Cheerleading Against Regulation


Y

ou have to love the Richmond Times-Disgrace, err, Dispatch.

It is a perpetual fount of cheer leading for the ruling elite with no regard for average folks. Its news sections take down, stenographic-style, the opinions of corporate pooh -bahs while their Sunday editorial pages are dominated by self-dealing lobbyists or non-profit bureaucrats telling us what a great job they are doing or TD publisher Tom Silvestri tapping out another bizarre tome about how busy and interesting and what a leader he is.
In recent weeks, we had John A. Luke, head of paper-maker MeadWestvaco which relocated its HQ to Richmond a few years ago, tell us that government regulation is bad, bad bad. Luke, who avoids real interviews with journalists, didn’t bother to provide much detail at a country club speech other than mentioning President Barack Obama’s stimulus program and plans for a federal agency to protect consumers.
Before, we had Bruce Whitehurst, head of the Virginia Bankers Association, complain that banking reform sought by Democrats such as Chris Dodd and Barney Frank comes with harmful new rules, chief among them an agency that would (gasp) actually protect consumers consumers from the predatory practices of banks.
One wonders where Mr. Whitehurst was when Bear Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, American International Group, Wachovia, Washington Mutual and many others either went down or had to find someone to buy them because of their incredibly bad choices in the subprime mortgage mess and other areas. Who got screwed here? The consumers, that’s who. They suffer 9.9 percent unemployment while the suits in C-Suites got gigantic golden parachutes not to mention a $700 billion plus federal bailout.
Now comes the latest on the front pages of today’s Wall Street Journal. There is a fascinating front-page story that the federal Minerals Management Service, which may or may not be tasked with overseeing offshore oil rigs, has regularly conceded safety oversight to the drilling industry.
Gov. Bob McDonnell and his group who want Deepwater Horizon rigs offshore of Virginia say that the industry is already well-regulated. The WSJ seems to beg to differ. MMS seems to follow a policy popular in the George W. Bush administration that federal regulators will step back and let the real experts — oil companies and their lobbyists — write the rules. No need to mention the result — millions of gallons of crude oil still pumping unhindered into the Gulf of Mexico in one of the worst environmental disasters in decades. And, compared to other countries with large offshore petroleum reserves, the U.S. is seen as a regulatory slouch.
I remember during the Bush administration covering the U.S. Securities & Exchange Commission. I did so when Christopher Cox, an amiable former California congressman and fan of free market maven Ayn Rand, was in charge. His mission was to lighten up on the Sarbanes-Oxley law that toughened up accounting after the 1990s Enron and WorldCom scandals.
At the time, the John Lukes of the Corporate World were moaning big-time about Sarbox. Cox helped soften implementing it, which actually was effective and resulted in far-fewer forced restatements of company earnings. But the general feeling was light-touch regulation and letting the industry write the rules.
Cox somehow was hard to find when the you know what hit the fan in 2008. As for the shareholders he was worn to protect, well, they lost trillions.
Peter Galuszka

Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

123 responses to “Cheerleading Against Regulation”

  1. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    We get regulations for a reason.

    We get bad regulations for a reason, too.
    Both are generally a response to bad corporate behavior.

    RH

  2. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    And there is the matter of execution. Regulations should enforced reasonably, efficiently and fairly, without playing favorites.

    TMT

  3. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    regulations usually come about in response to events that basically prove that a lack of regulation leads to problems.

    Some folks might dream up regulations but the vast majority come about after something like an e-coli outbreak ..traced back to a farmer using pig poop for fertilizer and then selling his crop to distributors who then send it straight to the mouths of unsuspecting citizens.

    then a big hoorah … congressional hearings theater… titillating "revelations" that more than a few people in the transaction chain knew about the pig poop but kept silent…

    then.. the standard evolution…

    "The Keep Pig-Poop out of salads Law of 2010"

    then the govt regulators slice and dice the law into regulations that get printed in the Congressional Poobah … the "industry" is outraged at the "unnecessary" and "onerous" …dumb.. redundant.. jack-boot heavy hand of permanently tenured bean-counters…

    .. and VOILA

    we have an army of pig-poop inspectors…who are happy as pigs in slop… over their new work…

    until the Republicans win an election and the pig poop inspectors are immediately reassigned to the newly-formed fly-shit program as the newly-installed industry folks seek to re-write the regs so that they look like pig-poop is being regulated but instead a series of loopholes and "caps" are written – almost verbatim from the industry… of course…

    and life goes on…

    till the next kid dies from e-coli from a crop found to be fertilized with pig-poop – when everyone thought it was already regulated…

    NOW… if you are a Republican/Conservative who is fundamentally oppose to regulation from the get go – then all my little story is – to them – is the unfortunate path that true believers must take in rolling back left wing loonies ideas about regulation.

    I s_it you not.

  4. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Solar bubble bursts in Spain amid subsidy cuts, fraud allegations.

    Only two years ago, Spanish solar energy companies feasting on generous government subsidies expanded at a feverish pace, investing €18 billion (then worth roughly $28 billion) to blanket rooftops and fields with photovoltaic panels. They briefly turned the country into the top solar market in the world.

    Suddenly facing a deep recession, a collapsing housing market and a ballooning budget deficit, the Spanish government cut the rate paid for photovoltaic power by about 29 percent last year and put a limit on new solar installations at 500 megawatts per year. It is now considering additional tariff cuts that may reach as high as 40 percent and may even be applied retroactively,

    Many Spanish solar plants operate under contracts with guaranteed fixed prices for 20 or 25 years. Although most of the subsidy cost is supposed to be passed on to consumers, portions of the households' electric bill payments are delayed by several years as part of the aid scheme, boosting the state's liabilities in the meantime. The cost of these unpaid bills rose last year by 33 percent to €16 billion.

    The government has mounted an ongoing investigation of what went wrong. Among various items being investigated are reports that some of the power was generated at night, possibly by array owners using diesel generators to further expand their 'solar' earnings.

    Bad regulations cut both ways.

    How would you like to invest in solar installation for yur home and then have the government come and take back the incentive they provided to have youput it in?

    RH

  5. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    you're confusing regulation – designed to prevent activities deemed harmful to people to incentives given for things thought to benefit people.

    Subsidies like this one and others like mortgage tax subsidies and ethanol subsidies are not regulations like laws to prevent predatory lending or deadly pesticides.

    Notice that it is the govt that gives subsidies and it is private interests that are regulated to keep them from harming other private interests.

    In fact, one could consider incentives to encourage what is thought to be beneficial things the opposite of regulation designed to discourage things though to be not beneficial.

    The incentives and subsidies have rules and regs to keep the same people who would act illegally or unethically to game the system in other areas at bay.

    It's not good to dump pesticides and it's not good to defraud using credit default swaps or… solar credits but that does not keep the scumballs and opportunistic from pushing the windows and ruin it for everyone else.

    When an incentive program gets defrauded… it causes the govt to pull back on everyone include those that did not deserve it.

    this goes back to who is in charge of the government and whether or not they would seek to design government programs that have built-in loopholes and back-door provisions – for both subsidies and regulations – and those provisions are actually designed and written by folks representing others (industries) that would benefit from them.

    If you think Democracy and majority rule is a bad way to run a country in terms of economic freedom and corruption, check out the top 10 countries in this regard:

    http://www.heritage.org/index/TopTen.aspx

    and then look at some of the countries who are run not by majority rule but by dictator rule and you'll see that govt by corruption is rampant.

    As bad as regulation can be – and I agree there are countless examples of really bad regulation, it's way, way better than a system where bribery is how you MUST deal with the government and there is no way to get rid of those in charge….because they WILL USE the military on you if you try.

    Democracy sucks at times .. but the alternatives are way worse.

    get over it.

  6. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Since the recent oil spill (repeat: Since the spill), the Obama Administration has granted another 27 waivers.

    http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2010/05/07/93761/despite-spill-feds-still-giving.html

    LarryG and PeterG love telling fairy tales. Their posts and comments should start with "Once upon a time …" and end with, "And they all paid higher taxes everafter.".

    Here's just a bit of fairy tale antidote:

    1. Republicans / conservatives do not reduce the size or scope of government.

    2. Democrats / liberals do not regulate companies which make a lot of campaign contributions (i.e. all big companies).

  7. Groveton Avatar
    Groveton

    Here is a shortened link to the story documenting the most recent disgrace of the Obama Administration…

    http://bit.ly/aOxgMG

  8. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re:

    " 1. Republicans / conservatives do not reduce the size or scope of government.

    2. Democrats / liberals do not regulate companies which make a lot of campaign contributions (i.e. all big companies"

    but you forgot 3.

    3. – if/when Obama DOES PROPOSE TIGHTER REGULATIONS…

    who will OPPOSE THEM?

    you're right about the money – but DESPITE the money – WHO is willing to VOTE IN FAVOR of tighter regulation for Wall Street and who is not?

    Of all the folks in Congress AND the President who have indeed received money from the oil companies..

    … WHO will VOTE IN FAVOR of tighter regs and who will not?

    answer that question Groveton.

    tell me that the conservatives/Republicans will support tighter regs…

  9. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    I have absolutely no problem at all agreeing to the pernicious corruptive influence that money has on our governance nor the fact that both parties are easily documented as to their willingness to accept money from those that might be regulated.

