Gubment regulation

[Tero]

I am quite tolerant to libertarians being holed up with their guns where ever they are holed up. But I get irritated with this constant whine about job killing government regulation. We are not China! We don't pour waste streams in the river and ocean.

Mining. There are jobs sure. People make a living, other people make deals to develop some resource. Let's say there are a million people dependent on mining. Well, we have rules. If 300 million want mining controlled, or even 150 million, who is the one million to demand less regulation? We have to live in this shit they produce.

Mining controlled by
http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/sectors/mining.html

example of when things go wrong:

The operation has caused controversy because of its environmental impacts. Sulfate concentration in the effluent (8000 mg/m3) has exceeded the permitted levels (130 mg/m3), causing severe pollution in the water course.[19] Insufficient mixing caused the formation of an artificial halocline in a lake where effluent was discharged, which led to the lake bottom becoming anoxic.[20] Reduction of sulfate into hydrogen sulfide by bacteria caused odour problems. Also, dust emissions are reported. The case is currently under police investigation.[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talvivaara

[klr]

Mining regulation? Let's have much more of it please, especially in the developing world, where it's like the wild west.

We have problems here in Ireland with effluent from industrial and farming output, leading to things like massive fish kills from time to time. Needless to say, almost all of it is illegal.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Especially in backwaters like WA.

[Cormac]

Mining regulation? Let's have much more of it please, especially in the developing world, where it's like the wild west.

We have problems here in Ireland with effluent from industrial and farming output, leading to things like massive fish kills from time to time. Needless to say, almost all of it is illegal.

Quite often those fish kills are reported as "agricultural effluent" but are in fact due to failures at municipal treatment plants or sewage piping.

For example, there was a flood a few years back on the Clare river (the one that goes through Claregalway). The floodwaters... ehh,.. flooded a sewage treatment plant and caused a massive fish kill down river. This barely made the news, and is only now due for court.

The whole thing about Septic Tanks in Ireland at the moment is another piece of bullshit designed solely to raise taxes.

As far as I am concerned, if the state needs more tax, it should stop with this idiocy of death by a thousand cuts, and simply raise income tax, and simplify taxation overall.

Taxes should be levied only where there is an actual transaction - i.e. where agreement is stricken between two parties as to the value of the object for sold/transferred. Inert objects have no value, and should not be taxed.

[Seth]

I am quite tolerant to libertarians being holed up with their guns where ever they are holed up. But I get irritated with this constant whine about job killing government regulation. We are not China! We don't pour waste streams in the river and ocean.

Mining. There are jobs sure. People make a living, other people make deals to develop some resource. Let's say there are a million people dependent on mining. Well, we have rules. If 300 million want mining controlled, or even 150 million, who is the one million to demand less regulation? We have to live in this shit they produce.

Mining controlled by
http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/sectors/mining.html

example of when things go wrong:

The operation has caused controversy because of its environmental impacts. Sulfate concentration in the effluent (8000 mg/m3) has exceeded the permitted levels (130 mg/m3), causing severe pollution in the water course.[19] Insufficient mixing caused the formation of an artificial halocline in a lake where effluent was discharged, which led to the lake bottom becoming anoxic.[20] Reduction of sulfate into hydrogen sulfide by bacteria caused odour problems. Also, dust emissions are reported. The case is currently under police investigation.[21]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talvivaara

Well, that's what Libertarians (well, me) call "exported harm" and it's intrinsically wrong and an initiation of force and fraud according to Libertarian principles. In the absence of a government authority willing to prevent or redress such exported harms, the members of the community who have an interest in the damaged area would be authorized to take whatever action is required to cause the exported harm to cease and desist, and to recover damages.

There's a difference between regulations intended to prevent exported harm and regulations imposed to make it more costly and difficult to run a business because of political beliefs and policies.

I don't argue against health, safety and welfare regulations when they take into account the necessity and benefits of the activity to the economy, the costs of the regulation, and the rights of the operators to use and enjoy their property as they like...provided that they do not export harm to others.

What I do object to is redistributionary regulation that takes money from one person or business and gives it to another in an attempt to manipulate the markets to favor one or the other political agenda. That's inherently wrong.

[pErvinalia]

Markets will always be manipulated, Seth. The trick is to get the manipulation right so it benefits society in the best way. We're failing miserably at that at the moment.

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

Well, that's what Libertarians (well, me) call "exported harm" and it's intrinsically wrong and an initiation of force and fraud according to Libertarian principles. In the absence of a government authority willing to prevent or redress such exported harms, the members of the community who have an interest in the damaged area would be authorized to take whatever action is required to cause the exported harm to cease and desist, and to recover damages.

I agree with Seth

But I think the doctrine of no exported harm should apply outside the borders of a country.

