republic' :shrug: When you attack Paul, what you're really attacking is Libertarianism - I think?
Which they will win only if they can present clear evidence that (say) Arizona caused the pollution and subsequent damage. But Arizona, having clever lawyers, will say "but Colorado did it! Look, here's water and air samples from Colorado showing similar pollution. There is clearly a reasonable doubt that the pollution came from Arizona." So they win - because reasonable doubt in the US court system means you are innocent. And then California sues Colorado. And they say Arizona did it. Also, of course, you cannot sue until there are actually provable damages. Which means you have to wait for your kids to die before you can sue. And thus the airlines would put financial pressure on Nebraska, and provide them with aviation "experts" who tell them that 99% safety is just fine, they don't need that law. (And like you said, the airlines fly the planes so they are the experts.) And of course their voters want cheap flights. So Nebraska reverses its law, and 1 out of 100 airplanes crash. Let's say you own a TV station and California allows you to transmit at 800MHz. That frequency allows you to send TV signals everywhere in Imperial Valley and make millions in advertiser revenue. It also jams cell reception in Arizona over hundreds of square miles. Arizona calls you and says "Hey, shut down that damn station so we can use our phones! People are dying because they can't call 911!" You do the math and realize that giving up that channel will bankrupt you. What do you do? So you have been attacked as a person by the Patriot Act? What happened?
No it can be clearly distinguished where the pollution is coming from. And you can never create laws without knowing stuff. Why would someone create a law against chemical X if they didn't know it was a carcinogen to begin with? Laws come after knowledge. And if a law is there, they can sue from for breach of law. No damages need to be done. If someone violates a 'contract' (State Rights) they can be sued. Or Nebraska can create a law and force the airlines to get planes that fit their criteria, which forces Boeing to meet those needs. Because the transmission is coming from one state to another, they can be sued, and in this case for real damages. Or they would need to somehow block the waves from entering the other state. So its in the State's best interest to work together because like Arizona will get screwed, companies in Arizona can do the same and California will get sued and screwed. Instead of Mutual Destruction they would come with laws that will help solve the problem. Your line of thinking is. What if A did this to B. But remember B can do the same to A. Instead of getting mutual destruction people work together for a solution. That is how civilizations came into being and government. Yes I no longer have a right to trial if the military picks me up. My rights have been taken. I haven't been picked up by the military yet. But that doesn't mean my right isn't already gone under the law. So ya my rights have already been attacked.
Nope, not what I'm saying at all, I recognize that there are some things that private companies do better, that's why government departments (here at least) tender work out to them by contracts. Because each has its place. There are some things local government does better, there are some things central government does better, and there are some things private enterprise does better. Not until we start tendering law enforcement to private corporations, something which I'm not sure I could ever agree with. Having said that, my job has recently shifted from field work to desk work, because, it seems, I have a knack for finding the things that other people have missed, and am able to express scientific and statistical concepts in language that politicians and lawyers can understand. Things like correlating and coallating data from three independent sources, each collecting for their own reasons, so that I can infer the apparent existence of acid mine drainage from 100 year old coal mines being discharged into an estuary. I could do a related job at least. Most of the big firms now have people employed monitoring their compliance with various permits. With my understanding of enforcement procedures gained on the job, I probably could get a job with a consulting firm relatively easy, and in both cases, I would certainly be better paid, but, my current job gives me a certain satisfaction that I don't see happening elsewhere. As much as I might like to, I don't run the tests. Generally, I analyze pre-existing data to see if there's anything anyone else has missed (this includes studying other peoples reports where they exist). I then use this information to determine what the most cost effective combination of analytes is, and the most effective locations for sampling sites. I then get someone who does field work in that area, and has local knowledge to collect the samples, and those samples are sent to a corporate lab, where people are paid to be familiar with the APHA standard methods, and carry them out efficiently. They send me the results, I interpret them, and present them, with the added context (and value) of all of the historical data I've been able to gather. On a side note: The Australian bureaucracy (I have worked in multiple AU public institutions) would make Americans blush. They even MORE wasteful if you can imagine that! It's a good thing for Australian bureaucrats that most Australians are as politically astute as their American cousins and are (at present) beguiled by the illusion that is the Australian housing bubble-debt funded poorly run public services. Force, my friends, is violence. The supreme authority from which all other authority is derived. Naked violence has solved more issues in the course of human history than any other single factor.Source uncertain, it's part of a soundbyte in a song I have as an mp3 (taken in turn from an album I own).
