The Paul File

[786]

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.

I agree. I only made a comment on the newsletter and then it spin off into something else.

 

[786]

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.)

Doesn't matter how many sources there are. The State is responsible for the activities of its inhabitants.

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.)

Everything is after the fact when it comes to 'harmful' things.

And what contract would that Arizona power plant be violating by sending pollutants into California?

The State of Arizona has no right to be violating the property of California. If State of Arizona doesn't want to get sued they can regulate those power plants themselves.

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.)

And you think EPA regulations aren't costly from the Federal level? And the idea that only Nebraska would do it if it is something related to 'unsafe' airplanes is a pretty much inconceivable. All states would want safe planes. In fact Nebraska would only need to take another State in confidence regarding a safe standard, such as California, New York, Florida. High volume air traffic. If any of the major states implement this, airlines would be out of business because that is the major source of their income.

You see how 'unions' work. The States could come together behind certain standards and force the industry to adapt. Again there is no need for a Federal Agency.

Agreed - and after your kids are dead, the damages are real.

Everything is banned AFTER knowledge. Not 'deaths'. You know how many times FDA has 'let things pass' and then they ban them... How is that regulation any different?

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."

Nope. They can get sued if they don't comply. Doesn't matter.

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.

And the same principle would apply, and that is why the industry will force itself to work with all 50 states simultaneously for appropriate standards. None of them want Mutual Destruction or invest heavily and then have to change because they didn't talk to another State.

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 . . .

There will be if you allowed the market to function.

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.

My rights are mine as a person. If someone takes my laptop, they attacked me even if it wasn't my body that was attacked. Its mine. Anything mine taken from me is an attack on me.

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.

And I've suggested that the States can handle it without any need for a Federal Agency.

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.

NDAA takes everyone's rights.

Anyhow I understand your view, and I just want to say the market+property rights can make this happen. Perhaps you don't see it though and I don't blame you. Instead of continuing with this I'll just leave it here as my initial comments were really about the racist newsletters and I don't know why it had to turn into EPA discussion.

 

[Trippy]

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.

So Utah would have to have as many as 6 organizations dealing with transboudary issues?

And that's supposed to be more efficient than having a centralized authority?


Interesting.

And what about companies transporting dangerous goods from Oregon to North Carolina? How many different standards would they have to conform to?
How many different sets of lables?
How much more paperwork?

I thought the idea was to remove red tape and enable business?

 

[786]

So Utah would have to have as many as 6 organizations dealing with transboudary issues?

And that's supposed to be more efficient than having a centralized authority?


Interesting.

And what about companies transporting dangerous goods from Oregon to North Carolina? How many different standards would they have to conform to?
How many different sets of lables?
How much more paperwork?

I thought the idea was to remove red tape and enable business?

And that is exactly why the industry would have to work with all the States to come with a standard that works for everyone, themselves. He is isolating 1 'state' does this and that. That is not how a market works. All 50 states are part of the market, and the private industry would be forced to work with all 50 states.

They can better deal with it, because those laws and standards would not have to be uniform when they don't have to be. And they will be uniform when they have to be, i.e Intra-State standards may be different vs Inter-State standards but this means that the 'strict' standard is for those companies who want to work nationally, while the 'less strict' standard which is intra-state will be good for small local businesses. They don't have to fulfill 'multiple standards' per se. The strictest standard would be the 'upper limit' and thus the only 'standard' to meet. Both 'small business' and 'national' business will have a way to move forward. When the Federal Government gets involved with 1 size fits all standards its not exactly 'pro-business' because it gives no local flexibility.

Federal law sets a minimum bar which may hurt business locally. And if that 'minimum' bar is so obvious (because anything less would obviously be unsafe), I'm sure the States would adopt those laws anyways. And so it seems that Fedgov always creates more than a minimum bar. Let the States decide it.

Also let us be clear that no one is stopping the States to come together and create a multi-State contract where the 'agency' is located somewhere but does things with all conglomerate States. So if the midwest has Uranium mines/milling/reactors they can come together and create 1 'central' agency. But if Rhode Island doesn't use any nuclear power and doesn't give a shit they don't have to 'pay' into it (Fedgov = everyones money)... This makes 'local' business (and States) to invest the money themselves into something they are profiting from.