If someone wants to make plastic widgets (or Xmas ) in another country the goods should be produced in accordance with the same environmental and social standards as the country being exported to.....that includes, everything from how the electricity is generated to the bits and bobs used in the product from 3rd party suppliers to health and safety for the workers - plus the same social protection for them (paid holidays / healthcare etc).....the cost of proving all that to be born by the Company producing the goods (we are not socialists!)......and whilst an argument for saying that those who do not meet the equivalent standards could simply pay a levy / tax I would favour the approach of simply saying no to the import, with criminal penalties on the Directors and shareholders.......the Company would still have the benefits of a cheaper labour force and operating in a lower cost economy - but it would at least be in the same ballpark as the domestic competition, even if the playing field still not level........

.....of course the fundamental problem of Western Capatilism would have to be addressed - of requiring cheap (disposable) labour.......that is doable, if their is a will (and IMO better the West do so now whilst it is still able to set the economic rules rather than after the West becomes the cheap labour area for others.

[pErvinalia]

Well, that's what Libertarians (well, me) call "exported harm" and it's intrinsically wrong and an initiation of force and fraud according to Libertarian principles. In the absence of a government authority willing to prevent or redress such exported harms, the members of the community who have an interest in the damaged area would be authorized to take whatever action is required to cause the exported harm to cease and desist, and to recover damages.

I agree with Seth

But I think the doctrine of no exported harm should apply outside the borders of a country.

There's two problems with "exported harm". 1. How do we define "harm"; and 2. 'harm' is exported in both space and time. Harm exported in time is much harder to deal with. The most obvious example is global warming. By the time we worked out what was going on, it was too late to stop a certain level of climate change from happening. It's also hard to seek redress from those who created the problem if they no longer exist.

[Tero]

Industry and environmental cases is where the regulations make sense. The effects are wide spread. Things that involve food also are obvious items. Sometimes it's not sure what problem the gubment is trying to solve. I think mortgages may now be over regulated.

Also, items such as

Food trucks cruising around the District of Columbia has become a way of life, but many locals feel DC government is trying to stop the trend.

District officials stated in October that food trucks can't do their business from a public parking spot adjacent to an unobstructed sidewalk which is less than ten feet (10 ft.) wide in the Central Business District, according to The Washington Post.

http://www.examiner.com/article/propose ... uck-owners

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

There's two problems with "exported harm". 1. How do we define "harm"; and 2. 'harm' is exported in both space and time. Harm exported in time is much harder to deal with. The most obvious example is global warming. By the time we worked out what was going on, it was too late to stop a certain level of climate change from happening. It's also hard to seek redress from those who created the problem if they no longer exist.

We already self define "harm" within own country (some based on facts, some on nonsense)....we just extend the principle to folks who want to do business in our sandpit.

I am not too bothered about redress, am more focussed on prevention - for that simply changing the rules will be enough for most, for others there have to be consequences. and rather than civil damages I would favour criminal prosecution.....to everyone involved in the supply chain.


The goal is not really to protect the environment (that simply a side effect) nor even to protect the workers - simply about dealing with the economic reality that you can't run a succesful country by exporting your wealth creation.....nor remain socially settled by having lots of your own people (47%?!) kept as peasants - that worked in the good old days, but not in the modern era where people do know they are getting the shitty end of the stick, even if not able to articulate nor understand the hows and the whys......the problem will occur when folks decide to follow some moron with "all the answers", whether they be wearing a tea cosy or waiving a sickle


For me the question that has to be answered is to how to keep the people you have gainfully occupied and with the prospect of material advancement - whilst creating genuine wealth (as well as simply money) and I think that the answer will be a change to the existing capitalist rules to promote sustainability....not for any green reasons , but for business and social stability reasons (that also benefits the rich).

My vision of the future is that folks could live happily financially from working a couple of days a week!......as technology advances I don't think that is impossible - it's simply about society capturing the benefits of effecincy and productivity as well as simply the private sector converting that into cash. In the UK the standard working hours are 35 - 40 hours a week, with approx 4 weeks holidays a year plus bank holidays and weekends (or in lieu of)......the hours in a year equals 8,760......folks currently only work for approx 25% of that time....there is no fundamental reason why that cannot drop down to 10%!..........in ye olden days hunting and gathering was a 24/7 job, but no actual requirement for humans to do those hours anymore .....the only reason is that others want to enjoy the benefits of the labours of others - and the rules encourage that. Play with the rules and capatilism will follow.

[Seth]

Well, that's what Libertarians (well, me) call "exported harm" and it's intrinsically wrong and an initiation of force and fraud according to Libertarian principles. In the absence of a government authority willing to prevent or redress such exported harms, the members of the community who have an interest in the damaged area would be authorized to take whatever action is required to cause the exported harm to cease and desist, and to recover damages.

I agree with Seth

But I think the doctrine of no exported harm should apply outside the borders of a country.

It does. If another nation exports harm to your nation, your nation has full moral authority to go to war with the offending nation to force them to cease and desist.