    But at the end of the day, what party has the well-earned record of opposing regulation – as a philosophy?

    I believe that in order for us to change – to know what changes to favor – we need to be willing to deal with the truth – not the idealogical world views.

    and the truth is simple.

    Conservatives/Republicans basically oppose the concept of regulation.

    In vote after vote after vote in Congress – there are always a substantial number of votes against regulation of any kind such that the only regulations that do pass have what the Republicans themselves call "turncoats" …"RINOS" of their own party…

    so let's face the truth here.

    1. both parties take money

    2. only one of them passes regulation anyhow.

    truth.

  10. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "you're confusing regulation – designed to prevent activities deemed harmful to people to incentives given for things thought to benefit people."

    No, im not confusing that. What i am saying is that when aregulation goes wrong, it doe not matter which direction it goes wrong in.

    It costs money and wastes resurces either way.

    Solaar projects i spain were as much to prevent use of fossil fuelas they were to promote solar, so your distinction between preveion an propmotion is moot.

    In Spain, ths solar incentives were as much as thirteen times a much as the cost of diesel generation.

    It was an altruistic program that foundered when the economy could nto support it. You need a good econoy to ve agood environment because quaity costs money.

    RH

  11. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Larry G. seems to have the better perpective here.

    But what about AntiPartisanism?

    Educated and informed citizens — what Dr. Risse calls the New Fouth Estate with its own Citizen Media.

    Observer

  12. Gooze Views Avatar
    Gooze Views

    Groveton,
    Fairy stories? At least Larry G and I don't hide in anonymity like the Wizard of Oz.

    Peter Galuszka

  13. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " What i am saying is that when aregulation goes wrong, it doe not matter which direction it goes wrong in."

    you don't know if regulation goes "wrong" in one direction if the regulation is working as designed but (according to you it is wasteful in implementation).

    But you DO KNOW when regulation goes wrong and fails at it's intended purpose to prevent a failure or a disaster.

    it does not have anything to do with " an altruistic program that foundered when the economy could nto support it. "

    you're saying that criminal behavior occurs when people don't follow the law – the regulation.

    Well.. we put people in jail for that.

    If you decide that the law is wrong and you're going to apply a banned pesticide to your fields because you think it is better or cheaper .. it' NOT A FAILURE OF REGULATION nor a failure of the "economy to support it" – it's called an ILLEGAL ACT – you BROKE THE LAW and it's not a failure of anything else unless you want to believe that folks are free to steal because they can't get a job and it's a "failure" of the law and regulations.

    more idiotic, convoluted, idealogical blather…from Ray.

    For every regulation that really does "fail" – there are thousands that work EXACTLY AS DESIGNED…

    you and the right wing likes to talk about the small percentage of regulation that does not work as intended and then give these off-the-wall ..off-the-planet ideas that pretty much prove that you guys should not be any charge of anything but tying your own shoelaces.

  14. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    more idiotic, convoluted, idealogical blather…from Ray.

    For every regulation that really does "fail" – there are thousands that work EXACTLY AS DESIGNED…

    I agree entirely: in a large measure we get the regulations we deserve. Why attack me?

    What I am saying is that when there is too much regulation it is a waste of resources jut as too little is.

    Any business keeps track of the economic value of their policies and change them when they don't work out. This is a critical feedback loop that is mostly absent in government.

    We need to do a better job of cutting waste, and that can mean too little regulation as easily as too much.

    This is not blather but generally accepted environmental and political economics. Unfortunately it is frequently subjugated to the exigencies of political partisanship.

    For example, the CBO has recently produced a report that says essentially that the growth in green jobs will be offset by losses in other jobs. Therefore it is simply WRONG to claim jobs creation as a benefit of green energy production.

    But, environmental partisans will continue to make that claim, thereby lowering their credibility.

    RH

  15. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " I agree entirely: in a large measure we get the regulations we deserve. Why attack me?"

    because it's the same old CRAP about whether or not an individual "thinks" that a regulation is fair or not – in their mind – and then that, in turn, lets them decide that the regulation is not valid or does not apply to them.

    That's why.

    You say that if someone does not believe that a particular regulation or incentive is "correct" in their own mind, then they are free to cheat to whatever levels they think are right.

    Which is TOTAL CRAP – EACH AND EVERY TIME YOU SAY IT NO MATTER HOW MANY DIFFERENT WAYS YOU TRY TO SAY IT.

    got it?

    regulations WORK.

    do they work 100% – no?

    does that mean that regulation does NOT WORK 100% of the time, therefore all of it is wrong and should be done away with or, in your case..let each person decide how much is "enough".

    NO!

    YOU .. and any one else, INCLUDING THOSE WHO BREAK THE LAW ..

    are not entitled to decide which regulations are correct and which ones are not.

    this is why we have govt.

    if you don't like the govt, we have and the way they do regulation, you got options.

    some of them involve jail if that is your wish.

  16. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    But you DO KNOW when regulation goes wrong and fails at it's intended purpose to prevent a failure or a disaster.

    When it fails, being the operative phrase. You no more know that in advance than you know the value of the Total Cost Equation. Or, rather, you know it exactly as well as you know the value of the equation.

    fails at it's intended purpose to prevent a failure or a disaster.

    The implied assumption here is that it will prevent, and was designed to prevent with 100% certainty ANY kind of unforseen failur or disater.

    This is functionally and physically impossible, and there this implication means that you can afford to spend unlimited amounts in designing and enforcing regulations to prevent every bad event.

    Clearly this is not possible and so your assumption MUST be wrong. It is necessary to prioritize how much you spend based on the known likliehoods that your spending will produce better results than your other options.

    You do not have perfect prior knowledge on what disasters will happen, but we do have some knowledge: we do not build hurricane protection for 50 events a year because that is highly unlikely. We don't build flood protection for the 400 year event because building it and maintaining it for two hundred years costs more than the area protected is worth.

    If you decide that the law is wrong and you're going to apply a banned pesticide to your fields because you think it is better or cheaper .. it' NOT A FAILURE OF REGULATION

    It does not matter whether I decide to actually apply a banned material or not. (I never use any.) If the material is in fact wrongfully banned: if there is some kind of legitimate use for this material for which the benefits outweight the costs, then that is a failure of regulation.

    When you make enough regulations that pwople cannot live with, they will break the law. Therefore the degree of lawbreaking is, infact, a measure of failed regulation.

    Illegal immigration as a case in point. The illegal immigrants all BROKE THE LAW, but it is the law itself which is broken, or the enforcement thereof, take your pick. We can spend an infinite amount of money breaking up families and busing people back to the border. but if that winds up costing us more than it saves us, it is still a failed policy, broken laws or not.

    The Total Cost equation is ALWAYS correct and it is indiscriminate as to whether the item[s] prduced are legal or not. Thats because the Government cost is included in the equation.

  17. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    YOU .. and any one else, INCLUDING THOSE WHO BREAK THE LAW ..

    are not entitled to decide which regulations are correct and which ones are not.

    Whether I or anyone else breaks the law does not make any difference as to whether the regulations are correct or not.

    If you want to make law breakers, just make laws that don't make any sense.

    Economics will decide whehter the law makes andy sense. Politicians will decide whether the law exists.

    The General Accounting Office will tell you that there is no reason for a regulatio to exists that costs more than it saves.

    We can etiher know whether it does or not. We can choose to learn, or we can govern in ignorance.

    RH

  18. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " f there is some kind of "…legitimate use for this material for which the benefits outweight the costs, then that is a failure of regulation.

    but you do not know that.

    all you know is that there is a regulation that says you cannot apply the pesticide because a study has been done that has determined – at best – that the damaged from it COULD in the judgment of those doing the study – outweigh the costs"

    that's the way regulation works.

    you also don't know if not having the regulation is worthwhile either because if it turns out you had a huge damage then you guessed wrong also.

    simply stated – you do NOT KNOW BEFORE the ACTUAL cost-benefits so your equation does not have absolutely totally accurate data in it but guesses.

    "When you make enough regulations that pwople cannot live with, they will break the law. Therefore the degree of lawbreaking is, infact, a measure of failed regulation."

    I think that totally depends on the sanctions.

    If you go to jail for 20 years for violating a regulation you do not agree with.. you're not going to have to build a new prison for your buddies to join you.

    If the regulation says that you cannot legally own a stinger missile – not a whole lot of fools are going to challenge that regulation with the idea that there is safety in the numbers of violators.

  19. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Why do you cite the General Accounting office as the "official decider" and then turn right around and say that some regulations are wrong?

    Why is it that the GAO is right about some regulations and wrong about others in your own mind?

    Do you or do you not trust the govt to decide how to do regulation?

    On one hand you say folks will disobey regulations that are wrong and then right after that say the GAO knows what is right.

    which is it?

  20. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Suppose you have a regulation that is passed and the PREDICTED cost benefit ratio is 25%. And suppose that part of th ebenefit is a reduction in dys lost due to asthma of 100,000 days per year.

    If you never go back and check, how do you know the CBR is any good? Suppose you go back and discover later that you only got 50,000 days saved, and because of that your MEASURED cost benefit ratio is now only 30%.

    But your NEXT BEST regulatory option has a CBR of 27%. What this means is that:

    a) you could have saved more lost days doing something that cost less.

    b) by spending in the wrong places you are valuing some people lives [and by extension porperty] more than others.

