Why would the factories be fine dumping pollution?
They did -- does it matter why?
The owner of that river may have something to say about that? The funny thing about owners is that they like to take care of things not only for them but for their progeny.
All owners? There are no examples of owners who allow pollution? I mean, going back to the factories that polluted the river, I'm fairly certain that in addition to the river the factory grounds had a great deal of pollution. Is that a problem?
Someone who owns a natural resource is more likely to want to preserve its usefulness. Any third party who pollutes that natural resource is likely to hear from that owner. The fact that there no owner results in the "tragedy of the commons" as is often used as an attack against liberty. Is this a perfect system? No, but as we have seen the government's record is rather spotty.
There are many, many examples of private property owners that pollute their own property or allow others to pollute their property. You seem to be arguing that if their property is a waterway this would somehow be different? And I think you're getting off on a tangent on whether it's a public or private entity we're talking about here. My question to you is, if the entity controlling the river is fine with allowing pollution, is that a problem? Under the "voluntary association" framework, I can't see how it is, and that seem incorrect.
From my perspective, I can say that the public entities controlling the Cuyohoga failed the people of Cleveland, Ohio, and the United States, because those people had claims to a safe, clean river, and those claims were not met. I struggle to understand on what basis your framework allows us to label the state of the river in the late 60s a problem.
Cross-posted, to an extent. The great fallacy is that on environmental issues, somehow the libertarian private owner acts in accordance with some long view. Republicans have demonstrated an inability to see beyond themselves. Not sure how Libertarians are any different.
Why would the factories be fine dumping pollution?
They did -- does it matter why?
The owner of that river may have something to say about that? The funny thing about owners is that they like to take care of things not only for them but for their progeny.
All owners? There are no examples of owners who allow pollution? I mean, going back to the factories that polluted the river, I'm fairly certain that in addition to the river the factory grounds had a great deal of pollution. Is that a problem?
Someone who owns a natural resource is more likely to want to preserve its usefulness. Any third party who pollutes that natural resource is likely to hear from that owner. The fact that there no owner results in the "tragedy of the commons" as is often used as an attack against liberty. Is this a perfect system? No, but as we have seen the government's record is rather spotty.
There are many, many examples of private property owners that pollute their own property or allow others to pollute their property. You seem to be arguing that if their property is a waterway this would somehow be different? And I think you're getting off on a tangent on whether it's a public or private entity we're talking about here. My question to you is, if the entity controlling the river is fine with allowing pollution, is that a problem? Under the "voluntary association" framework, I can't see how it is, and that seem incorrect.
From my perspective, I can say that the public entities controlling the Cuyohoga failed the people of Cleveland, Ohio, and the United States, because those people had claims to a safe, clean river, and those claims were not met. I struggle to understand on what basis your framework allows us to label the state of the river in the late 60s a problem.
Cross-posted, to an extent. The great fallacy is that on environmental issues, somehow the libertarian private owner acts in accordance with some long view. Republicans have demonstrated an inability to see beyond themselves. Not sure how Libertarians are any different.
Right -- I mean, maybe a particular owner will or won't, but it seems you lose any ability to pass judgement either way, no? You can neither praise a property owner for acting responsibly nor chastise their irresponsibility. What obligations do they have beyond themselves against which we could even judge them?
Right -- I mean, maybe a particular owner will or won't, but it seems you lose any ability to pass judgement either way, no? You can neither praise a property owner for acting responsibly nor chastise their irresponsibility. What obligations do they have beyond themselves against which we could even judge them?
The funny thing about owners is that they like to take care of things not only for them but for their progeny.
Also, where do progeny come in here -- the implication seems to be they'll inherit the property? That seems directly contradictory to the claim that property is the fruit of one's labor, no?
The funny thing about owners is that they like to take care of things not only for them but for their progeny.
Also, where do progeny come in here -- the implication seems to be they'll inherit the property? That seems directly contradictory to the claim that property is the fruit of one's labor, no?
I never understood the "You didn't make that argument". What a silly argument to try to minimize the accomplishments of people who actually built a business or livelihood.
You may not have understood it because you didn't listen to the whole thing. It was about how the hard work and accomplishments rely upon the contributions of others to create society in which that hard work takes place. "There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges."
The government has a terrible record on the enviornment. The Soviet Union, which had no private companies, was a terrible polluter. The US government is a terrible polluter. The US Government has allowed pollution for quite a while. If a private entity owned the Cuyhahoga river, do we really think they would allow it to be polluted to the point that it caught fire? Essentially, the government owned that river and they let it get pollluted.
Correct, the river became so polluted because the government failed to take steps to keep out the pollution.
"Steps to keep out the pollution" by government would be laws land regulations governing the disposal of pollution into the river by private parties. So you've endorsed government regulation to protect the environment.
The Jon Stewart "Huh?" gif in response to my post suggests that my conclusion can't be argued with.
Someone who owns a natural resource is more likely to want to preserve its usefulness. Any third party who pollutes that natural resource is likely to hear from that owner. The fact that there no owner results in the "tragedy of the commons" as is often used as an attack against liberty. Is this a perfect system? No, but as we have seen the government's record is rather spotty.
