Republicans And The Environment

[Nihil Obstat]

Like I said, there are historical cases with broadly common law judges who were not government agents.

[4588686]

Like I said, there are historical cases with broadly common law judges who were not government agents.

 

 

Which ones?  How do their rulings apply to negative externalities?  I'm sympathetic but I don't see the connection.  

[Nihil Obstat]

Early period of settlement in the American west, around 1830-1900. Law was mostly a private institution, and society in general was remarkably more orderly than we tend to imagine. Property claims over land before the government came along to do surveying and whatnot, while perhaps not an externality strictly speaking, is fairly close for our purposes. The settlers formed private claims associations which mediated conflicting claims and generally kept people happy.
Like I said, conflicting land claims are perhaps not an externality per se, but the principle is pretty similar. If a private association can mediate land disputes, then there is no reason that they could not also, for instance, assess a claim that a company is polluting a common water supply or causing erosion through deforestation.
 
http://mises.org/daily/4108
 

(a) Land Clubs

For the pioneer settlers, who often moved into the public domain before it was surveyed or opened for sale by the federal government, definition and enforcement of property rights in the land they claimed was always a problem.

These marginal or frontier settlers (squatters as they were called) were beyond the pale of constitutional government. No statute of Congress protected them in their rights to the claims they had chosen and the improvements they had made. In law they were trespassers; in fact they were honest farmers.[21]
The result was the formation of "extralegal" organizations for protection and justice. These land clubs or claims associations, as the extralegal associations came to be known, were found throughout the Middle West, with the Iowa variety receiving the most attention. Benjamin F. Shambaugh suggests that we view these clubs "as an illustrative type of frontier extra-legal, extra-constitutional political organization in which are reflected certain principles of American life and character."[22] To Frederick Jackson Turner these squatters' associations provided an excellent example of the "power of the newly arrived pioneers to join together for a common end without the intervention of governmental institutions."[23]

Each claims association adopted its own constitution and bylaws, elected officers for the operation of the organization, established rules for adjudicating disputes, and established the procedure for the registration and protection of claims. The constitution of the Claim Association of Johnson County, Iowa offers one of the few records of club operation. In addition to president, vice president, and clerk and record, that constitution provided for the election of seven judges, any five of whom could compose a court to settle disputes, and for the election of two marshals charged with enforcing rules of the association. The constitution specified the procedure whereby property rights in land would be defined as well as the procedure for arbitrating claims disputes. User charges were utilized for defraying arbitration expenses.

In such case of the place and time of holding such court and summons all witnesses that either of the parties may require the court made previous to their proceeding to investigate any case require the plaintiff and defendant to deposit a sufficient sum of money in their hands to defray the expenses of said suit or the costs of said suit, and should either party refuse to deposit such sum of money the court may render judgment against such person refusing to do.[24]
As a sanction against those who would not follow the rules of the association, violence was an option, but the following resolution suggests that less violent means were also used.

Resolved, that more effectually to sustain settlers in their just claims according to the custom of the neighborhood and to prevent difficulty and discord in society that we mutually pledge our honours to observe the following resolutions rigidly. That we will not associate nor countenance those who do not respect the claims of settlers and further that we will neither neighbor with them.… Trade barter deal with them in any way whatever.[25]
That the constitutions, bylaws, and resolutions of all claims clubs were not alike suggests that preferences among the squatters did vary and that there were alternative forms of protection and justice available. The most common justification for the clubs was stated as follows:

Whereas it has become a custom in the western states, as soon as the Indian title to the public lands has been extinguished by the General Government for the citizens of the United States to settle upon and improve said lands, and heretofore the improvement and claim of the settler to the extent of 320 acres, has been respected by both the citizens and laws of Iowa.[26]
Other justifications "emphasized the need of protection against 'reckless claim jumpers and invidious wolves in human form,' or the need 'for better security against foreign as well as domestic aggression.'"[27] Some associations were formed specifically for the purpose of opposing "speculators" who were attempting to obtain title to the land. The constitutions of these clubs as evidenced by the Johnson County document specifically regulated the amount of improvements which had to be made on the claim. Other associations, however, encouraged speculation by making no such requirements. These voluntary, extralegal associations provided protection and justice without apparent violence and developed rules consistent with the preferences, goals, and endowments of the participants.

[21] Benjamin F. Shambaugh, "Frontier Land Clubs, or Claim Associations," Annual Report of the American Historical Association (1900), p. 71.
[22] Shambaugh, "Frontier Land Clubs," p. 69.
[23] Frederick Jackson Turner, The Frontier in American History (New York: Henry Holt and Co., 1920), p. 343.
[24] Shambaugh, "Frontier Land Clubs," p. 77.
[25] Ibid., pp. 77–78.
[26] Quoted in Allan Bogue, "The Iowa Claim Clubs: Symbol and Substance," in V. Carstensen, ed., The Public Lands (Madison, Wisc.: University of Wisconsin Press, 1963), p. 50.
[27] Ibid.

[AveMaria02]

I am not sure. However, I am a Republican and I am definitely for protecting the environment. I do believe in climate change as well. I really don't understand why many Republicans or politican conservatives here in the United States disbelieve in climate change. Many also seem to not care about the environment. I don't know why that is. I am not like that though. I do believe in protecting the environment and I do believe in climate change.