    It isn't about not having regulation: it is about having the best regulation you can get for the money you have. Among other things, this removes ammunition for those who think we should ALWAYS have less regulation, and who point out regulatory inefficiencies as evidence.

    RH

  21. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    suppose … we already do what you say?

  22. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "THOSE WHO BREAK THE LAW ..

    are not entitled to decide which regulations are correct and which ones are not.

    this is why we have govt."

    Government has an OBLIGATION to protect minorities and to see to it that NO ONE carries an undue burden.

    ANYONE is entitled to present evidence that they are being discriminated against or that they are carrying an undue burden, and they are entitled under the Constitution to due process to make that case.

    It is NOT ONLY those who claim damage prior to the regulation that have rights.

    THE DECISION to do nothing or prevent everything also has unknown future costs and consequences, and therefore it is no more rational to do NOTHING or PREVENT EVERYTHING based on unknown future consequences than it is to DO VALUABLE THINGS, which may or may not have equal, (but equally unknown) future consequences.

    I used to believe as Larry does. But eventually it dawned on me that his arguments are fatally flawed. Either by unsupportable premises, or else circular and incomplet logic. That discovery was hammered home to me by examples in real life mitgation of environmental "damages" that simply made no sense.

    I AGREE that we sometimes allow environmental damages to happen when we should have seen it coming, but that is the price you pay for not paying an infinite amount to prevent an infinite number of potential problems sometime in the infinite future.

  23. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    "Government has an OBLIGATION to protect minorities and to see to it that NO ONE carries an undue burden."

    they do but not in the way you seem to think and also they perform that obligation just not in the way you think.

    Govt does what it is supposed to do.

    "ANYONE is entitled to present evidence that they are being discriminated against or that they are carrying an undue burden, and they are entitled under the Constitution to due process to make that case."

    due process

    "It is NOT ONLY those who claim damage prior to the regulation that have rights.

    THE DECISION to do nothing or prevent everything also has unknown future costs and consequences, and therefore it is no more rational to do NOTHING or PREVENT EVERYTHING based on unknown future consequences than it is to DO VALUABLE THINGS, which may or may not have equal, (but equally unknown) future consequences."

    govt handles these issues as they should.

    "I used to believe as Larry does. But eventually it dawned on me that his arguments are fatally flawed. Either by unsupportable premises, or else circular and incomplet logic. That discovery was hammered home to me by examples in real life mitgation of environmental "damages" that simply made no sense."

    they make no sense to you but they do to others including me.

    what makes you right?

    "I AGREE that we sometimes allow environmental damages to happen when we should have seen it coming, but that is the price you pay for not paying an infinite amount to prevent an infinite number of potential problems sometime in the infinite future. "

    no.. it's the price you pay for not being more careful about restricting things that we pretty much know are harmful.

    Our history is ..by far.. we guess wrong on the harm side.. over and over..

    Almost never have we had a regulation that was found later on to be unnecessarily too restrictive and had to be loosened.

    The vast majority of regulation has resulted in more damage than we originally thought.

    thems the facts…

  24. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    If you go to jail for 20 years for violating a regulation you do not agree with.. you're not going to have to build a new prison for your buddies to join you.

    How many people are you willing to jail before the cost of jailing them is more than the cost of damage prevented by the regulation?

    Isn't that what Ghandi taught us? The entire British government got up and walked away from India because it wasn't worth the cost in head bashing to enforce their regulations.

    Any regulation is either cost effective or not, and the degree changes over time.

    It only APPEARS that history proves that it is worthwhile to err on the side of caustion. It appears this way because of the visibility [as well as the variability and predictability] of major accidents.

    But suppose you had some regulation in force that never had the opportunity to prevent the supposed disaster it was supposed to prevent. Over time, it would be just as big a waste in cost as the disaster it was supposed to have prevented.

    RH

  25. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    they perform that obligation just not in the way you think.

    BS.

    Try and get due process on a zoning case. As far as that goes we have zoned the constitution out of existence.

    I know how it is done, and what I'm telling you is that we do a lousy job of it.

    As a result we get LESS environmental and health protection at a higher cost than necessary and those costs are distributed unequally AND disproportionately.

    Essentially what you are arguing is that what we are doing works so well there is no reason to even look to see if it needs reform.

    RH

  26. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Govt does what it is supposed to do.

    Oh give me a break.

    Why do we have so many regulations about what government MUST and MUST not do, in addition to the consitution which tells us in a general way waht it is ALLOWED to do and what the PURPOSE is.

    Same reason as why we have regulations concerning contractors and private enterprise.

    Because they were not doing what they were supposed to. That is what the whole earmark brouhaha is all about: government practitioners selling influence by proxy.

    RH

  27. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " But suppose you had some regulation in force that never had the opportunity to prevent the supposed disaster it was supposed to prevent. Over time, it would be just as big a waste in cost as the disaster it was supposed to have prevented."

    How would you REALLY KNOW?

    if a regulation was to prevent a blowout (by requiring a blowout preventer) and you never had a blowout – how would you know that you did "too much" and it was a "waste"?

    you don't know Ray.

    all you know if when something goes wrong and great damaged is done ..that you SHOULD HAVE had more regulation.

    how many more drilling platforms do you want like this one without requiring a stronger blowout preventer like is required in other countries?

  28. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    This is very simple. You ae either protecting people and their property equally or not.

    You are either attempting to do that or you are not.

    Right now we do not have a comprehensive policy in government to MAKE SURE, to the best of our ability thet this is a FUNDAMENTAL POLICY that must be vigorously pursued.

    The closest we come to that is competing partisan agendas based on supposed but unquantified results.

    RH

  29. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " Essentially what you are arguing is that what we are doing works so well there is no reason to even look to see if it needs reform"

    I'm saying we have a current process and a process for changes and reform.

    regulation works but regulation needs to constantly change to keep up with ever changing ways to get around it and newer innovations and technology.

    anyone who thinks that one regulation is done that it's static is not very realistic.

    is there influence? mistakes? redundancy? stupid rules? etc?

    yes.

    what's the alternative?

    no regulation at all?

  30. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "if a regulation was to prevent a blowout (by requiring a blowout preventer) and you never had a blowout – how would you know that you did "too much" and it was a "waste"?

    you don't know Ray.

    all you know if when something goes wrong and great damaged is done ..that you SHOULD HAVE had more regulation."

    This is a known logical fallacy called Appeal to Fear.

    You cannot win an argument with a logical fallacy because it fundamentally represents an untrue condition.

    In fact you no more know that you should have had more regulation because

    a) you don't know if the blowout will occur and

    b) you don't know if the regulation would have prevented it

    any more than you know what the regulation cost if you never have a blowout.

    on top of that it is a bad post hoc propter hoc argument because you cannot say that given a blowout you should have had a regulation.

    On the contrary, all you can say is that a hundred billion dollar blowout merely sets a new limit on the cost of regulation.

    Just because you HAD a hundred billion dollar blowout is no logical reason to turn around and propose a regulation that is so expensive that it will cost four hundred billion during the time before you can expect the next blowout.

    And when it eventually happens, it will be because of something else we forgot to regulate.

    In short,the problem with your argument is that if you cannot predict costs into the future, neither can you predict savings.

    The best you can do is make your best guess, and then go back and see how many ringers you got and how many duffs.

    RH

  31. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    what you know is that you had insufficient rules… because in this case we knew what more could have been required that was not.

    this is not a fallacy.

    are you saying that by requiring the higher level blow preventer technology in other countries that we don't know if they prevented a blowout or not therefore they might be a waste?

    you don't know any of this guy UNTIL AFTER THE FACT.

    if your equation was so great, we'd KNOW – AHEAD OF TIME – how much was the right amount and your equation is totally worthless all it is is an after-the-fact documentation of failures.

    it doesn't work at all for regulations put in place to prevent failure – and then no failure occurred.

    Indeed in this particular case, it was argued (successfully) by BP that the higher level blowout preventer was unnecessary in part because no other failures had occurred – even though the other wells had the higher level technology on them – SPECIFICALLY to prevent a failure.

    Your argument on regulation is the same argument that BP and Exxon used until we had big disasters that proved them wrong.

    that's your approach…

    your approach is to gamble.

    other countries don't.

  32. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "I'm saying we have a current process and a process for changes and reform."

    That process was designed from the get go to be inefficient in order to prevent the accumulation of power.

    It has since been distorted by special interests to erect barriers to entry in the name of safety and other self serving interests, including outright appropriation.

    No one but right wing whackos are claiming we should have NO regulation, but the actualization for the regulatory system we have is faulty and broken, inefficient and wasteful, unfair and dicriminatory. It is promoted with pejorative and inflammatory rhetroic, and faulty data and spin unsopported by fact.

    It is Hugely wasteful. We, as environmentalists should be the first to object and object strenuously.

    Instead, we are so proud of ourselves for having run a gargantuan lobbying effort which "saved" Frobisher's Lousewort, that we can't be bothered to look at the real problems that could have been solved for a lot less.

    RH

  33. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    more pragmatic. It is what it is and it "mostly" works except when it doesn't and there are a wide variety of ways to change it and it does get changed..but never to suit everyone.

    Do you consider the MMS to be an "environmental" group like the EPA?

  34. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    you don't know any of this guy UNTIL AFTER THE FACT.

