Lobbying Nets 220,000%

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
tell me how or if a company would be called on repairing polluting the water table[/quote]

Ah pollution.

This is were I defect from my fellow libertarian brethren, for the very simple reason that I do not wish to wait until a risk actually becomes a reality.

So, environmental regulations are a-ok in my book, however I would expect a healthy amount of corruption in that area then.

Then again, if we keep government small, we have an actual chance of keeping track of what it does.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
tell me how or if a company would be called on repairing polluting the water table[/quote]

Ah pollution.

This is were I defect from my fellow libertarian brethren, for the very simple reason that I do not wish to wait until a risk actually becomes a reality.

So, environmental regulations are a-ok in my book, however I would expect a healthy amount of corruption in that area then.

Then again, if we keep government small, we have an actual chance of keeping track of what it does. [/quote]

Seeing how the Republicans have changed the definition of the word “CONSERVATIVE”, what makes you think that a free market would not migrate towards a system again tilted towards the wealthy.

We definitely agree on the enviroment.

What about water rights or the company that owns the wires the electricity flow ?

[quote]orion wrote:

Ah pollution.

This is were I defect from my fellow libertarian brethren, for the very simple reason that I do not wish to wait until a risk actually becomes a reality.

So, environmental regulations are a-ok in my book…[/quote]

Interesting - does Lifticus know you are a raging statist? He will be so upset he may have a panic attack.

[quote]orion wrote:
…I do not wish to wait until a risk actually becomes a reality.
[/quote]

A phrase to remember for future reference.

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
…I do not wish to wait until a risk actually becomes a reality.
[/quote]

A phrase to remember for future reference.[/quote]

That was very, very short hand for that libertarian theory does not address the problem of involuntary risk transfer and problems of actual being able to prove causation.

This is a common yet still rather specific problem.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Ah pollution.

This is were I defect from my fellow libertarian brethren, for the very simple reason that I do not wish to wait until a risk actually becomes a reality.

So, environmental regulations are a-ok in my book…[/quote]

Interesting - does Lifticus know you are a raging statist? He will be so upset he may have a panic attack.[/quote]

Compared to him I always was.

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
tell me how or if a company would be called on repairing polluting the water table[/quote]

Ah pollution.

This is were I defect from my fellow libertarian brethren, for the very simple reason that I do not wish to wait until a risk actually becomes a reality.

So, environmental regulations are a-ok in my book, however I would expect a healthy amount of corruption in that area then.

Then again, if we keep government small, we have an actual chance of keeping track of what it does. [/quote]

Seeing how the Republicans have changed the definition of the word “CONSERVATIVE”, what makes you think that a free market would not migrate towards a system again tilted towards the wealthy.

We definitely agree on the enviroment.

What about water rights or the company that owns the wires the electricity flow ?
[/quote]

The system was, is and always will be tilted towards the wealthy.

Which is why there is no reason to add such numerous and convoluted rules and bureaucratic hurdles that the only ones being able to navigate them are people who can afford an army of lawyers.

You do know that not even the IRS actually understands the tax codes and that following their advice does not absolve you from any liability if some bureaucrat or other disagrees with what his underling deemed proper?

There is no reason why you should not be able to do your taxes on a paper napkin.

Well actually there are several and you being able to exert ye mighty democratic control over your elected representatives is not one of them.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
tell me how or if a company would be called on repairing polluting the water table[/quote]

Ah pollution.

This is were I defect from my fellow libertarian brethren, for the very simple reason that I do not wish to wait until a risk actually becomes a reality.

So, environmental regulations are a-ok in my book, however I would expect a healthy amount of corruption in that area then.

Then again, if we keep government small, we have an actual chance of keeping track of what it does. [/quote]

Seeing how the Republicans have changed the definition of the word “CONSERVATIVE”, what makes you think that a free market would not migrate towards a system again tilted towards the wealthy.

We definitely agree on the enviroment.

What about water rights or the company that owns the wires the electricity flow ?
[/quote]

The system was, is and always will be tilted towards the wealthy.

Which is why there is no reason to add such numerous and convoluted rules and bureaucratic hurdles that the only ones being able to navigate them are people who can afford an army of lawyers.

You do know that not even the IRS actually understands the tax codes and that following their advice does not absolve you from any liability if some bureaucrat or other disagrees with what his underling deemed proper?

There is no reason why you should not be able to do your taxes on a paper napkin.

Well actually there are several and you being able to exert ye mighty democratic control over your elected representatives is not one of them.[/quote]

If you listen to the pod cast it will explain one reason the tax code is so convoluted . The wealthy belong to groups that pool the money and hire lobbyists . The middle class used to have a few such lobbyists but Unions were declared EVIL by the Republicans and people bought that

[quote]orion wrote:
The system was, is and always will be tilted towards the wealthy.

