Massive pollution in Democrat-run state - hey, look over there - a traffic jam!

Funny that the regulators in Democrat-dominated West Virginia claim they didn't have the authority to prevent the chemical spill, isn't it?
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
It's systemic. Regulators are always captured by the industries they regulate. It does not bode well for the argument that regulation should be left to the states, since the special interest can be more concentrated there, e.g., coal in WV.

A better solution is real property rights. That is, let the property owners damaged sue the piss out of polluters. But we saw how that was met by the right wing during the BP spill.
Click to expand...

I'm amused by the dullard claim that regulation cannot be entrusted to the states and that if left to the Federals, they will somehow be more effective in preventing these kinds of accidents from happening.

But again, in your dishonest uninformed tirade, you ignored the FACT that this happened in a State run by Democrats.

Dunce.

- - - Updated - - -

Big Money said:
Funny that the regulators in Democrat-dominated West Virginia claim they didn't have the authority to prevent the chemical spill, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Irony.
 
Truth Detector said:
I'm amused by the dullard claim that regulation cannot be entrusted to the states and that if left to the Federals, they will somehow be more effective in preventing these kinds of accidents from happening.

But again, in your dishonest uninformed tirade, you ignored the FACT that this happened in a State run by Democrats.

Dunce.

- - - Updated - - -



Irony.
Click to expand...

You should not call Right a dullard.

I don't think the Federals will prevent the accidents but they may provide some benefit in preventing/combating regulatory capture. Again, I think the better solution is property rights not more government, state or Federal, nor different wings of the big government party.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
They are indigenous to the right, as well.

So when you say the Federal government needs to be involved it's not "FedCo dictating to corporations as central planners?" That only applies if someone that is not on the Right says the same thing or something similar?

They would have the resources if the developing legal doctrines had not been interfered with to protect polluters and create property rights in pollution. The problem is that you have to be able to prove some degree of harm or damage instead of just proving they polluted your property.
Click to expand...
According to Merriam, statism is "concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry." That's Leftist policies, not Right.

My position is that the Feds should be involved with setting standards to be enforced by the states as I stated earlier. That's not at all how you interpreted it.

The civil court system is what it is, developed over centuries of jurisprudence; right or wrong. Do you advocate the federal government dictating new rules?
 
Right said:
According to Merriam, statism is "concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government ownership of industry." That's Leftist policies, not Right.

My position is that the Feds should be involved with setting standards to be enforced by the states as I stated earlier. That's not at all how you interpreted it.

The civil court system is what it is, developed over centuries of jurisprudence; right or wrong. Do you advocate the federal government dictating new rules?
Click to expand...

That's right wing politics, if Republicans are right wing.

I did not say the feds should be involved that much and yet you claimed I was advocating a scheme that had "FedCo dictating to corporations as central planners."

Often, the courts had Federal and state governments dictate to them through regulation and laws limiting the right to sue. The courts made errors by insisting that the promotion of the common good should trump property rights.

http://mises.org/daily/5978/

As factories began to arise and emit smoke, blighting the orchards of neighboring farmers, the farmers would take the manufacturers to court, asking for damages and injunctions against further invasion of their property. But the judges said, in effect, "Sorry. We know that industrial smoke (i.e., air pollution) invades and interferes with your property rights. But there is something more important than mere property rights: and that is public policy, the 'common good.' And the common good decrees that industry is a good thing, industrial progress is a good thing, and therefore your mere private property rights must be overridden on behalf of the general welfare." And now all of us are paying the bitter price for this overriding of private property, in the form of lung disease and countless other ailments. And all for the "common good"![3]


That this principle has guided the courts during the air age as well may be seen by a decision of the Ohio courts in Antonik v. Chamberlain (1947). The residents of a suburban area near Akron sued to enjoin the defendants from operating a privately owned airport. The grounds were invasion of property rights through excessive noise. Refusing the injunction, the court declared:


In our business of judging in this case, while sitting as a court of equity, we must not only weigh the conflict of interests between the airport owner and the nearby landowners, but we must further recognize the public policy of the generation in which we live. We must recognize that the establishment of an airport … is of great concern to the public, and if such an airport is abated, or its establishment prevented, the consequences will be not only a serious injury to the owner of the port property but may be a serious loss of a valuable asset to the entire community.[4]


To cap the crimes of the judges, legislatures, federal and state, moved in to cement the aggression by prohibiting victims of air pollution from engaging in "class action" suits against polluters. Obviously, if a factory pollutes the atmosphere of a city where there are tens of thousands of victims, it is impractical for each victim to sue to collect his particular damages from the polluter (although an injunction could be used effectively by one small victim). The common law, therefore, recognizes the validity of "class action" suits, in which one or a few victims can sue the aggressor not only on their own behalf, but on behalf of the entire class of similar victims. But the legislatures systematically outlawed such class action suits in pollution cases. For this reason, a victim may successfully sue a polluter who injures him individually, in a one-to-one "private nuisance" suit. But he is prohibited by law from acting against a mass polluter who is injuring a large number of people in a given area! As Frank Bubb writes, "It is as if the government were to tell you that it will (attempt to) protect you from a thief who steals only from you, but it will not protect you if the thief also steals from everyone else in the neighborhood."[5]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top