    It is absolutely a fallacy because you cannot know what you saved until after the fact, either.

    You are porposing what might be an unlimited expenditure (UP FRONT) based on the fear of what might happen if you don't.

    It is precisely the mafia protection racket, and it is just as wrong.

    On the other hand we KNOW hamany people are going to be killed onthe highways every hour of every day. And based on theose actual tragedies AFTER THE FACT we know how much we can or should spend on prevention and insurance.

    On offshore oil drilling we are about to get another data point. It might be the oil drilling equivalent of the prom wreck that kills eleven children, but that is all it is. It is not a license to claim that any cost of any regulaton we can think of is automatically worth the cost.

    If it was, we would have banned proms a long time ago.

    RH

  35. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " You are porposing what might be an unlimited expenditure (UP FRONT) based on the fear of what might happen if you don't."

    show me one single regulation when it required an unlimited expenditure up front.

    not a one.

    why do you claim this when it's outright not true?

    there are hundreds of thousands of regulations and not one requires an absolute unlimited expenditure.

    In fact, most regulations are based very conservatively.

    another data point?

    that's the fallacy of your approach.

    wait until we have a huge disaster then regulate.

    how many drilling platforms do you think just got brand new blowout preventer regs put on them?

    can you say that since none of them blew up that it's wrong to require them to upgrade to more expensive technology?

  36. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Much of what we are doing is a huge friggin waste. I'm not saying that we should not do things, but we should be so good at it that even the most flinty, hardbittten, right-wing free market whacko will look at it and immediately say, "that makes sense".

    ——————————-

    On Sunday I was coming out of Tractor Supply in my Barn Coat, and met a crusty old farmer going the other way.

    "How you doin'", he greeted me.

    "Not so hot, I'm afraid I'm a farm junkie", I said.

    "What do you mean?"

    "Every weekend I have to come here and buy more junk for a farm fix."

    "I hear you", he said, "Look at hese hands." He held out hands swollen up to the size of softballs. They looked like mine did last week, and I know how much they had to hurt.

    The rest of the conversation consisted of him saying how screwed up he thinks the Fauquier government is. I didn't even initiate it, I just, nodded, stepped back and let him rip.

    And if you think I'm strident, you should have heard this guy. I never met him before, but he is on a veritable hate campaign.

    And why was he so friggin P.O'd?
    he thinks he was stolen from. By unfair regulations.

    RH

  37. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " he thinks he was stolen from. By unfair regulations."

    join the club

    in case you haven't noticed, we've got an entire tea party groups that believes this also.

    regulations are like Democracy – the both stink to high heaven but the alternatives are even worse.

    you've got your regs you don't like. Others have regs they don't like but they want to keep regs on you.

    there is no agreement at all on what regulations are useless -just agreements that a lot of them are.

    sorta like when they ask if Congress sucks and everyone agrees.. except their own guy is good…

  38. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    show me one single regulation when it required an unlimited expenditure up front.

    What you are saying is that no matter what we spend, if we ever have a failure, then it proves we did not spend enough and more regulation is needed.

    Do I have that wrong?

    When did you ever propose one possible way of deciding or limiting how much is enough UP FRONT?

    A total ban on anything is exactly mathematically equal to an infinite expenditure on prevention, eventually.

    The right answer is never a total ban or zero pollution. It cannot be. It is physically and economically IMPOSSIBLE, and the closer you get the more wasteful it is.

    I know it is hard to accept, but snatch the peeble form my hand….

    ——————————–

    It is like time when I asked a very nice and attractive and well meaning speaker from the VOLF when she thought they would have preserved enough land. [She had been explaining in considerable detail what a woderful job they had done in preserving so much land,and how much.]

    You would have thought I had hit her in the face.

    'Well, she stammered, I dont think we have near enough'.

    "Agreed', I said, 'but what is the criteria by which you will know when you have done too much?'

    It was clear that she had simply never thought of it. But that gentleman in front of Tractor Supply had, and he didn't much care who heard his opinion, either.

    If you are to solve a problem, you first need to set a rule as to how you decide the problem is solved. you don't arbitrarily dig a footer 18 inches or 48 inches or 48 feet deep. And after you agree on the rule, you need a test to insure it is met.

    We have nothing like that in our regulatory system. Nothing that works, anyway.

    RH

  39. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    you've got your regs you don't like. Others have regs they don't like but they want to keep regs on you.

    First sentence is wrong. I like any reg that does not impose and unfair burden. Even if it is completeley ridiculous at least there is not an unfair playing field, as long as it is fair.

    Second sentence is precisely the problem that needs to be fixed.

    Tea partiers are under the mistaken impression that they can fix this by throwing out enough incombents and reducing regulation.

    But we can reduce regulation to a single law and still have tyranny.

    RH

  40. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "At least it would be MY law."

    Comment from a blogger who espouses unlimited free market, personal liberty, and minimum government.

    On another blog.

    RH

  41. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " What you are saying is that no matter what we spend, if we ever have a failure, then it proves we did not spend enough and more regulation is needed.

    Do I have that wrong?"

    when did we look at how much it would cost to do a clean-up off the Gulf of Mexico on this scope and scale – and if we had done such an analyses would you have argued that it was too much and that it was unlikely to happen so it would be wrong to use that number as the number required for prevention devices?

  42. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " you've got your regs you don't like. Others have regs they don't like but they want to keep regs on you.

    First sentence is wrong"

    really? want me to repeat some o the regs you say you don't like?

  43. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    the average person has not a clue as to how many regulations there are that if taken away they'd be hollering blood murder over.

    The parent wants regs to have the govt make sure that dog manufacturers do not use lead paint in toys.

    The businessman will cite that as an unnecessary and onerous regulation that drives up the cost of toys.

    the parent does not want nasty microbes in his kids milk but the farmer says if you force him to use anti-microbe technology that it will drive the smaller farmers out of business because they cannot afford the expensive equipment that the bigger producers can.

    Groveton says he's for smaller regulation until 20 different guys upstream of him start letting their horses poop in the creek that runs through his property

    Ray says sue them as a nuisance… all 20? and again next year? and the year after that.. and the new 10 upstream of the first 20?

    everyone wants "necessary" regulation and everyone is opposed to "unnecessary" regulation.

    whoop de do.

    next problem please.

  44. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Simple. I don't like regs that do not have a positive net benefit (True subsidies), or provide unequal benefits without compensation.

    If you think I am for or against anything else, then you have not been listening.

    You like regs that get something you want for nothing.

    RH

  45. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "the parent does not want nasty microbes in his kids milk but the farmer says if you force him to use anti-microbe technology that it will drive the smaller farmers out of business because they cannot afford the expensive equipment that the bigger producers can."

    Logical fallacy of false premise.

    There are plenty of people who want to buy whole milk, but it is illegal for the farmer to sell it to them.

    There are also people who own their own pasteurizers, because they can buy raw milk and process it themselves and have full control of their supply.

    Instead the big processors get a guaranteed market and the littl guys get nothing. this could easily be done such that the winners compensae the losers and no one is worse off.

    We just don't try because we have become accustomed to operating dishonestly.

    RH

  46. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Ray says sue them as a nuisance… all 20? and again next year? and the year after that.. and the new 10 upstream of the first 20?

    I never said that. Please don't put untrue words in my mouth.

    My approach would be to determine the pollution carrying capacity of the stream and sell (rent) that capacity as we would any other property. Which will go to the highest bidder. That will be the person who can sell the most valuable product that prooduces the least pollution.

    And since the environmental assets belong to all of us the rents would offset other taxes.

    RH

  47. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "when did we look at how much it would cost to do a clean-up off the Gulf of Mexico on this scope and scale -"

    That was done by Rand corporation back in 1969 – Whenthe origianl law had no cap on liability.

    Which has nothing to do withthe quote. You contention is that no matter what we spend to prevent it a spill proves we are not speniding enough. This implies that the right amount to spend must be an infinite amount so that you can reduce the risk of spill to zero.

    We can do that exactly once for one major threat.

    It is a money losing idea, and a wasteful one at that.

    If you are demanding infinite payment for damage it is because you think you have superior proerty rights.

    Even in frtaking Mogadishu they knows better than that.

    A family convened court is prohibited from making a judgement which is greater than proven damages. It is the common sense thing to do. If my smoke causes $10 dollars damage to your laundry, you can't force me to give up $100 in income from my brick works. All you get is $10.

    Every week, which I add to the cost of my bricks.

    simple,and fair.

  48. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    Whole milk can still be obtained on a private basis.

    The regulation is designed to protect the public especially kids who have no way to protect themselves.

    some kind of regulation is needed as opposed to no regulation and you, like many others disagree with the specifics of the regulation using that argument as an argument against regulation in general.

    In other words, you support regulation, but you want your version of it.

    two words. pound sand.

  49. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " My approach would be to determine the pollution carrying capacity of the stream"

    your approach would allow substances like kepone to be dumped in it as long as the guy selling the kepone product made more profit than the "harm" caused with you deciding the "harm".

    no thanks. we've tried that approach and it fails 99% of the time.

  50. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: regs that are something for nothing.

    regs are to protect the public against those who would harm the public using their own judgment as to what kind of harm is being done – verses the people being harmed.

