Peregrinator;37424809[I said:]"A definition of the limits of state action" is just another way of saying "I approve of any and all interventions that can be found within this set."
Once again, we're back to your desired government intervention in uteruses. And I'll ask you again, how many ppm of toxic chemicals are too many? Who decides?
I see as internal enemies anyone who would poison the populace or destroy the physical country in order to earn a profit. I cannot imagine why cotton farmers carpet bombing their fields with DDT and thus creating a strain of resistant mosquitoes which could potentially spread malaria to the populace is not enemy action. I'm guessing you don't think DDT should be banned, though. I see strip mining and mountaintop removal as enemy action as well in most cases, as currently practiced. Large pools of tailings containing cyanide compounds that leach into ground water. Destruction of species in order to have cheap paper. A gigantic island of plastic debris in the Pacific Ocean which will likely never be cleaned up.
The difference is that I see government intervention in these cases as a necessary evil, not a step toward centralized control of production and distribution. This is the reason I don't and never will vote for the Green Party.
You seem to rely on proven ineffective solutions for environmental issues. Spotted Owls in Wal-Mart signs. Lawsuits that drag on for decades and never actually accomplish the cleaning. Monetary compensation for people whose land is logged without permission. After the fact, reactionary intervention by the courts. That system has been shown time and time again that it doesn't work. You would do away with seatbelt laws at a cost of 60 000 lives per year; I'd rather have the laws and not have to pull all those people out of their windshields. You would do away with speed limits as well; a car going 130 mph is only a potential hazard after all. Drunk driving, same thing. We all have--or at least know someone who has--driven with more booze on board than we should have. Potential hazard. No law. Ownership of nuclear weapons. Potential hazard. No law.
I keep having to fix your Alinsky quote for you.[/[/I]QUOTE]
~~~
You continue to be a perky little person Peregrinator. Not that my logic will get through to you, but do your realize that every one of the so called transgressions against nature were all licensed and approved by government? Even the Love Canal toxic site, landfill and procedures approved by government.
A possible conclusion is that, therefore, government is not an effective protector of the environment, followed by, then who is?
The condition of any public beach, public park or public property might give you a clue; all of the above are continually trashed and public money must be expended to clean them up. Solution? No public beaches, no public parks, no National Parks, no Federal or State owned property at all. I know, shocking, ain't it?
But...consider that the Laws under our Constitution placed control of unused land in the hands of government as a 'caretaker' until such time the land could be owned by private concerns. The old and now defunct Homestead Act was a reflection of this spirit, as government, under our form of law, was never intended to own either the land or the resources of, above or below the ground.
If I own property and your mutt digs up my flowerbed, I have legal recourse. If all property were privately owned, each owner would have legal recourse and the legal power to prevent any diminution of property rights of every property owner.
As it is, since it suits the government, acid rain still fails down wind from coal fired power plants, approved by government. Landfills continue to pollute ground water and adjacent property owners, approved and licensed by government.
Might I suggest, if you truly and sincerely are attempting to comprehend how a modern society can exist and still protect private individual rights and property rights, that you consider more stringent and enforcable property rights and an ombundsman to oversee the courts in each district so that they are not corrupted by any group with vested interests.
Property rights and individual rights insure and continue human individual freedoms and liberties; government control, restriction and regulation diminshes those freedoms and as I have suggested, fail to protect people, their rights, property or the environment. But government does create an awful amount of red tape, highly paid bureaucrats and engenders a hatred of government that will eventually destroy it.
Amicus Veritas
Actually, in the full video, the bigger kid is the one being bullied by the smaller. He is being teased for being big and fat. Finally fed up with the bullshit, he retaliates, fighting back against his unjust aggressor and body slams him against the immutable, unyielding concrete.
*sits back and waits for yet another one of your deliriously misguided pseudo-political re-engineered spins on my visual posts*
I think you mis said:
part of what I said:
Frisco said:
red/color/b/i said:
pointing out said:
filthy yards,to pollution said:
a bankrupt corporation.no clean water said:
, which is the reason we don't have another Love Canal in the works.can be said:
amicus;37428522[i said:]Chuckles, the course of events repeats itself on the GB as it did over at the AH, youse guys can't respond to the content of my thoughts, so you pick on the quote function and whatever typo's I leave in just to give you something you can write about.
Such a nice guy I am, I yam, I yam...
der always amicable amicus....
You'd need to have content of thought for someone to respond to.
damnit... how does this quote thing work again???
Chuckles, the course of events repeats itself on the GB as it did over at the AH, youse guys can't respond to the content of my thoughts, so you pick on the quote function and whatever typo's I leave in just to give you something you can write about.
Such a nice guy I am, I yam, I yam...
der always amicable amicus....
Chuckles, the course of events repeats itself on the GB as it did over at the AH, youse guys can't respond to the content of my thoughts, so you pick on the quote function and whatever typo's I leave in just to give you something you can write about.
Such a nice guy I am, I yam, I yam...
der always amicable amicus....