 

[Trippy]

And that is exactly why the industry would have to work with all the States to come with a standard that works for everyone, themselves. He is isolating 1 'state' does this and that. That is not how a market works. All 50 states are part of the market, and the private industry would be forced to work with all 50 states.

They don't have to. What you're proposing is the least efficient way of doing it, if you've got 50 states, and 100 trucking companies, that's 5000 opinions on how things should be done.

They can better deal with it, because those laws and standards would not have to be uniform when they don't have to be. And they will be uniform when they have to be, i.e Intra-State standards may be different vs Inter-State standards but this means that the 'strict' standard is for those companies who want to work nationally, while the 'less strict' standard which is intra-state will be good for small local businesses.

See - you're imposing your ideal, and assuming it will work that way. It's called wishful thinking, and it amounts to a logical fallacy.

Meanwhile, the system we have in place now, enforced by the federal government means that Company A can slap one label on it in Oregon, and that one label will be good in North Carolina, all of the symbols and saftey phrases will mean the same thing in both places. But it's better than that, because if the federal system is UNGHS compliant, those same containers with those same labels can be shipped to europe, and those symbols and saftey phrases will have the same meaning there.

They don't have to fulfill 'multiple standards' per se. The strictest standard would be the 'upper limit' and thus the only 'standard' to meet.

Untrue.

Both 'small business' and 'national' business will have a way to move forward. When the Federal Government gets involved with 1 size fits all standards its not exactly 'pro-business' because it gives no local flexibility.

Yes, because heaven forbid that everyone, everywhere, should have access to the same information, and understand it to mean the same thing.

Heaven forbid that the NYFD should be able to fight a vehicle fire involving a truck with North Carolina Plates, and be able to tell what PPE is required, without having to roll out full SCBA gear for every accident.

Federal law sets a minimum bar which may hurt business locally. And if that 'minimum' bar is so obvious (because anything less would obviously be unsafe), I'm sure the States would adopt those laws anyways. And so it seems that Fedgov always creates more than a minimum bar. Let the States decide it.

And there it is. Profit uber alles.

Because heaven forbid that a business owner should ever have to actually invest money in infrastructure to improve employee saftey, customer saftey, or environmental saftey (which can affect both of the other two).

And let's not consider how complying to a federal standard might actually improve profits. No, let's never discuss that.

 

[786]

They don't have to. What you're proposing is the least efficient way of doing it, if you've got 50 states, and 100 trucking companies, that's 5000 opinions on how things should be done.

Opinions aren't laws.

See - you're imposing your ideal, and assuming it will work that way. It's called wishful thinking, and it amounts to a logical fallacy.


Meanwhile, the system we have in place now, enforced by the federal government means that Company A can slap one label on it in Oregon, and that one label will be good in North Carolina, all of the symbols and saftey phrases will mean the same thing in both places. But it's better than that, because if the federal system is UNGHS compliant, those same containers with those same labels can be shipped to europe, and those symbols and saftey phrases will have the same meaning there.

Private industry can also create standards which can be in line with state laws and international laws.

Untrue.

Will be true if you let the market run. But since you don't see how it would do it, I can understand.

Yes, because heaven forbid that everyone, everywhere, should have access to the same information, and understand it to mean the same thing.

Ya heaven forbid. If any company wants to meet 'international' certification they can. People can then only buy those certified ones, if thats who they 'trust', which would mean the companies would have to get that certification because majority of the people only buy something that is 'certified'. Markets still work.

Heaven forbid that the NYFD should be able to fight a vehicle fire involving a truck with North Carolina Plates, and be able to tell what PPE is required, without having to roll out full SCBA gear for every accident.

:shrug:

Because heaven forbid that a business owner should ever have to actually invest money in infrastructure to improve employee saftey, customer saftey, or environmental saftey (which can affect both of the other two).

And let's not consider how complying to a federal standard might actually improve profits. No, let's never discuss that.

Actually having the Federal Gov usually makes the federal gov invest in the infrastructure...earmarks? The market way would force the business to invest in it themselves without getting specials from the government.

As for federal standards improving profts.. You mean Lobbying? Which basically makes the 'bigger' companies profit while the small business struggles. The overall affect on the economy is negative even if they get 'more profits'.

Create Standard A.. 2 companies are big enough to meet the standard they charge high price and make profits....