    Government is where the people being harmed get to make that decision instead of the guy doing it.

    it's the right way.

    we did not start out with regulation.

    many, if not most activities were unregulated but over time it became apparent that the 'property rights' method of handling these issues does not work because the property owner ALWAYS has a conflict of interest – his profit vs harm to others.

    your argument basically is that he is allowed to harm others because that is his property right and that they owe him that ability as long as he makes more profit than the harm done to them.

    that's your idea of regulation.

    you and maybe 3 others.

    everyone else – totally rejects your bizarre ideas…

    not one place in the entire world codifies your approach in law.

  51. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "It's a myth that OSHA protects the safety of the worker. OSHA's mandate is simply to make the job safer than it would be without OSHA. Cost/benefit analyses are performed on new proposed safety regulations, and if the cost is determined to exceed the benefit, the proposed safeguards are not put into place.

    Additionally, when any new regulation is proposed, public comments are legally solicited and published in the Federal Register. These comments ultimately determine if the regulation is promulgated."

    Comment from WALT G on another blog.

    If walt is correct it looks like OSHA is onthe right track: if the cost of fixing the problem is more than the cost of the problem, don't fix it.

    EPA on the other hand willproudly point out really low cost CBR's like 10% cot 90% benefit ratio or something, and then say what a good deal this is.

    Not really.

    If that CBR is correct then it is almost certain that you should be spending MORE on the program, until the CBR gets as high as the next best option.

    RH

  52. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "many, if not most activities were unregulated but over time it became apparent that the 'property rights' method of handling these issues does not work because the property owner ALWAYS has a conflict of interest – his profit vs harm to others."

    Larry, this is just wrong.

    You are living in the dark ages of environmental acttivism when polluter pays was fashionable and it was all about liability.

    Liability is what made CERCLA one of the worst pieces of environmental legislation ever.

    Virtually all environmental econmists now concur that some form of property rights reform is the key to making conservation and environemtnal stewardship, not only less costly but actually profitable.

    At its very root, the entire reason for pollution is the lack of careful property rights recognition.

    You need to get the idea that property rights are somehow BAD for environmental action out of your head and go read up on some of the success stories.

    Go watch the fishing story on the Documentary channel to see the diferene between wet coast fishery regs and east coast.

    The problem isn't that property rights were too strong, it was that there were not enough of them: stuff that was apperently "not owned" was free to be damaged withut concern.

    Get over it and get with it.

    You are just wrong on this.

    RH

  53. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    your approach would allow substances like kepone to be dumped in it as long as the guy selling the kepone product made more profit than the "harm" caused with you deciding the "harm".

    no thanks. we've tried that approach and it fails 99% of the time.

    What dream do you invent this crap in? where is the proof for your 99% stat?

    There is some carrying capacity for a stream, and usually we are talking BOD nutrients and not some highly toxic compounds. But een if it is a highly toxic bioaccumulator there is SOME lower limit that ould be deemed safe.

    Even if there isn't there may be nothing you can do about it because it is a natural contaminant.

    But, whatever the carrying capacity of that stream is, [and whereever it dumps to] has some finite valuable carrying capacity, which can be owned and sold.

    And if you are not willing to agree to that, then you are making an assymetric claim of superior property rights which is precluded by the Constitution and written law and policy.

    But you can bepretty certain that the lowest total cost in that equation of TC = PC + EC + GC involves allowing (nad getting paid for) a certain level of pollution.

    Certainly you can hold out for lower pollution on this project but it will mean higher costs for relatively little gain, and it means you have less resource to use against your next project.

    There really is only one way to get it right at lowest cost. The market approach means that once you get a system in place it is self regulationg, but with no increase in pollution beyond the established safe limit.

    RH

  54. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Government is where the people being harmed get to make that decision instead of the guy doing it.

    No, this is just wrong. One group has no more rights than the other. Each has the right to have their property protected equally, but that does not mean perfectly.

    Yoo have no right to demand $1000 in prevention out of his pocket to prevent $10 in damage to yours.

    That is a bsic, founding, common law pricnciple athat even the semiliterate judge in lawless mogadishu would support.

    Now, if you are asking for $1000 in protection that will prevent $1 in damage to 10,000 people then that is a different argument.

    But in that case there is plenty of free cash flow and someone whould be willing to set up and own a business to capture it. Thsi is a situation where everyone can win, if they want to.

    But under a liability process, command and constrol, then to hell with it, go ahead a screw the guy. Go home and feel self righteous.

    Just know that you left money onthe table and got a wrose solutionthan you might have.

    RH

  55. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    CBRs are simplistic concepts for the simple-minded to a certain extent – in no small part because trying to determine a CBR using variables that not known as anything other than flabby actuarials is not easy to start with.

    you get into things like how much degradation of IQ is "worth" exposition to substances than can result in that.. for some people.. but not others – like kids but not adults?

    how do you compute a CBR for that?

  56. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " Larry, this is just wrong."

    I'm 100% correct because the guy who is making a profit has a fundamental conflict with fairly examining the costs to others.

    If you were correct, no one would have to tell BP not to drill where they know they do not have the capability to stop a blowout.

    They'd decide for themselves that the potential damaged is too risky

    … EXCEPT when the risk belongs to others and the profits belong to them…

    all your psycho blather about "environmental economics" and 'property rights' is for these rest of us "been there, done that and we know from terrible experience that those who make the profits ALWAYS underestimate the risks, damages, and consequences.

    this is why we do not allow hazardous waste tanks in a residential neighborhood NO MATTER how careful the owners say they will be – because we know that if there is a leak.. they will declare bankruptcy and run away.

    that's your "environmental ethics" Ray.

  57. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    You are hung up on who sets the standards.

    in a general way I have no beef with how it is done now.

    An agency puts up a proposed rulemaking and both sides render comments. After consideration and a lot of politics a decsion is rendered. No one group gets to set the rules.

    We can do a lOT better, and get MUCH better results. And it will cost us less, not more.

    RH

  58. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    you keep saying that we can 'do better" then you revert right back to the idea that the guy making the profit not only sets the standards but that he is actually ENTITLED to pollute in the first place.

    no dice guy.

    we've been done this path and it is a dead end.

  59. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    I'm 100% correct because the guy who is making a profit has a fundamental conflict with fairly examining the costs to others.

    And you are 100% wrong because the guy who is allowed to make excess claims aganst the other has a fundamental conflict as well. Just like you r long distance commuterr, as long as he can get whatver he wants (apparenty and only apparently) for nothing, he has no incentive not to ask for too much.

    This is represented by those who ae somehow deluded into thinking there is such a thing as zero pollution.

    It is circular logic, larry. Your position is simply wrong and unsupporable on any level, unless you recognize it for what it is: greed, avarice, and epithets, in direct contravention to the most fundamental principals in the preamble to the constitution.

    Sorry Larry, you will never convince me otherwise. we go round and round and you make the same stupid unsupportable circular half truth arguments.

    Your positionis wrong and it is wasteful of resources we can do better things with.

    I'm sorry if you think that somehow makes me on the OTHER SIDE.

    RH

  60. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "in no small part because trying to determine a CBR using variables that not known as anything other than flabby actuarials is not easy to start with."

    It is not that flabby and it is always better than a wild ass guess that always results in the same wrong answer: It is always worth it to spend any amount to prevent the tiniest problem.

    You may have a bunch of flabby data, but even when your data is highly variable it is possible to achive a surprisingly tight answer, if you have enough related variables.

    But as long as youare going to dismiss the process out of hand and won't even try, then of course you won't get answers.

    When you do try, you may get answers you don't like. Get used to it, the answers are probaably a lot more right than you are.

  61. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " guy who is allowed to make excess claims aganst the other has a fundamental conflict"

    No.

    Your rights END at his nose.

    You are not entitled to anything past that point and he is not required to accept any damages from you either.

    That's the way the law works except in your little world.

    No one believes what you say.

    There is not a government in the world that works the way you say it should.

    that makes you wrong fella.

    your have absolutely no right to cause damage to others without their agreement

  62. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    that the guy making the profit not only sets the standards

    I never said that. What is true that you cannot set standards that exceed his profit and still expect a product to result: in that case the cost just went to infinity.

    ===============================

    but that he is actually ENTITLED to pollute in the first place.

    ==============================

    I never said that either, but I do say and i will say that it is unreasonable for you to claim he is NOT entitled to pollute since EVERYTHING you do produces some form of pollution and he has the same rights you have.

    Whenthe day comes that you produce zero pollution I will agree that he is entitled to produce no more than you do.

    What you are asking is physically and economically impossible: thee is no such thing as zer waste and sero pollution and so we MUST allow for the idea that everone is entitles to produce some pollution.

    Any other conclusion violates the laws of physics, the preamble to the constitution, and would otherwise generally reflect a serious delusion.

    Listen to exactly what I say and don't put words in my mouth.

    The guy next door has the exact same entitlements you have. In no way does your philosophy support that idea.

    Not really. You might think it does, but you have rationalized yourself into a corner. My best example is your utterly stupid claim that a new setback requirement affects all owners equally, built and unbuilt.

    Any three year old can see how unfair that is and how it changes your neighbores entitlements as compared to your own.

    RH

    RH

  63. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    " guy who is allowed to make excess claims aganst the other has a fundamental conflict"

    No.

    Your rights END at his nose.

    You are not entitled to anything past that point and he is not required to accept any damages from you either."

    You lost me when you flip flopped person and tense.