No, see, that's the interpretation of my stance that is specifcaly annoying me. I'm not opposed to Libertarianism. When I sit those various political tests, I generally come out very close to the center, but slightly left leaning, and slightly libertarian. I view the government as being something of a neccessary evil. Trust me. Nothing would make me happier to wake up tomorrow morning and find out that my position is obsolete, because (western) society had had a massive paradigm shift and was now putting people and the environment above profit. However, based on my experience, some of which I have relayed as personal annecdotes, I don't see that happening. Take environmental law as an example. I don't see corporate self regulation working as long as the focus is on the bottom line - short of the average consumer suddenly becoming a lot more informed than they currently are, and taking environmentalism into account when making their purchases. DuPont proved that over the Montreal Protocol, and it has been proven time and again at various scales since. I can't speak for anyone else, but when I attack Ron Paul, I'm attacking Ron Paul, and I am (occasionally) attacking Ron Pauls interpretation of libertarianism.
No, it can't. That's one of the reasons the EPA was created - because the rising levels of SOx in the air (which led to acid rain) came from hundreds of power plants, not just one (or several in one state.) They wouldn't. They find out after the fact, then regulate. (Although nowadays we are getting a little bit smarter about that, and test many things before flooding the environment with them.) And what contract would that Arizona power plant be violating by sending pollutants into California? Again, you'd have to buck the will of the people there. Why would people vote to cost themselves money or deny themselves air service? Any politician who proposed such costly or inconvenient measures would rapidly be voted out of office. (And any airline that lost Nebraska but could keep buying cheap Boeing planes would count themselves lucky, compared to having to pay far more for the airplanes.) Agreed - and after your kids are dead, the damages are real. If they planned this beforehand - yes, it would be great. But once there is an investment of tens of billions of dollars in equipment neither side is going to want to change. You'd have California saying "sure we'll change over. Right after your state pays for it." And if they both do come to an agreement, and finally agree on frequency allocations? Then Nevada is going to be pissed off because it doesn't match their allocations, and they lose reception. Too bad there isn't an organization that can plan ahead, assign frequencies nationwide and has the force of law behind it to deal with people who jam other people's frequencies . . . I didn't ask if your rights have been attacked. You said that you had been attacked as a person and I was asking how that happened. Apparently the answer is no, you haven't been attacked as a person - but you feel you now might have fewer rights under some circumstances. That's a more reasonable argument, and I agree; our rights have been eroded since that fateful day in 1788. However, the problem is that if I am killed by power plant emissions I have also lost my rights. And we know for a fact that without regulation people ARE killed by pollution; indeed, the EPA was not created because government busybodies wanted jobs, it was created because people in places like Donora, PA were dying, fisheries were being lost, and entire species (like the bald eagle) were either made extinct or being threatened with extinction. The trick is to retain as many rights as possible without taking away the rights of others. You have a right to swing your fist but that right stops at my nose; you have a right to pollute but it stops at my lungs and mouth.
It seems you have defeated your own argument. In order for a Federal court to decide transboundary issues, would it not require the existence of a Federal law to enforce, and a federal agency to derive minimum guidlines (which in turn implies the existence of an enforcement agency to ensure these minimum standards are met).
I REALLY wish there were separate threads discussing libertarian/federated politics, and the Ron Paul campaign. The two issues really seem to be getting muddied. One does NOT equal the other.
No. Because the Individual State can create a law regarding its borders. Breach of those laws will result in a federal court case. How these 'transboundary' laws are made then will be States cooperating with each other.