If someone wants to make plastic widgets (or Xmas ) in another country the goods should be produced in accordance with the same environmental and social standards as the country being exported to.....that includes, everything from how the electricity is generated to the bits and bobs used in the product from 3rd party suppliers to health and safety for the workers - plus the same social protection for them (paid holidays / healthcare etc).....the cost of proving all that to be born by the Company producing the goods (we are not socialists!)......and whilst an argument for saying that those who do not meet the equivalent standards could simply pay a levy / tax I would favour the approach of simply saying no to the import, with criminal penalties on the Directors and shareholders.......the Company would still have the benefits of a cheaper labour force and operating in a lower cost economy - but it would at least be in the same ballpark as the domestic competition, even if the playing field still not level........

That's what tariffs are for, and why "free trade" agreements are generally not in the public interest.

.....of course the fundamental problem of Western Capatilism would have to be addressed - of requiring cheap (disposable) labour.......that is doable, if their is a will (and IMO better the West do so now whilst it is still able to set the economic rules rather than after the West becomes the cheap labour area for others.

Ultimately it's always the consumer who drives such things. Politics is just economics writ large.

[Seth]

Well, that's what Libertarians (well, me) call "exported harm" and it's intrinsically wrong and an initiation of force and fraud according to Libertarian principles. In the absence of a government authority willing to prevent or redress such exported harms, the members of the community who have an interest in the damaged area would be authorized to take whatever action is required to cause the exported harm to cease and desist, and to recover damages.

I agree with Seth

But I think the doctrine of no exported harm should apply outside the borders of a country.

There's two problems with "exported harm". 1. How do we define "harm"; and 2. 'harm' is exported in both space and time. Harm exported in time is much harder to deal with. The most obvious example is global warming. By the time we worked out what was going on, it was too late to stop a certain level of climate change from happening. It's also hard to seek redress from those who created the problem if they no longer exist.

Yes, these are concerns, but they are easier to address than what we have now, which is government assuming that it can regulate whatever the fuck it wants however the fuck it wants with complete disregard for the rights of property owners.

It's not a perfect model of course, but it's a better way of respecting individual rights than what most of the world suffers under now.

[Seth]

There's two problems with "exported harm". 1. How do we define "harm"; and 2. 'harm' is exported in both space and time. Harm exported in time is much harder to deal with. The most obvious example is global warming. By the time we worked out what was going on, it was too late to stop a certain level of climate change from happening. It's also hard to seek redress from those who created the problem if they no longer exist.

We already self define "harm" within own country (some based on facts, some on nonsense)....we just extend the principle to folks who want to do business in our sandpit.

I am not too bothered about redress, am more focussed on prevention - for that simply changing the rules will be enough for most, for others there have to be consequences. and rather than civil damages I would favour criminal prosecution.....to everyone involved in the supply chain.


The goal is not really to protect the environment (that simply a side effect) nor even to protect the workers - simply about dealing with the economic reality that you can't run a succesful country by exporting your wealth creation.....nor remain socially settled by having lots of your own people (47%?!) kept as peasants - that worked in the good old days, but not in the modern era where people do know they are getting the shitty end of the stick, even if not able to articulate nor understand the hows and the whys......the problem will occur when folks decide to follow some moron with "all the answers", whether they be wearing a tea cosy or waiving a sickle


For me the question that has to be answered is to how to keep the people you have gainfully occupied and with the prospect of material advancement - whilst creating genuine wealth (as well as simply money) and I think that the answer will be a change to the existing capitalist rules to promote sustainability....not for any green reasons , but for business and social stability reasons (that also benefits the rich).

When being green becomes economically profitable, no regulation will be needed because the profit motive will provide all the incentive needed to gain voluntary compliance.

My vision of the future is that folks could live happily financially from working a couple of days a week!......as technology advances I don't think that is impossible - it's simply about society capturing the benefits of effecincy and productivity as well as simply the private sector converting that into cash. In the UK the standard working hours are 35 - 40 hours a week, with approx 4 weeks holidays a year plus bank holidays and weekends (or in lieu of)......the hours in a year equals 8,760......folks currently only work for approx 25% of that time....there is no fundamental reason why that cannot drop down to 10%!..........in ye olden days hunting and gathering was a 24/7 job, but no actual requirement for humans to do those hours anymore .....the only reason is that others want to enjoy the benefits of the labours of others - and the rules encourage that. Play with the rules and capatilism will follow.

I don't really agree with you only because I believe that people who don't work cannot really be happy and fulfilled. This does not mean that they cannot "work" productively at things for smaller amounts of time, but ancient Rome shows us that idle hands are the devil's playthings and our own welfare culture amply demonstrates that same principle. Bored people become dangerous very quickly, for the most part.

[Jesus_of_Nazareth]

Work makes you free?

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, lol.

I imagine it would work something like this - one only needs to work a smaller percentage of their time to meet the basics in life (reasonable food, shelter, and healthcare, and some vacation/interests). So no more working two jobs just to survive. But anyone is free to work as much as they want if they want more. I personally have very little desire to work more than part time on anything that isn't something of my own doing/making. That is, i'd be perfectly happy to work 3/4 to full-time on my own initiatives or some job that I really actually enjoy. But fuck working that much on something that I either hate or have very little interest in. It's a mug's game. Life should be about so much more than toiling away for three-quarters of your life.