    Both parties have EQUAL entitlements and your argument alwys comes doen to the idea that one side has more.

    If you took this to arbitration in an ARAB court in Mogadishu, you would be paid for provable damages and you would accept. And their form of basic common law is among the oldest in the world.

    Over time ours has become a sick perversion of what was once a basic and standard idea. If my goats eat your garden, I owe you money for the damage, but you have no right to say I cannot keep goats.

    Sorry, but your argument does not follow. youcan;t stop me from keeping goats because you also have the right to keep goats and you also must pay me if they eat my garden.

    That is a fair and even expression of rights, and yours is not, yours is assymetric, which cannot be allowed.

    You cannot convince me otherwise. you will never convice me otherwise. I'm not asking anything special for anybody, and you are.

    Your argument is fundamentally selfish AND wasteful.

    RH

  64. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " EVERYTHING you do produces some form of pollution and he has the same rights you have."

    and those rights end your your nose and govt gets to decide what kinds of pollution that is agreed to – for everyone.

    The vast majority is NOT ZERO pollution but rather acceptable limits – decided by those who are impacted not those who want to make a profit at it.

    If, in the opinion of those regulating the harm is more expensive than the profit – then it is outlawed.

    the part that you keep circling back around to is what inherent property rights do you have to pollute and he answer is NONE.

    you only have a right to receive a permit if you only pollute what the permit says.

  65. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " Your argument is fundamentally selfish AND wasteful."

    my argument is what the law is.

    you are not allowed to take the rights of others.

    they have a right to not be harmed by your actions.

    the determination of what harm is and is not belongs to them implemented via representative government – not your opinion or your arguments.

    selfishness and waste belong to those who believe they have the right to take others property rights by polluting their property.

    The law says that you cannot pollute their property.

    that's not selfish nor wasteful but only what is right and fair.

  66. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Like I said, I used to think the way you do, and I finally concluded it wa wrong and stupid.

    You are going to need a different and better set of arguments to change my mind back again.

    I saw first hand, money being outright wasted tha could have changed peoplew' lives.

    It turned my stomach. And to see that there are STILL people who don't get it, won't get it, or refuse to get it, still turns my stomach.

    I'm done with this argument. Think what you want.

    RH

  67. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    my argument is what the law is.

    Then the law is wrong and you should be working to fix it instead of defend it.

    RH

  68. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "The law says that you cannot pollute their property."

    what does the law have to say about the unfortunate little fact that it is impossible to do otherwise?

    If you beleive that is what the law says then you claim totla control over wht they do on their property, which conflicts with your basic premise, that they are not allowed to harm you.

    Dumb.

    RH

  69. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    they have a right to not be harmed by your actions.

    Provided they are adequately and fairly compensated, where is the harm?

    I have a right not to be harmed by a new setback rule then, no?

    RH

  70. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The vast majority is NOT ZERO pollution but rather acceptable limits – decided by those who are impacted not those who want to make a profit at it.

    Not true. both sides have the right to make inputs.

    By saying the vast majority is not zero pollution but acceptable limits, what you are saying is that there is an acceptable price for pollution and therefore the right to create it.

    we areno longer arguing about whether there is a right to create pollution, but at what limits and what price.

    And, just like any other product, the lower the production the higher the price.

    RH

  71. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    that's not selfish nor wasteful but only what is right and fair.

    Right maybe, but fair, no.

    You have lost the handle on that concept.

    RH

  72. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " Right maybe, but fair, no.

    You have lost the handle on that concept."

    not me.

    it's up to those impacted to decide what is right and fair no matter what the polluter thinks.

  73. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " Provided they are adequately and fairly compensated, where is the harm?"

    it's up to those who will be harmed to agree (or not) and to decide the compensation – not the polluter.

  74. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " By saying the vast majority is not zero pollution but acceptable limits, what you are saying is that there is an acceptable price for pollution and therefore the right to create it."

    no.

    it's not called a "right".

    it's called a permit – with an expiration date on it.

    there is no "right".

    you must get permission.

  75. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    the part that you keep circling back around to is what inherent property rights do you have to pollute and he answer is NONE.

    I'll accept that argument the day I see you create no pollution.

    Plug up your chimney, don't drive your ruck, turn off the trash collection and sewer, and forego electricity. When your wife dies, keep her at home.

    Then make that argument to me.

    RH

  76. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    You can make a law that violates physics and chemistry, but you are dumber than clam poop if you think you can make it stick.

    RH

  77. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    you can pollute – with permission.

    that's not the same as an inherent right.

  78. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " You can make a law that violates physics and chemistry, but you are dumber than clam poop if you think you can make it stick."

    maybe but most if not all the laws so far.. don't do that.

    right?

  79. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Take your own argument and turn it around.

    You have no right to pollute, NONE.

    I get to decide what pollution is, and what damage I might suffer someday, not you.

    I can shut you down entirely.

    —————————–

    Ridiculous.

    RH

  80. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    you can pollute – with permission.

    that's not the same as an inherent right.

    =================================
    The concept of "permission" is a fraud to begin with, since it cannot be stopped.

    That being the case, or even if it is not the case, you have the same right to get permission as the next guy.

    The end result is moot.

    It is our environment, it belongs to everyone. Government cannot grant him permission and take fees from him without offering me the same choice. Otherwise government is favoring him and punishing me for something we both deserve equal protection for.

    The only logical thing for government to do is what it does already with radio spectrum. Decide how much there is room for and auction it off.

    I get the same chance as anybody else to join the auction. if I am a better, more efficient, cleaner manufacturor, then I will be able to afford to bid more than the guy who is a wasteful polluter.

    And if you think it is more important and more valuable to have pristine unpolluted air or water, then you and your buddies can buy up as much as you want and do nothing with it, same as VOLF does with open space today.

    Government still gets to decide the total limits. But whatever they decide will have a direct affect on total costs – and on government revenue.

    TC = PC + EC + GC

    Therefore prudent government will work to get lowest total cost in the above equation. Which is exactly equal to the GAO's statement that there is no reason for government to enact any regulation wich does not provide a net positive social benefit, which is representd by lowest TC above.

    QED.

    RH

  81. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " I get to decide what pollution is, and what damage I might suffer someday, not you."

    no you – your neighbors.

    you get a vote but so do your neighbors.

    at the end of the vote – they decide what is and is not pollution and it applies to everyone – including you.

    It's called government.

    The EPA is the government which was elected by the people to set the rules for pollution.

    No individual person gets to decide – no matter whether or not in their mind they "have no choice but to pollute".

    This is the part that is irreconcilable with your statements that others have no right to tell you that you cannot pollute.

    They Can.

    that's the way the system is set up.

    your rights end at their nose.

    if you want to go further, you need their permission – called a 'permit' issued to you – by the govt and it details exactly what you can and cannot do.

    that's the way our system works.

  82. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    maybe but most if not all the laws so far.. don't do that.

    right?

    I does no matter. The concept is still ridiculous if the premise is that they could violate physics. No right to pollute, NONE, you say.

    OK fine, we don't have any illegal aliens either.

    RH

  83. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " No right to pollute, NONE, you say."

    that's right

    but that does not mean zero pollution at all.

    it means that there is pollution – but it's by permit – not by right.

    that's not ridiculous at all.

    and just FYI – your concept of "trading' is a reality for SOME kinds of pollution but not others because some pollutants are too dangerous anywhere at anytime and they do have zero discharge – no permits.

    the kinds of pollution that are allowed to be 'traded' are NOT toxics for the most part but lower level pollutants that actually do break down in the environment rather than bio persist.

    So with TMDLs .. nitrogen and phosphorous will be allowed to be traded as was sulfur dioxide/acid rain.

    But there are no TMDLs for kepone or dioxin or plutonium or mercury because all of these bio-persist – accumulate for decades, perhaps generations or longer.

    your equation does not recognize this. It just assumes that ANY substance has a trade price – which is just not true.

  84. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    " I get to decide what pollution is, and what damage I might suffer someday, not you."

    no you – your neighbors.

    For the purpose of equal protection, keep it simple. There are only two of us.

    Then it can be seen your argument is ridiculous. You would not really want me to have the same rights you claim, so your position is unequal.

    Now assume there are not two of us. Now you claim superior rights by virtue of numbers.

    Wrong on two counts, in the first place it is logical fallacy called appeal to knowledge. youassume that the neighbors are right and I am wrong by virtue of numbers.

    You claim more rights through mob rule without considering that government has an obligation to protect the minority, and see to it that no one bears an undue burden.

    I have the same right to do whatever I want to do as they do, and the same rights to the fruits of the environment as they have. They have the same rights to bid for those fruits and use them as they see fit.

    They want a garden and I want goats. We each have equal rights to both and we both have equal obligation to pay for the fence that allows us both to get the best out of this little world: goat stew with fresh vegetables.

    But in your world, at best I might have to put up $100 worth of fence to protect $10 worth of vegetables. At worst the neighbors could say no goats, period.

    Ridiculous.

    We would BOTH be better off if I just pay you $20 for your $10 worth of vegetables.

    But, you also claim that you are NOT REQUIRED to accept restitution, not even double restitution.

    So now we can see it is not about damage at all, but insteadd it is power and control over your (outnumbered) neighbor.

    No thank you. I think we can find a better, more fair, cheaper system than that.