Which is why there is no reason to add such numerous and convoluted rules and bureaucratic hurdles that the only ones being able to navigate them are people who can afford an army of lawyers. [/quote]

Agreed!
Like you said earlier, less to sell!

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
tell me how or if a company would be called on repairing polluting the water table[/quote]

Ah pollution.

This is were I defect from my fellow libertarian brethren, for the very simple reason that I do not wish to wait until a risk actually becomes a reality.

So, environmental regulations are a-ok in my book, however I would expect a healthy amount of corruption in that area then.

Then again, if we keep government small, we have an actual chance of keeping track of what it does. [/quote]

If keeping a check on government fraud, waste and abuse must come down to keeping the government small then all is lost.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
tell me how or if a company would be called on repairing polluting the water table[/quote]

Ah pollution.

This is were I defect from my fellow libertarian brethren, for the very simple reason that I do not wish to wait until a risk actually becomes a reality.

So, environmental regulations are a-ok in my book, however I would expect a healthy amount of corruption in that area then.

Then again, if we keep government small, we have an actual chance of keeping track of what it does. [/quote]

If keeping a check on government fraud, waste and abuse must come down to keeping the government small then all is lost.
[/quote]

Ah, we do not need to eliminate them entirely, they are just like cockroaches, they only become a health hazard when there are too many of them.

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
tell me how or if a company would be called on repairing polluting the water table[/quote]

Ah pollution.

This is were I defect from my fellow libertarian brethren, for the very simple reason that I do not wish to wait until a risk actually becomes a reality.

So, environmental regulations are a-ok in my book, however I would expect a healthy amount of corruption in that area then.

Then again, if we keep government small, we have an actual chance of keeping track of what it does. [/quote]

If keeping a check on government fraud, waste and abuse must come down to keeping the government small then all is lost.
[/quote]

Ah, we do not need to eliminate them entirely, they are just like cockroaches, they only become a health hazard when there are too many of them. [/quote]

You insult cockroaches.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
tell me how or if a company would be called on repairing polluting the water table[/quote]

Ah pollution.

This is were I defect from my fellow libertarian brethren, for the very simple reason that I do not wish to wait until a risk actually becomes a reality.

So, environmental regulations are a-ok in my book, however I would expect a healthy amount of corruption in that area then.

Then again, if we keep government small, we have an actual chance of keeping track of what it does. [/quote]

If keeping a check on government fraud, waste and abuse must come down to keeping the government small then all is lost.
[/quote]

Ah, we do not need to eliminate them entirely, they are just like cockroaches, they only become a health hazard when there are too many of them. [/quote]

You insult cockroaches.[/quote]

Well, I was only using them as a yard stick for a health hazard, I am sure that compared to the average beltwayite they are of the most firm and incorruptible moral fiber.

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
tell me how or if a company would be called on repairing polluting the water table[/quote]

Ah pollution.

This is were I defect from my fellow libertarian brethren, for the very simple reason that I do not wish to wait until a risk actually becomes a reality.

So, environmental regulations are a-ok in my book, however I would expect a healthy amount of corruption in that area then.

Then again, if we keep government small, we have an actual chance of keeping track of what it does. [/quote]

If keeping a check on government fraud, waste and abuse must come down to keeping the government small then all is lost.
[/quote]

Lifty explain how utilities , water and public domaine would work ?

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
tell me how or if a company would be called on repairing polluting the water table[/quote]

Ah pollution.

This is were I defect from my fellow libertarian brethren, for the very simple reason that I do not wish to wait until a risk actually becomes a reality.

So, environmental regulations are a-ok in my book, however I would expect a healthy amount of corruption in that area then.

Then again, if we keep government small, we have an actual chance of keeping track of what it does. [/quote]

Seeing how the Republicans have changed the definition of the word “CONSERVATIVE”, what makes you think that a free market would not migrate towards a system again tilted towards the wealthy.

We definitely agree on the enviroment.

What about water rights or the company that owns the wires the electricity flow ?
[/quote]

The system was, is and always will be tilted towards the wealthy.

Which is why there is no reason to add such numerous and convoluted rules and bureaucratic hurdles that the only ones being able to navigate them are people who can afford an army of lawyers.

You do know that not even the IRS actually understands the tax codes and that following their advice does not absolve you from any liability if some bureaucrat or other disagrees with what his underling deemed proper?

There is no reason why you should not be able to do your taxes on a paper napkin.