I should also mention that I am definitely not a liberal. As I said above, I am a Republican or at least that's how I vote most of the time. I am very conservative on things like "gay marriage" (which I vehemently oppose), abortion (which should be completely illegal), andmany other issues.

[add]

I am not sure. However, I am a Republican and I am definitely for protecting the environment. I do believe in climate change as well.

 

its not that i don't believe in climate change, something is defiantly going on.  its the assumption that climate change is man-made that i find hard to believe. 

I.E.:

Volcanic Ash, solar spots and other natural phenomena have a far greater effect on climate that human beings.

the industrial age of one hundred years ago was far far far more disruptive to the environment and and the world climate  did fine.

 

Edited January 15, 2014 by add

[CrossCuT]

 actually READ MY POST 

 

You need to find a new phrase to use on a regular basis. 

[PhuturePriest]

its not that i don't believe in climate change, something is defiantly going on.  its the assumption that climate change is man-made that i find hard to believe. 

I.E.:

Volcanic Ash, solar spots and other natural phenomena have a far greater effect on climate that human beings.

the industrial age of one hundred years ago was far far far more disruptive to the environment and and the world climate  did fine.

 

Isn't it possible that part of the reason we are in this mess is partly because of all the industrialization a hundred years ago? The earth is very large, so it doesn't get destroyed or disrupted within a day; it takes time for things to take their full effect.

[PhuturePriest]

Subway is the greatest restaurant EVER!!!

 

I couldn't agree more.

[CrossCuT]

I do enjoy Subway! :)

 

Although the other day I was watching a basketball stream from the UK (random) and their subway footlongs were 3£. It just doesnt have the same ring to it as "$5 footlong!"

[NotreDame]

You need to find a new phrase to use on a regular basis. 

 

I can just make it my .signature and put it in every post.

[CrossCuT]

I can just make it my .signature and put it in every post.

 

Hahaha! touche

[KnightofChrist]

I would just like to point out that because one denies or is skeptical of 'Global Warming', doesn't not mean necessarily that the person is pro-pollution, or against having a clean environment. I don't know anyone that would call themselves Republican or identify with any similar group who is pro-pollution, or against having a clean environment.

 

I myself am very much an advocate for a clean environment, but I am highly skeptical of 'Global Warming'. I use to believe, but due to many of the false prophets of that movement, who've predicted many various types of 'the sky is falling' prophesies that never happened, I am now highly skeptical. If it were not for the fact that I feel that many in the movement have lied about the effects global warming, who also bully and insult those that are skeptical, and if it were not for all the false prophesies based on hysterical the sky is falling arguments, it would be easier to take a less skeptical approach to believing in it again.

 

But that doesn't seem to be happening, today many leaders of the movement still make false the sky is falling arguments and they still are rather snotty and insulting to those that are skeptical.

 

 

Edited January 15, 2014 by KnightofChrist

[KnightofChrist]

Hahaha! touche

 

Haha, ;P are you sure you're not the one who's touche? I mean you are the one taking issue with the small issue of his using whatever phrase it is you are taking issue with...

[NotreDame]

Haha, ;P are you sure you're not the one who's touche? I mean you are the one taking issue with the small issue of his using whatever phrase it is you are taking issue with...

 

Here is what I don't get...  The post was measured at best, muddled at worst, so how is it possible to get offended by it?  

 

You have people on this thread that don't understand what analogies or metaphors are, others that are getting offended by posts that they obviously haven't read.    If you can't have a conversation, then it just devolves into one-liners and zingers and is no better than any other place on the internet.  

 

Now this is all just for your amusement, please don't get offended:

 

[CrossCuT]

I would just like to point out that because one denies or is skeptical of 'Global Warming', doesn't not mean necessarily that the person is pro-pollution, or against having a clean environment. I don't know anyone that would call themselves Republican or identify with any similar group who is pro-pollution, or against having a clean environment.

 

I myself am very much an advocate for a clean environment, but I am highly skeptical of 'Global Warming'. I use to believe, but due to many of the false prophets of that movement, who've predicted many various types of 'the sky is falling' prophesies that never happened, I am now highly skeptical. If it were not for the fact that I feel that many in the movement have lied about the effects global warming, who also bully and insult those that are skeptical, and if it were not for all the false prophesies based on hysterical the sky is falling arguments, it would be easier to take a less skeptical approach to believing in it again.

 

But that doesn't seem to be happening, today many leaders of the movement still make false the sky is falling arguments and they still are rather snotty and insulting to those that are skeptical.

The term "Global Warming" confuses people. And I know that some people dismiss the change of term as evidence that nobody actually knows what is going on, it is imporatnt to understand that some terms are "fads" or the results of pop culture even if they started out as scientific. A better word would be Global Climate Change although this is a silly video that illustrates that.
 

http://youtu.be/8Rl9_JvEKaY

 

The most important parts are towards the end of the video, but he uses the example of the Polar Vortex craze to explain why "Global Warming" isnt a very good term. etc. If you can get past his silliness its a good video.

 

Haha, ;P are you sure you're not the one who's touche? I mean you are the one taking issue with the small issue of his using whatever phrase it is you are taking issue with...

 

Skateboards