    RH

  85. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "the kinds of pollution that are allowed to be 'traded' are NOT toxics "

    That is irrelevant.

    Ergotamine is a violent poison and a hallucinogen in extremely small amounts.

    It still has valuable uses.

    I used to take it regularly, as a prescribed drug, andit has a price.

    ===============================

    Besides now you are aguing against your basic premise: no right to pollution, none.

    Now its OK if it's not toxic, unless it is toxic to frogs, we learn someday.

    And how did we come to regulating CO2? We declared it a toxin to the economy.

    All of this argument boils down to putting a price on things. Things that people own and trade, and use for good things.

    I don't think my neighbor down the road that runs an illicit still should be making large quantities of ergotomine instead, but he certainly could, its easy enough.

    It is really this simple. If we agree that we all have equal rights (never mind what they are), then you do not have the right to suddenly say a new NO to someone else, unless you give up something, too, in order to keep the new level of rights equal.

    Think about it. What is unfair about that proposition?

    RH

  86. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " You would not really want me to have the same rights you claim, so your position is unequal."

    each of our rights end at the other guys nose.

    neither of us can pollute the other without his agreement.

    " We would BOTH be better off if I just pay you $20 for your $10 worth of vegetables."

    that would be in your opinion and even if it were true – it still does not give you the right to decide what is fair compensation or not.

    " So now we can see it is not about damage at all, but insteadd it is power and control over your (outnumbered) neighbor."

    there is no power and control.

    We BOTH have EQUAL property rights and your rights (and mine) end at our respective property lines.

    " No thank you. I think we can find a better, more fair, cheaper system than that."

    no "we" cannot.

    YOU cannot decide for "we".

    your concept does not work for 2 or 3 or 300.. because it has the same fundamental flaw – that you believe that you are entitled to decide to decide for others what is "reasonable" and 'fair' and you do not.

    your property rights END right at your property line whether you are dealing with one other property owner or a bunch and govt is what we have to make sure that you don't run amok over others.

    you simple do not get to decide what other property owners have to accept.

    and you are the one who claims to protect property rights.

    just yours of course.

  87. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " Besides now you are aguing against your basic premise: no right to pollution, none.

    Now its OK if it's not toxic,"

    no it's not.

    you do not have that right.

    what you have is the right to obtain a permit – for the pollution that is allowed and is not outlawed.

    Your pitiful little equation just assumes that any/all pollution is in the game – and it is not.

    but the bottom line is that you don't have the right – no matter whether toxic or not.

    you keep circling around back to this..but it never registers, eh?

  88. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "your equation does not recognize this. It just assumes that ANY substance has a trade price – which is just not true."

    You are wrong.

    The equation includes external costs (and benefits), which are non traded prices.

    The eqaution is ALWAYS right. it cannot be any other way.

    You produce a substance like toothpaste and it costs something to manufacture and it is worth something to have.

    It's manufacture causes some waste which is an external cost, and some of that waste gets recycled which is an external benefit.

    How much waste gets out is controlled by the government which gets a benefit in regulatory fees and incurs costs in monitoring and enforcing the amounts released.

    If government sets the controls too strict the cost of compliance goes up, which is a production cost and the cost of goods goes up, and the cost of monitoring and enforcement goes up.

    The good news is that external costs go down.

    And guess what? Since we know how much government costs went up, and we know how much manufacturing costs went up we know how much we spent to reduce external costs and so we now have a price for your so-called unpriced good. We also have less recyclng.

    It also costs more to clean our teeth so fewer people do it, more people get gum disease, and we know that leads to heart disease – another externality.

    Maybe you are right. We can't figure this out because we are not smart enough. But the market figures it out every day, whether we understand what is going on or not.

    RH

  89. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Now its OK if it's not toxic,"

    no it's not.

    you do not have that right.

    ===========================

    Back to square one. There are two of us. If I have the rights you claim I can shut you down entirely.

    You just said it is OK if it below acceptable limits. That means it has a price. Pick one and stick with it, otherwise youhave a failed and unsupportable circular argument.

    RH

  90. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " The eqaution is ALWAYS right. it cannot be any other way."

    how is it "right" about kepone or other banned substances even if they have beneficial uses?

    how does your equation work ?

  91. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Your pitiful little equation just assumes that any/all pollution is in the game – and it is not.

    You must have flunked math and logic.

    Of course it is in the equation.

    Either we do not control pollution and we have external costs: the classic environmental logic. Your coal train is dirtying my dainties, and you are not paying the cost.

    That is the EC term. The EC term also incudes the external benefit of being able to walk along the tracks and scavenge stray lumps of coal, as my mother used to do.

    "OK, everytime I come by I'll throw you five bucks for extra cleaning"

    "I don't want you to pay the external costs I want youto spnd fifty million to fix the train."

    I, see. You lied to me. You are not concerned about costs, what youwant is control. Go see the government.

    So you go do that and sure enough external costs go down, shipping costs go up, and pretty soon you have people cheerleading against regulation.

    This is a stupid way to play the game and a sure way to lose (Wind up with higher total costs.)

    Oh, and once again, now you know what the price of that external cost was.

    It is not my equation, don't blame me, I'm just the messenger.

    RH

  92. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " You just said it is OK if it below acceptable limits. That means it has a price. Pick one and stick with it, otherwise youhave a failed and unsupportable circular argument."

    I said BOTH of you must agree.

    if the other guy does not agree.. your default rights are your property line and nothing more.

    you cannot advance unless you have permission.

  93. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    how is it "right" about kepone or other banned substances even if they have beneficial uses?

    how does your equation work ?

    It is always right.

    Banned is irrelevant. It is always right. If you can't understand it take it on faith.

    The equation does not say you cannot ban something. It just tells you what the price is if you do.

    This much I can tell you, it is almost invariably true that a total ban does not get you the lowest total cost. That's why we sell ergotamine.

    If you ever invent the universal acid, then that might be worth a total ban.

    Like I said, we have equal rights. You cannot add a new NO to my list without giving up soemthing yourself. Otherwise we are no longer equal.

    What you don't realize about the equation is this: it is virtually a guaranteed fact that if youever reach lowest TC then you will simultaneoulsy solved for both equal and cheap.

    RH

    RH

  94. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    what you have is the right to obtain a permit – for the pollution that is allowed and is not outlawed.

    Round we go.

    We all have the same right to get the permit.

    Government costs for permitting are in the equation. Increased costs for everything you buy are n the equaton. Lower external costs are in the equation.

    If you think someone else is paying, you have got rocks in your head.

    =======================

    Oh yeah, suppose you could produce something with no pollution, and only had external benefits.

    You would still have to have government controls on it so it would not takeover the world, and there would still be an optimum production amount that produced lowest total cost.

    RH

  95. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    but the bottom line is that you don't have the right – no matter whether toxic or not.

    you keep circling around back to this..but it never registers, eh?

    ===========================

    Then neither do you and I can shut you down, totally, for any ridiculous calimn I care to make.

    We know that is not the case, so your premise is wrong.

    You want it both ways. Protection against external costs when it suits you, and ignoring what those costs actually are when it come time to pay protection.

    That amounts to unequal rights.

    RH

  96. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Is thee ANYONE else out there to weigh in?

    Does the government not auction off spectrum? Doesn't everyone in the world use spectrum? Is there a limited amount to use? Shouldn't we use it in the best and cheapest way? Isn't spectrum a quintessential evanescent environmental good?

    Why would we take any other approach to any other environmental good?

    RH

  97. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " Like I said, we have equal rights. You cannot add a new NO to my list without giving up soemthing yourself. "

    I can ALWAYS add a new NO if I determine that something I previously thought was not harmful is.

    That's the part of the permit with an expiration date on it.

    you still confuse "permission" with "permanent right".

    permission is just that – and you only get it for a period of time before it needs to be renewed at which point it can be denied.

  98. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " We all have the same right to get the permit."

    it's not "the", it's "a"

    there are all kinds of permits and just because I get a permit for one substances does not mean you have the SAME RIGHT to a permit for another substance.

    Each permit is separate depending on the substance the permit is for.

  99. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " Then neither do you and I can shut you down, totally,"

    only if I am polluting your property without your permission.

  100. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    And there is the matter of execution. Regulations should enforced reasonably, efficiently and fairly, without playing favorites.

    TMT",

    The equation tells you how well you have done that.

    I believe an efficient soluton to TMT's complaint is to simply issue shares of development rights to every citizen and let them buy, save, sell as they please.

    Government still decides how many to issue, but citizens decide if they don't want the growth allotted.

    Only difference is that now they don't get to decide for free, because they have that hot little ticket burning a hole in their pocket.

    Then if fifty thousand people rush Til Hazel to sell their tickets TMT will have to eat his words about what people want.

    But if fity thousand people say "I'm mad as hell I'm not going to take it anymore." then they can stuff it to Til Hazel,and sit on their tickets.

    Once they do that, the will have set a price on external, non priced goods.

    RH

  101. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " Does the government not auction off spectrum?"

    spectrum is not pollution.

  102. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    " Then neither do you and I can shut you down, totally,"

    only if I am polluting your property without your permission.

    ===============================

    But according to your argument, I get to decide that, not you.

    Trust me, you don't really want the equal rights you claim.

    My system works, and yours doesn't.

    It's OK, I used to think your way before I got smart.