The "tragedy of the commons" is a concept with a lot more utility than merely serving "as an attack against liberty", but I guess that's the "libertarian" view of it.
You may not have understood it because you didn't listen to the whole thing. It was about how the hard work and accomplishments rely upon the contributions of others to create society in which that hard work takes place. "There are a lot of wealthy, successful Americans who agree with me -- because they want to give something back. They know they didn’t -- look, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something -- there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges."
Sounds like you’re speaking directly to Donald Trump, and not this terp character
Why would the factories be fine dumping pollution? The owner of that river may have something to say about that? The funny thing about owners is that they like to take care of things not only for them but for their progeny.
1. When the owner of the river says something and the owner of the factory ignores him or tells him to go to hell, what does the river owner do? He calls upon the government through the police or the Courts to assist him and vindicate his property rights.
2. There are owner who care about their progeny and owners who do not. There are those who are interested only in immediate or short-term profit and some who believe the best way to take care of their progeny is to make large profit quickly and invest it somewhere else.
Was it Jefferson or Madison who said "If Men were angels no government would be necessary"
boy, catching up on this thread was a total waste of time.
seriously. Somebody thinks he's way more clever than he really is. It's tiresome at this point. Why do I bother?
Smug pricks bother even when its irritating.
meh. We've both been posting here for a very long time. I'm comfortable with whomever other folks think that term describes best.
But the fact that you think you're making a compelling argument here is what I'm referring to. The notion that you're trying to argue against regulation by making the claim that rivers can have "owners" is absurd. Anyone with a milligram of common sense knows that a river is "owned" by whomever is farthest upstream. The people of Louisiana have very little say in what substances the Mississippi carries through their state. And who "owns" the Delaware? Pennsylvania? New Jersey? Maybe New York. And what about the tributaries that feed into it? Waterways and air are the perfect examples of why environmental regulation needs to be set by a strong central entity like the federal government. Your argument is nowhere near as clever as you seem to think it is.
But the fact that you think you're making a compelling argument here is what I'm referring to. The notion that you're trying to argue against regulation by making the claim that rivers can have "owners" is absurd. Anyone with a milligram of common sense knows that a river is "owned" by whomever is farthest upstream. The people of Louisiana have very little say in what substances the Mississippi carries through their state. And who "owns" the Delaware? Pennsylvania? New Jersey? Maybe New York. And what about the tributaries that feed into it? Waterways and air are the perfect examples of why environmental regulation needs to be set by a strong central entity like the federal government. Your argument is nowhere near as clever as you seem to think it is.
The upstream "owners" of a river don't actually "own" it, they have a right to draw water from it. Downstream "owners" also have that same right. The law of "water rights" is complicated, and a lot more involved in other parts of the country than here in NJ (where the "waters of the state" are, in fact, the State's).
The right to draw water from a river doesn't automatically convey a similar "right" to dump whatever you want into that river (much as those who own land next to a river may wish it were otherwise).
There is a compelling property rights argument that a downstream "owner" of the right to draw water is having his property taken away when someone upstream makes that water hazardous, by dumping into that water.
There's some old, admired language about what to do to protect one's downstream rights: "to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." As noted above:
1. When the owner of the river says something and the owner of the factory ignores him or tells him to go to hell, what does the river owner do? He calls upon the government through the police or the Courts to assist him and vindicate his property rights.
So, the "river owner" example provides an argument in favor of government regulation, for the benefit of the property rights of others.
And who "owns" the Delaware? Pennsylvania? New Jersey? Maybe New York. And what about the tributaries that feed into it? Waterways and air are the perfect examples of why environmental regulation needs to be set by a strong central entity like the federal government. Your argument is nowhere near as clever as you seem to think it is.
I stumbled across this recent article, which defines "libertarianism" accurately, and explains why it's not useful. First paragraph:
"Libertarianism does not make sense. It cannot keep its promises. It has nothing to offer. It is an intellectual failure like Marxism or Flat-Earthism – something that might once reasonably have seemed worth pursuing but whose persistence in public let alone academic conversation has become an embarrassment. The only mildly interesting thing about libertarianism anymore is why anyone still takes it seriously."
I stumbled across this recent article, which defines "libertarianism" accurately, and explains why it's not useful. First paragraph:
"Libertarianism does not make sense. It cannot keep its promises. It has nothing to offer. It is an intellectual failure like Marxism or Flat-Earthism – something that might once reasonably have seemed worth pursuing but whose persistence in public let alone academic conversation has become an embarrassment. The only mildly interesting thing about libertarianism anymore is why anyone still takes it seriously."
That's harsher than I'd go. If I were to try and make the strongest argument for libertarianism, I'd try to ground it in the tradition of the Enlightenment, and the focus on the individual and his/her rights. I think that's actually pretty powerful and compelling way to frame it, as you can then take it even further back into the early modern era and look at figures like Descartes with the I think therefore I am or the 16th century Protestant Reformers stress on the individual directly communing with God in place of an exclusive priestly hierarchy. There's a lot of value and human dignity that was gained in that broad intellectual re-orientation toward the individual and away from the medieval European conception of the world as composed of static classes where everyone has their role.