Leave the Standard to States

100 companies create the product and price it competitively which 'lowers profits' but the overall production is more.

Profits isn't everything. Even a monopoly gives large profits.

 

[billvon]

Doesn't matter how many sources there are. The State is responsible for the activities of its inhabitants.

Yes. And that has nothing to do with being able to identify where a particular molecule of a pollutant came from. Which is the problem.

The State of Arizona has no right to be violating the property of California.

How are they violating anyone's property by sending pollutants over them? There's no EPA any more in your example, remember, and each state can define "pollutant" however it likes.

If State of Arizona doesn't want to get sued they can regulate those power plants themselves.

We tried that. Didn't work. That's why we have the EPA.

And you think EPA regulations aren't costly from the Federal level?

They are indeed expensive. The deaths that would result from their absence would be more so.

And the same principle would apply, and that is why the industry will force itself to work with all 50 states simultaneously for appropriate standards.

So you could have a 50-state-wide organization with the power to enforce its standards and the authority to come up with those standards. Sounds good. Fortunately we have that.

Anyhow I understand your view, and I just want to say the market+property rights can make this happen. Perhaps you don't see it though and I don't blame you. Instead of continuing with this I'll just leave it here as my initial comments were really about the racist newsletters and I don't know why it had to turn into EPA discussion.

It seems to have evolved into a general commentary on libertarianism.

I think libertarianism has some good ideas, and I'd actually like to see a libertarian president. I think overall he would be a disaster as a president but we do need new ideas in Washington and that would be a good way to experiment with them.

The problem with a "pure" libertarian approach is that it doesn't work. We tried it, and we got the Civil War, smog, dead rivers and lakes, Standard Oil, the Exxon Valdez etc etc. Libertarianism, like any other pure -ism (communism, socialism, democracy, totalitarianism) is a disaster when implemented by inflexible ideologues - but could be a valuable addition to the hybrid system that is our government.

 

[786]

Yes. And that has nothing to do with being able to identify where a particular molecule of a pollutant came from. Which is the problem.

The identification is not a molecular level but very general and can be measured.

How are they violating anyone's property by sending pollutants over them? There's no EPA any more in your example, remember, and each state can define "pollutant" however it likes.

There is an 'EPA', as defined by States. Ya they can define it however they want. But whatever 'enters' their State is regulated by the State, if they don't permit something then they are violating that State's property.

We tried that. Didn't work. That's why we have the EPA.

Because they never got sued and property and State Rights were never implemented. There can be a federal law making it clear that the Environment is part of the State's property and that would make it clear.

They are indeed expensive. The deaths that would result from their absence would be more so.

State's can do it too. Its not like if Fed gov doesn't do it that no one does it. STATES DO IT.

So you could have a 50-state-wide organization with the power to enforce its standards and the authority to come up with those standards. Sounds good. Fortunately we have that.

I would doubt that those laws would be like the ones we have. So its not a '50 state' organization. It is more like the Rights of 24 States being usurped by 26 states. What I'm talking about is a 50-state jury. A unified standard is when all 50 states agree, otherwise they have some local variations on some things.

It seems to have evolved into a general commentary on libertarianism.

I think libertarianism has some good ideas, and I'd actually like to see a libertarian president. I think overall he would be a disaster as a president but we do need new ideas in Washington and that would be a good way to experiment with them.

The problem with a "pure" libertarian approach is that it doesn't work. We tried it, and we got the Civil War, smog, dead rivers and lakes, Standard Oil, the Exxon Valdez etc etc. Libertarianism, like any other pure -ism (communism, socialism, democracy, totalitarianism) is a disaster when implemented by inflexible ideologues - but could be a valuable addition to the hybrid system that is our government.

Well thats you opinion, and I think in the past property rights weren't properly applied. Anyways I understand your point.

 

[Trippy]

Opinions aren't laws.

Your glib retort misses the point.

Private industry can also create standards which can be in line with state laws and international laws.

Again, this misses the point.

Remind me, what, constitutionally, does it take for a set of guidelines such as the UNGHS to be adopted in the US?

Will be true if you let the market run. But since you don't see how it would do it, I can understand.

Been there, done that, got the environmental disasters to prove it.

Ya heaven forbid. If any company wants to meet 'international' certification they can. People can then only buy those certified ones, if thats who they 'trust', which would mean the companies would have to get that certification because majority of the people only buy something that is 'certified'. Markets still work.

