I have a question regarding the environment and libertarians?

Scratcho

Indie asserts his ideas he refuses to debate them by addressing the many outstanding criticisms of his ideas.

But what if the changes being proposed don’t seem rational or reasonable and even the people presenting them cannot defend them from criticisms in any rational or reasonable way?

 

Scratcho

You have a headache and someone (mister X) and they says they can cure it.

Mister X takes you to a lion’s cage and tells you to place your head in the lion’s mouth

You ask if they can give a rational and reasonable argument for doing it and they reply that they don’t need to because it’s obviously a good idea.

You say that given the nature of the animal it being a large meat eater and that by the way it seems to be very hungry that you think the most likely outcome of putting your head in its mouth is that it would bite it off.

Mister X says that your ideas are just based on your anti-lion prejudices and say you are an idiot for not following their advice.

Now do you put your head in the lion’s mouth?

How about a you compromise – you don’t put your head in but instead but your hand in the lions mouth and see what happens?

To me a bad idea is a bad idea.

And if even the supporters of an idea cannot defend it from criticism then it is likely a bad idea.

 

Scratcho

Oh I agree but why has it come to this? If you understand why then maybe you could try and gain more balance?

In rather simple terms my view is that the problem with the US political system is that you purged most left wing thought from your society – so next to nothing is pulling from the left.

What you have in the main is centre right liberals and those to the further right.

Add to that some fifty years of anti-left wing propaganda and over the last 30 odd years the promotion of neo-liberal ideas.

What that has created is a pulling from the right that has attempted and to a large extent succeeded in pulling politics to the right.

So what you get now is centre right liberals and those to the further right and often those even further right pulling things to the right – and there is virtually nothing pulling from the left.

To me the US political system is out of balance.

Now the problem with this is that a compromise (a mid point) between centre right and far right is still a huge lurch to the right. And then what you get is the far far right demanding another shift to the right.

 

scratcho

What the US needs is a left wing – not the fake ‘left wing’ claimed to be so by much media and the right wing which is in fact centre right liberal. No you need a real left wing.

The right needs an opposition and especially the extremist like the right wing libertarians.

That’s especially hard in the US because so much of its political system is run on big money either from individuals or institutions whose interests would be countered by a resurgence in left wing ideas.

And also a lot of wealth has spent a lot money in setting up a lobbying and propaganda network promoting right wing ideas and denigrating those of the left.

What to do?

Well we could start by pointing out just how flawed many of the rights ideas are and work why the hell these people not only hold them but feel they can and should promote them. I mean just go look at the threads in this forum and you’ll see that time after time right wing ideas just don’t stand up to scrutiny.

 

You're preaching to the choir,pal. And you're wrong about the right -wingers not responding to your questions. They're responding loud and clear by NOT responding. The only way to defeat the right is by stealth,which I intended to expound upon,however I can guess what I would get in return. No matter. You cannot re-train a bear by continually poking it with a stick.

I learned at the tender age of 19 that something was truly amiss with our government when our then president said ,in effect--"we don't have no stinkin' U2 spy plane". Oops-ah-would you mind sending Gary Francis Powers back,please. And on up to the present day with the murders,assasinations,mayhem, continual lying ,the well thought out attempted destruction of our education system,the takeover of the media-etc-etc-. I know who they are and what they do. IMO,there only two ways to relegate these people to the junk-heap of history. One-armed insurrection,which would turn out very badly for all concerned. The other will be seen to be of no importance here,so never mind.

In the future,given that humanity doesn't end up mimicking that (IMO) most precient of movies,THX-1138,capitalism will be seen to have been a totally insane way for human "civilization" to have conducted itself. ALL these political discussions are done within the parameters/acceptance that it(capitalism) is the natural way of conducting human events ,when in fact its continuation will bring about the ultimate destruction of all or most sentient life on earth because it is not in any way a balanced system and is not designed to be. Wonder how long it will take cockroaches to learn to read?

 

Has the topic been changed to another issue? I seem to missed the acquisition of an unanimously accepted answer to the OP question relating to the environment and Libertarians. More so, I'm surious to know if ANY Libertarians at all have contributed to the content of this thread?

 

I'm pretty much a Libertarian.

 

Well then, how do you respond to non-Libertarians claim that Libertarians want to do away with ALL regulations and destroy the environment? Fact or Fiction?

 

Fiction. Although Libertarian is a wide term, myself and most of the Libertarians I meet and read about do not want to end all regulations. We obviously want less. How much less I think is going to vary widely but we also want to kill all the loopholes and hold the government and the corporations held to the same laws as everyone else. I think in many (but not all) cases Libertarians would help the environment more than the alternatives.

 

How does making a land owner take a corporation to court for polluting his land, only to lose because all the corporations have the best lawyers equate to helping the environment. Sorry, I just don't see it.

 

Because the loopholes that those expensive lawyers use to get around pollution laws wouldn't be there. When the law is clear cut and simple enough for you and I to read and understand, then those lawyers wouldn't be necessary. When combined with ending government protection of corporations, it wouldn't be as hard as you think.

 

Any Libertarians wish to disagree with that?

 

For the record, I'm currently registered as a Republican. The sole reason being that I wanted to vote for Ron Paul in the Primaries. I've been registered as Independant until the last election. I'm thinking about registering as Libertarian now, but I haven't decided.

 

Of course not. But Im not seeing the dems or repubs doing that any time soon. But I'll support any candidate who I think will bring about changes that will help this country, regardless of party affiliation.

 

You make it sound like it's just a matter of loopholes and all we need to do is get rid of them. I disagree.

Even if the laws are good, no loopholes, consider a civil suit where a single farmer sues Monsanto. The farmer can afford maybe $20,000 for his lawyer and Monsanto brings in a team of a dozen hot-shots and can afford to pay millions for legal expenses. Sure, it's possible the farmer could win (Erin Brockovich), but really, does anyone think this is fair? That this system protects the environment?

Perhaps the solution is that taxpayers pay all campaign financing and all legal expenses everywhere. That would make things a lot fairer, wouldn't it?

Give me the EPA any day.

 

Nixon was a lot better than I remember him to be. Nice stats.

 

It would appear that may be the case as neither the Democrat nor the Republican party seems willing to offer candidates who are willing to make any changes for the better.