If you're American, you can draw that line forward through the Declaration and the Constitution.
I don't think that's necessarily wrong, but it is incomplete, and that incompleteness matters. Any medievalists here I'm sure have already formulated half a dozen objections to my causal characterization of the medieval era above. And when we follow the line forward, as powerful and inspiring as Jefferson's words remain, the fact that he held people in bondage while proclaiming liberty is not an incidental detail. It's less that he was a hypocrite than that his mental framework more or less didn't see, or could easily choose to look away, from this glaring contradiction. Same goes, for that matter, for the constant use of "men" and "mankind," that just disappears away half of humanity while claiming to be speaking the language of universality.
So to try and make this a little less abstract and tie to the ongoing discussion, that same blindness is present here in the discussion about the Cuyohoga. Let's spherical cow this and grant terp's premise of private ownership of waterways. There's a couple of ways the pollution question could play out:
1. A factory pollutes the waterway, and the owner of the waterway objects. 2. A factory pollutes the waterway, and the owner of the waterway accedes.
The problem with both of those scenarios is that, in either case, the only people that matter are the owner of the factory and the owner of the waterway. The people living along and near the waterway disappear as thoroughly as women and slaves do in the Declaration.
If libertarianism were to relax its claims somewhat, and drop its talk of things like property being a "right" and its insistence that all relations must be voluntary to be legitimate, then its incomplete vision wouldn't be such a problem. All models are wrong, some are useful, and this goes for philosophies as much as any other kind of model. It's the insistence on itself as being grounded in some deep, fundamental, immutable truth I take issue with. Drop the truth claims and it can be useful; insist on these truth claims and it just becomes a tool to justify those with property/power disregarding any interests but their own.
I stumbled across this recent article, which defines "libertarianism" accurately, and explains why it's not useful. First paragraph:
"Libertarianism does not make sense. It cannot keep its promises. It has nothing to offer. It is an intellectual failure like Marxism or Flat-Earthism – something that might once reasonably have seemed worth pursuing but whose persistence in public let alone academic conversation has become an embarrassment. The only mildly interesting thing about libertarianism anymore is why anyone still takes it seriously."
from the article, this is essentially what I wrote earlier about the negative effects in our country from self-declared "libertarians" (and was sarcastically dismissed by our resident libertarian):
I suspect the problem is not the handful of philosophers who still take libertarianism seriously, but that the theory’s extraordinary ratio of simplicity to radicalness makes it a perfect viral vector. It has so few working parts that it requires almost nothing of its supporters, yet in return it offers an exciting, even revolutionary world view in which you get to live in a fantasy world where all the difficulties of having to share a society with others are wished away and they all have to shut up and leave you alone.
It's rich that a libertarian would describe the liberal worldview as a "religion." It's quite the example of projection.
If libertarianism were to relax its claims somewhat, and drop its talk of things like property being a "right" and its insistence that all relations must be voluntary to be legitimate, then its incomplete vision wouldn't be such a problem. All models are wrong, some are useful, and this goes for philosophies as much as any other kind of model. It's the insistence on itself as being grounded in some deep, fundamental, immutable truth I take issue with. Drop the truth claims and it can be useful; insist on these truth claims and it just becomes a tool to justify those with property/power disregarding any interests but their own.
Then it wouldn't be "Libertarianism", it would be what other people believe and practice under other labels. "[T]here are still many Americans who do not have a clear sense of what 'libertarian' means, and our surveys find that, on many issues, the views among people who call themselves libertarian do not differ much from those of the overall public."
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt"
Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg wants to make the United States the “global leader” in high‐speed rail. That’s like wanting to be the world leader in electric typewriters, rotary telephones, or steam locomotives. https://t.co/gUXX4Ctd8Q#CatoTransitpic.twitter.com/ukXgxZEX2S
"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt"
I love the responses to the Cato Institute tweet from libertarians. They are claiming that air travel is cheaper and faster, and isn't subsidized by the government the way rail is. I guess that would be true if you don't count airports and the access roads that lead to them.
They also aren't factoring in the time that it takes to drive to airports, check in and go through security in their claims about air travel being quicker than rail. If we had a high speed rail to DC and Boston (and no, the Acela is not "high speed") it would definitely be quicker from midtown Manhattan to K Street or downtown Boston that driving to the airport, going through security and then driving in from the airport in either destination. For shorter haul trips, rail would definitely be quicker and more convenient than flying.
Spain has high speed trains, and we traveled from Madrid to Valencia in about an hour and a half, and it's around 190 miles (DC is about 220 miles from NY). Some days, that's how long it takes to drive to JFK from midtown.
Cross-posted, to an extent. The great fallacy is that on environmental issues, somehow the libertarian private owner acts in accordance with some long view. Republicans have demonstrated an inability to see beyond themselves. Not sure how Libertarians are any different.