Once again, you miss the point.

:shrug:

About the response I expected.

Actually having the Federal Gov usually makes the federal gov invest in the infrastructure...earmarks? The market way would force the business to invest in it themselves without getting specials from the government.

Federal Government invests in federal infrastructure. But, apparently, you're unfamiliar with the fact that farms, for example, have infrastructure instaled by the property owner, not the federal government.

As for federal standards improving profts.. You mean Lobbying? Which basically makes the 'bigger' companies profit while the small business struggles. The overall affect on the economy is negative even if they get 'more profits'.

No, I do not mean lobbying. If I had meant lobbying, I would have said lobbying. Try thinking about it a little harder, a little longer. How could having minimum standards of service or product improve profitability?

Create Standard A.. 2 companies are big enough to meet the standard they charge high price and make profits....

Leave the Standard to States

100 companies create the product and price it competitively which 'lowers profits' but the overall production is more.

Profits isn't everything. Even a monopoly gives large profits.

irrelevant to anything I have actually said.

 

[Trippy]

The identification is not a molecular level but very general and can be measured.

No it can't, the best that can be done is finger printing and modelling.

Now, at the moment, you have a federal agency that has the power of entry onto a property to collect evidence, however, without that federal authority, how, precisely, are you going to collect the the samples for comparitive analysis in the first place?

I mean, do you really see things changing to the point where Arizona authorities, are going to for an arizona business to allow California authorities onto their properties to collect evidence to prove that the discharge originates from that location?

I don't see that working very well.

I would doubt that those laws would be like the ones we have. So its not a '50 state' organization. It is more like the Rights of 24 States being usurped by 26 states. What I'm talking about is a 50-state jury. A unified standard is when all 50 states agree, otherwise they have some local variations on some things.

So what... Now you're opposed to the democratic process?

Welcome to living in a civilization.

 

[786]

No it can't, the best that can be done is finger printing and modelling.

Now, at the moment, you have a federal agency that has the power of entry onto a property to collect evidence, however, without that federal authority, how, precisely, are you going to collect the the samples for comparitive analysis in the first place?

I mean, do you really see things changing to the point where Arizona authorities, are going to for an arizona business to allow California authorities onto their properties to collect evidence to prove that the discharge originates from that location?

I don't see that working very well.

So if the case goes into the Federal Court, they won't allow investigation.. Hmmm... interesting :bugeye:

So what... Now you're opposed to the democratic process?

Welcome to living in a civilization.

Welcome to the Republic

 

[786]

And this whole discussion is just going to go back and forth. You don't see the States and free market delivering it, I do. So we fundamentally have a different view of the 'possibilities' with States and Private Industry. We'll just agree to disagree.

 

[Trippy]

So if the case goes into the Federal Court, they won't allow investigation.. Hmmm... interesting :bugeye:

You are actually aware of the legal process right?

Without the sample that proves the point of origin, there is no case. It's really that simple.

Welcome to the Idiocracy

FTFY

 

[786]

You are actually aware of the legal process right?

Without the sample that proves the point of origin, there is no case. It's really that simple.

Can the 'state' hire people to conduct tests? Secondly the State can ask the Federal court for authorization for an investigation. Like a 'warrant', if there are no laws on the book that allow that, then there should be. Or the Federal Government itself can investigate

FTFY

Democracy at every level is undesired. Rights can't be taken away by a mob rule. That is why I call them 'State Rights'. So 'democratic' process on the national level should not take away their power.

Republic it is Respect the rights even if the the majority hate them. Otherwise that is a 'faction'. Federalist Papers anyone?

 

[Trippy]

And this whole discussion is just going to go back and forth. You don't see the States and free market delivering it, I do.

Right.

I don't see the states delivering it, because they had the opportunity to deliver it, and instead they gave you things like Hinkley, Martin County, Love Canal, Seveso, Bhopal, Alamosa River, and Dunsmuir. Industry has had the opportunity to regulate itself, and has repeatedly failed to. That's why federal agencies become compelled to take action in the first place.

The free market (as you call it) hasn't worked in the past, nothing has substantially changed, there is no reason to suppose it should work in the future.

As I have said, several times, we've been there, done that.