Well actually there are several and you being able to exert ye mighty democratic control over your elected representatives is not one of them.[/quote]

If you listen to the pod cast it will explain one reason the tax code is so convoluted . The wealthy belong to groups that pool the money and hire lobbyists . The middle class used to have a few such lobbyists but Unions were declared EVIL by the Republicans and people bought that
[/quote]

I believe you missed the point. The point is as he said: the system was, is, and always will be tilted towards the wealthy. There is no such thing as a system that is not tilted towards the wealthy. Therefore why complicate the rules and “game” to the point where the only ones who can understand and navigate the maze are those that can afford and retain an army of legal scholars to guide them? (aka–the “rich”).

On another note, would you rather have a system where the gap between the rich and poor is 2x larger than it is currently BUT the poor have 20% more disposable income (free, spending money) than currently, or would you rather have a system where the gap is, say, half the size it is now but the poor are making 10% LESS disposable income than currently?

I know I’d pick a bigger gap every time. I don’t give a flying fuck what the “rich” make if I’ve got more disposable income, even if they’re uber-mega-ultra-rich and I’m not. Conversely I would never want to punish somebody just so I could feel like I wasn’t suffering as much.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pittbulll wrote:
tell me how or if a company would be called on repairing polluting the water table[/quote]

Ah pollution.

This is were I defect from my fellow libertarian brethren, for the very simple reason that I do not wish to wait until a risk actually becomes a reality.

So, environmental regulations are a-ok in my book, however I would expect a healthy amount of corruption in that area then.

Then again, if we keep government small, we have an actual chance of keeping track of what it does. [/quote]

Seeing how the Republicans have changed the definition of the word “CONSERVATIVE”, what makes you think that a free market would not migrate towards a system again tilted towards the wealthy.

We definitely agree on the enviroment.

What about water rights or the company that owns the wires the electricity flow ?
[/quote]

The system was, is and always will be tilted towards the wealthy.

Which is why there is no reason to add such numerous and convoluted rules and bureaucratic hurdles that the only ones being able to navigate them are people who can afford an army of lawyers.

You do know that not even the IRS actually understands the tax codes and that following their advice does not absolve you from any liability if some bureaucrat or other disagrees with what his underling deemed proper?

There is no reason why you should not be able to do your taxes on a paper napkin.

Well actually there are several and you being able to exert ye mighty democratic control over your elected representatives is not one of them.[/quote]

If you listen to the pod cast it will explain one reason the tax code is so convoluted . The wealthy belong to groups that pool the money and hire lobbyists . The middle class used to have a few such lobbyists but Unions were declared EVIL by the Republicans and people bought that
[/quote]

I believe you missed the point. The point is as he said: the system was, is, and always will be tilted towards the wealthy. There is no such thing as a system that is not tilted towards the wealthy. Therefore why complicate the rules and “game” to the point where the only ones who can understand and navigate the maze are those that can afford and retain an army of legal scholars to guide them? (aka–the “rich”).
[/quote]

If I understand your point , I believe there are many but all systems are corrupt

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
On another note, would you rather have a system where the gap between the rich and poor is 2x larger than it is currently BUT the poor have 20% more disposable income (free, spending money) than currently, or would you rather have a system where the gap is, say, half the size it is now but the poor are making 10% LESS disposable income than currently?

I know I’d pick a bigger gap every time. I don’t give a flying fuck what the “rich” make if I’ve got more disposable income, even if they’re uber-mega-ultra-rich and I’m not. Conversely I would never want to punish somebody just so I could feel like I wasn’t suffering as much.[/quote]

I don’t give a flying fuck until I am poor , then I will pillage the rich every chance I get :slight_smile:

[quote]orion wrote:

Compared to him I always was. [/quote]

Why do you hate freedom?

I mean, you tolerate government intervention into markets in the name of a [constructed] “public good” of preventing “pollution”. So, by Lifty’s calculus, you hate and are the enemy of freedom.

So, you’re telling me that Lifty is wrong?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

Compared to him I always was. [/quote]

Why do you hate freedom?

I mean, you tolerate government intervention into markets in the name of a [constructed] “public good” of preventing “pollution”. So, by Lifty’s calculus, you hate and are the enemy of freedom.

So, you’re telling me that Lifty is wrong?[/quote]

No, I want governments to address the problem of risk transfer because there is no way to prove causality when it comes to pollution leading to health damage and it is no use even if I could prove it if I am dead because of it.

This is where libertarian theory breaks down in reality and I want that adressed.

However, the playing field would still be the same for everyone, albeit slightly tilted in favor of less harmful and/or more easily controlled substances.