  103. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " simply issue shares of development rights to every citizen and let them buy, save, sell as they please."

    and then who pays for the infrastructure costs?

    only those with property rights who want to exercise them or everyone regardless?

  104. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    development rights are not pollution either.

  105. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    " Does the government not auction off spectrum?"

    spectrum is not pollution.

    Nonsense, of course it is. You try stepping on someone else's frequency and see how fast you get slapped down.

    Pollute my Saturday opera with your unguarded lawnmower and see how fast I file a complaint.

    RH

  106. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " But according to your argument, I get to decide that, not you."

    you get to decide what you will allow to be done to your property by other property owners.

    that's it.

    you cannot tell others what to do with their property.

  107. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " Pollute my Saturday opera with your unguarded lawnmower and see how fast I file a complaint."

    you'd have to prove the complaint guy.. and I doubt that you can very easily.

    you don't own that spectrum anyhow.

    It's a public utility like phone, or electricity.

    who will you complain to if your cell phone is getting interference?

  108. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    development rights are not pollution either.

    What's the problem then?

    Ahh, it affects your property values and the value of your wallet through higher taxes.

    Tell you what, I'll pay you fair compensation, for what YOU claim I'm costing you.

    (I actually tried this once)
    Badaboom, the answer please:

    "No we don't have to accept fair compensation."

    Oh, so it isn't about money or equal rights, its about you getting waht you want.

    RH

  109. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    you'd have to prove the complaint guy.. and I doubt that you can very easily.

    Be consistent.

    By your own argument I get to decide, not the polluter who wnat to produce a lawn cutting.

    RH

  110. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "you don't own that spectrum anyhow."

    So now you support stronger property rights?

    No, I used to own that spectrum, equally with all the rest of the world. Just as indians owned America.

    Then government steppred in, declared proerty, and ut in places systems to measure and record it. then they sold it off.

    Same as with spectrum. Once I own part of the limited spectrum, I own it and you can't use it. Maybe on the other side of the world, below my toxic limit, but you would have to buy it over there, also.

    And you would not pay as much because I have a better market.

    Same with pollution.

    RH

  111. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Who will you complain to if your cell phone is getting interference?

    I complain to the cell phone company wo bought the spectrum and rents me time on it.

    Trust me. They will see their property defended.

    It is not a public utility, the spectrum is privately owned. It is controlled with boundaries, same as your land.

    The company that owns it may be a regulated companay, but it is also privately owned, and its production also fits the equation.

    RH

  112. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    "Be consistent.

    By your own argument I get to decide, not the polluter who wnat to produce a lawn cutting."

    Ray – the spectrum is not your property just like the phone and electric lines on your property are not yours either.

    you sure do get wrapped around the axle on some pretty simple things sometimes.

  113. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    re: "private companies"

    Dominion and Verizon are private companies also but they own the lines and the spectrum – not you and it's their property not yours and you have no rights to it at all.

    you're entitled to service for a fee and if your service is disrupted by interference, then it's not your property rights that are being affected.

  114. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    you cannot tell others what to do with their property.

    So you give up and agree with me now?

    Please pass that message on to my supervisors and planning board.

    ————————-

    You have lost the bubble. yur argument is that the polluter does not get to decide.

    I decide you lawnmower is costing me the price of a Saturday Opera, and I want my money. You pay me and I shut up. when I want to cut my grass and it interferes with your ball game, I give you the same money back. We have agreed on a price for pollution.

    That's my plan.

    Your plan is I get to decide that your lawnmower interupted my sundya opera. You hae no say in the matter or the value. Since you have no pollution rights youcan never moaw your grass again.

    That is your claim and it is ridiculous.

    RH

  115. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    and it's their property not yours and you have no rights to it at all.

    I have rights because I rent service from them. What planet do you live on?

  116. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " you cannot tell others what to do with their property.

    So you give up and agree with me now?

    Please pass that message on to my supervisors and planning board."

    You – as a property owner – can not tell other property owners what to do with their property.

    but if your neighbors all agree to restrict property rights in your county – then they can have your elected supervisors and PC to restrict your property rights – and theirs – equally.

    no bubble lost here.. keep trying.. you ought to be sweating pretty good by now.

  117. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    " I decide you lawnmower is costing me the price of a Saturday Opera, and I want my money. You pay me and I shut up. when I want to cut my grass and it interferes with your ball game, I give you the same money back. We have agreed on a price for pollution."

    If you owned the spectrum and a property owner was polluting/disrupting your spectrum than you could see relief from govt or the courts – IF YOU COULD PROVE it.

    You, as a customer of the owner of that spectrum have no rights other than to purchase or not based on how good the service is (or not).

  118. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    "If you owned the spectrum and a property owner was polluting/disrupting your spectrum than you could see relief from govt or the courts – IF YOU COULD PROVE it."

    "it's up to those impacted to decide what is right and fair no matter what the polluter thinks."

    Which is it, Larry?

    In case you haven't figured it out yet, spectrum includes loud noise against which we have pollution laws.

    If your lawnmower is disrpting my opera, I just call the cops.

    According to your second satement above, I don't have to prove anything, I juat claim impact.

    But your first statement says that you are free to do anything that I cannot prove. You can operate with total disregard for my rights, as long as you don't get caught.

    That's pretty civilized of you. No ethics, no civility, all for me and none for you. That's my Larry all right, you keep it up.

    ==================================

    The three basic elements of private property are (1) exclusivity of rights to choose the use of a resource, (2) exclusivity of rights to the services of a resource, and (3) rights to exchange the resource at mutually agreeable terms.

    Social critics in the United States have complained that “property” rights too often take precedence over “human” rights, with the result that people are treated unequally. But the conflict between property rights and human rights is a mirage. Property rights are human rights.

    For the most part, social critics of “property” rights do not want to abolish those rights. Rather, they want to transfer them from private ownership to government ownership. Some transfers to public ownership (or control, which is similar) make an economy more effective. Others make it less effective.

    TC = PC + EC + GC is how you measure the difference. If TC goes down, society is more effective,if it goes up, it is less effective.

    Under a private property system the market values of property reflect the preferences and demands of the rest of society. No matter who the owner is, the use of the resource is influenced by what the rest of the public thinks is the most valuable use.

    This creates an interesting paradox: although property is called “private,” private decisions are based on public, or social, evaluation. But that evaluation is meaningless if the public is not obliged to actually pay.

    Therfore, if the public forces the governmnment to choose some other use the owner must forsake that highest-valued use—and the price others would pay him for the resource.

    It is an off the books tax charged the owner of the property for a public use (externality) which as Larry points out is non priced.

    I call it stealing and tax fraud, but I have a problem with being blunt.

    RGH

  119. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    Private property rights to a resource need not be held by a single person. They can be shared, with each person sharing in a specified fraction of the market value.

    In a limited liability corporation, shares are specified and the rights to decide how to use the corporation’s resources are delegated to its management. Each shareholder has the unrestrained right to sell his or her share.

    A comination of these ideas is what I suggest will solve TMT's complaints fairly, even if not to his satisfaction.

    The same idea of shared ownership and unrestricted private sale works for any resouce in limited quantity.

    Including the pollution absorbing capacity of our biosphere.

    RH

  120. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    " to restrict your property rights – and theirs – equally."

    If they actually did it equally that would be fine, but that isn't waht happens and you know it.

    The cash penalty applies only to new development. And the resttrictions that you claim apply equally are actually grandfathered to exisitng propertiesm, Maybe for a hundred years.

    Thee is no real cost to them for making real restrictoins and real costs to the rights of others.

    It is wrong,and it results in unequal protection of property.

    If you want to talk about equality at least have the courtesy to give an example that isn't a bald faced lie.

    RH

  121. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    The supervisors ought to have enough sense to see that this results in unequal property rights.

    They ought to see that a minority are affected disproportionately, and if they don't, then they should be fired.

    Otherwise they are aiding and abbetting mob rule for the purpose of creating undue advantage.

    Sorry Larry, it is wrong.

    Commonly done, and still wrong.

    RH

  122. Anonymous Avatar
    Anonymous

    What is it about an idea that gives and enforces truly equal rights that so galls you?

    You have something against the preamble to the constitution?

  123. Larry G Avatar
    Larry G

    "it's up to those impacted to decide what is right and fair no matter what the polluter thinks."

    Which is it, Larry?

    the noise limits were developed from a concurrence of all property owners.

    "In case you haven't figured it out yet, spectrum includes loud noise against which we have pollution laws.

    If your lawnmower is disrpting my opera, I just call the cops."

    yup.. but the threshold has been decided – not by you – but by the govt.

    "According to your second satement above, I don't have to prove anything, I juat claim impact."

    in the setting up of the law – all property owners decide what the threshold is – not just you.

    no single property owner gets to decide what pollution is or is not allowed.

    as a group – expressed through govt, they decide.

    and then it applies to all property owners equally and the same way.

    Noise pollution is more temporal than physical pollution unless it's something like a power plant or airport that runs 24/7 and then a specific permit is needed and also it cannot be sited just anywhere.

    the most relevant point on this and pollution is general is that you as an individual property owner do not get to decide what an impact is or is not.

    That decision is the purview of all property owners acting through govt to generate specific restrictions – that apply to all.

    you, as an individual property owner do not have the "right" to decide.

Leave a Reply