Meanwhile, all we're left with is your wide eyed wishfull thinking that amounts to "Maybe it could work if companies started giving a crap about property rights". What I find more intriguing, is that you keep proposing mechanisms that resemble federal mechanisms, but imagine that they might some how spontaneously organize themselves, and co-operate at unprecedented levels, all in the name of voluntarily instuting some standard that will neccessarily force them to invest in infrstructure of some kind to support it.

You have yet to propose a viable mechanism that couldn't (in theory) be handled more efficiently by a federal organisation consulting with representatives of the states, and various affected industry (and I mean actual consultation, open to the public, not lobbying).

 

[786]

I think the problem lies in the fact that once the Federal Government is given a power to regulate something, which should be under the States to begin with, they abuse it. They use it as precedent and keep on doing 'more' than the States would have initially agreed to. (Bigger and Bigger gov?)

Even if the FedGov is initially 'efficient' it becomes a burden in the end because of a mob rule. Where Democracy fails the States- that is why the States Rights should be protected first.

Markets 'spontaneously' work. They meet people's demands. States and the public can guide the industry to make those changes. And yes it will work. In the past these things were not a concern but because of public awareness and this also being a political topic it will work now. Market makes 'mistakes'- but it corrects them too. The past was due to the lack of knowledge, awareness, and the public's inactivity. When it happened instead of creating their own local regulations they did a knee-jerk reaction and created the EPA (after-the-fact) when they could've easily done it themselves now correcting their past mistakes themselves..

The idea that once a mistake is made that only the Federal Gov then can guarantee for it to be not made again is skipping the step of correcting the mistake yourself. Because the EPA is no different than what the State would have done itself. So I'd prefer the States do it rather than give up their role to the FedGov because in the end that will make FedGov get bigger and bigger, and at some point burdensome.

 

[Trippy]

Can the 'state' hire people to conduct tests?

Now address what I actually said - in order for there to be tests to conduct, you must first have a sample.

Secondly the State can ask the Federal court for authorization for an investigation. Like a 'warrant', if there are no laws on the book that allow that, then there should be. Or the Federal Government itself can investigate

Warrants require a minimum level of proof. Without a sample, you have no proof. And how would the Federal Government investigate if there is no federal organization in place to conduct such an investigation?

Once again, we come back to the same basic points.

Democracy at every level is undesired. Rights can't be taken away by a mob rule. That is why I call them 'State Rights'. So 'democratic' process on the national level should not take away their power.

...

I'm literaly not sure how to even start approaching this. On one hand I had to read it several times to get even an inkling of what you are on about.

What, precisely are you objecting to here?

Are you confirming that you're fundamentaly opposed to the democratic process?

Are you seriously suggesting that people with informed opinions should be unable to affect Law in order to protect the majority of people from dangers they themselves do not know they are being put in, and are unable to educate themselves of?

Is America really that degenerate?

 

[Trippy]

I think the problem lies in the fact that once the Federal Government is given a power to regulate something, which should be under the States to begin with, they abuse it. They use it as precedent and keep on doing 'more' than the States would have initially agreed to. (Bigger and Bigger gov?)

This sounds like sterotypical right wing fear mongering to me.

Even if the FedGov is initially 'efficient' it becomes a burden in the end because of a mob rule. Where Democracy fails the States- that is why the States Rights should be protected first.

Yes, we get it, you're opposed to democracy. You think it's mob rule.

Welcome to Democracy, you're never going to keep everybody happy all of the time. Because there is always someone with a vested interest opposed to what is being suggested.

 

[786]

This sounds like sterotypical right wing fear mongering to me.

More like the truth. Every Federal Department just increases its size, and the federal government does 'more and more'...

Yes, we get it, you're opposed to democracy. You think it's mob rule.

It is.

Welcome to Democracy, you're never going to keep everybody happy all of the time. Because there is always someone with a vested interest opposed to what is being suggested.

Thankfully I live in a Republic. And its not 'keeping people happy' its about protecting rights. If 60% of the people voted that Blacks don't have the right to free speech. Those 60% can go and eat shit. Protecting rights supersedes any 'democracy'.

 

[786]

Anyways for the other discussion about 'federal investigation'- as I said if the laws aren't on the books there should be. I'm not against EVERY department of the Federal Government. A department that investigates protection of States Rights is fine with me.