Why Politics is Inferior to the Market in Choosing Fuel

regardless, I would rather see our govp put money back into this country as oppsed to Iraq to secure more energy independence.
 
Dungheap said:
Can I get the nickel summary of how he answers the questions I have posed?
Click to expand...

Well, for one, it sounds to me that you are narrowly defining injury as some ill health effect. A trespass that considerably interferes with the owners use or enjoyment of his property is an injury. You should not have to prove that it caused them cancer or some other such thing.
 
RStringfield said:
Well, for one, it sounds to me that you are narrowly defining injury as some ill health effect. A trespass that considerably interferes with the owners use or enjoyment of his property is an injury. You should not have to prove that it caused them cancer or some other such thing.
Click to expand...


OK. Assuming for purposes of argument that we define injury that way, how do you suppose the injured party proves that a specific polluter simply by spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has caused such an injury? Further, how would quantify any damages?

It's not a workable system.
 
Dungheap said:
OK. Assuming for purposes of argument that we define injury that way, how do you suppose the injured party proves that a specific polluter simply by spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has caused such an injury? Further, how would quantify any damages?

It's not a workable system.
Click to expand...

Right it is not workable and most of those who argue for that system know that it is not workable.
 
uscitizen said:
Right it is not workable and most of those who argue for that system know that it is not workable.
Click to expand...


String favors regulation by litigation rather than regulation by legislation but with the pollution/greenhouse externality problem regulation by litigation doesn't work. He wants to blame "government" for that when the reality is that it is a problem with the market, not with "government."
 
Yep it is always the govts fault with some. Even now when the lines between private business and govt is extremely blurred at best.

We all know that business will always do what is best for the USA ;)
 
String is just tryig to justify his pro Bush stance for Bush's threatened veto of the democratically origionated energy bill.
 
Dungheap said:
OK. Assuming for purposes of argument that we define injury that way, how do you suppose the injured party proves that a specific polluter simply by spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere has caused such an injury?
Click to expand...

The neighbors are going to have an easy time proving some factory polluted their property. It would be very simple.

Dungheap said:
Further, how would quantify any damages.

It's not a workable system.
Click to expand...

You'd quantify damages about the same way we do now. That is, evidence would be provided concerning the value of damages.

Why don't you read the article. Short answers are not going to satisfy you and you are showing you are not open to any solution that does not emanate from the left and include a large regulatory state, which has not proven any more workable.
 
RStringfield said:
The neighbors are going to have an easy time proving some factory polluted their property. It would be very simple.



You'd quantify damages about the same way we do now. That is, evidence would be provided concerning the value of damages.

Why don't you read the article. Short answers are not going to satisfy you and you are showing you are not open to any solution that does not emanate from the left and include a large regulatory state, which has not proven any more workable.
Click to expand...


You're a dumbass. But who sues on behalf of the dirty air?
 
Dungheap said:
String favors regulation by litigation rather than regulation by legislation but with the pollution/greenhouse externality problem regulation by litigation doesn't work. He wants to blame "government" for that when the reality is that it is a problem with the market, not with "government."
Click to expand...

The externality is a problem because the government violates the market and protects polluters.
 
RStringfield said:
The neighbors are going to have an easy time proving some factory polluted their property. It would be very simple.



You'd quantify damages about the same way we do now. That is, evidence would be provided concerning the value of damages.

Why don't you read the article. Short answers are not going to satisfy you and you are showing you are not open to any solution that does not emanate from the left and include a large regulatory state, which has not proven any more workable.
Click to expand...


There is no regulatory mechanism currently in place to account for the negative externalities associated with the use of fossil fuels. That's my point.

Your response is that "government" is protecting the polluters and preventing the market from accounting for those external costs. I respond to that argument by pointing out that very basic common law concepts are responsible and pointed out the myriad obstacles that individual property owners face in bringing a lawsuit against polluters. You respond with a philosophy piece.

Make your argument and explain to me how this regulation by litigation would work to internalize the costs that are now external to the market. Until you show me how this is possible, on a large scale (not a farmer and the railroad scenario) your argument that the market is superior on fuel decisions is nonsense. Further, you haven't even attempted to explain how the positive externalities of alternative fuels would be built into their price. I'm afraid litigation isn't going to work.

Who do I send the bill to since I drive on biodiesel rendered from used cooking oil? Surely someone in the marketplace is going to compensate me for the resultant public good, no?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top