Republicans And The Environment

[4588686]

Without going into detail I think that common law is typically sufficient, and also typically superior to government intervention.

 

 

What common law?

[Nihil Obstat]

What common law?

As in the western common law tradition.

[4588686]

As in the western common law tradition.

 

 

I don't think there is a western common law tradition.  I mean, there are common law traditions in different nations in the western world but I don't see what in them would incorporate negative externalities into prices.  Particularly the Anglo common law tradition which was formulated becuase we had much appreciation for how externalities can distory markets.  

[Nihil Obstat]

I don't think there is a western common law tradition.  I mean, there are common law traditions in different nations in the western world but I don't see what in them would incorporate negative externalities into prices.  Particularly the Anglo common law tradition which was formulated becuase we had much appreciation for how externalities can distory markets.  

I do not think it takes a ton of creative thinking to imagine how common law might address typical externalities.

Are you drinking? :|

[4588686]

I do not think it takes a ton of creative thinking to imagine how common law might address typical externalities.

Are you drinking? :|

Obviously.  But most common law traditions exist in conjunction with a government appointed arbiter.  That's what common law is.  it's court precedent that's developed over centuries.  That's where the disconnect comes in for me.  

[Nihil Obstat]

Obviously.  But most common law traditions exist in conjunction with a government appointed arbiter.  That's what common law is.  it's court precedent that's developed over centuries.  That's where the disconnect comes in for me.  

From my understanding, common law developed largely independent of government fiat. Sure there was typically some nominal government involvement, but the essential part of the process was always precedent, juries, judges, etc.. There might have been some different outcomes here and there if there had been no government involvement throughout its development, but it seems to me that in common law government is more often an observer than a dictator.

[4588686]

From my understanding, common law developed largely independent of government fiat. Sure there was typically some nominal government involvement, but the essential part of the process was always precedent, juries, judges, etc.. There might have been some different outcomes here and there if there had been no government involvement throughout its development, but it seems to me that in common law government is more often an observer than a dictator.

 

 

Right.  Common law was certainly a decentralized process.  Or at least much more decentralized that most facets of the law.  But the heart of it is still a judge, who is a government official and makes his rulings.  So, maybe we're talking past each other?  But that's why I don't understand how common law would solve negative externalities without government involvement since common law is developed by Judges who are government officials.  

[NotreDame]

The point of all the marxism points is this...

 

In the context of the viewpoint that "we need to rein in companies because they pollute the environment", that is to some extent true in certain cases where there are poor laws or poorly enforced laws.  Yet if we take that statement to the extreme and get rid of all companies, the result has always been ecological disaster. 

 

We can see from this that there is more to it than just the reining in of companies and increasing gov't control and regulation.  Clearly the issue (like most economic issues) is not always intuitive or linear.   Showcasing the ecological disasters in marxist countries is simply a way to make that point, by going all the way in one direction on the X-axis.

 

Someone might see individuals opposing a certain policy and say "they don't care about the environment", but the assumption is that said policy is actually good for the environment, but those opposing that viewpoint may indeed think the policy bad for the environment. 

 

It's important to take each issue in a case by case basis and evaluate it objectively without accusing people on one side of an issue of "not caring about the environment."

 

 

I object to the use of the word I bolded in your response. We don't live in a binary world where you are either a free market-ist or a marxist. No one on this thread has advocated any form of marxism. There are however legitimate stances that stand between absolute unrestrained capitalism and marxism and trying to paint everyone into one of these two extreme camps is a logical fallacy. 

 

You sound like Rush Limbaugh when he called Pope Francis a marxist. Supporting restraint on corporate greed is not marxist or socialist per se. Do you doubt that corporate greed exists? Do you deny that corporations would take advantage of both people and the environment without a government to protect us from such extremes?

 

Dells, take a chill pill and actually READ MY POST before you get offended and reply.  I'm not going to walk you through everything, because I'm tired, in a hotel, in the middle of nowhere, but let's start with your following question:

 

"Do you deny that corporations would take advantage of both people and the environment without a government to protect us from such extremes?" 

 

Can you read from my post where I said the following? 

 

In the context of the viewpoint that "we need to rein in companies because they pollute the environment", that is to some extent true in certain cases where there are poor laws or poorly enforced laws.

 

What do you think that means?  Do you think you have the answer to your question from that?  It's pretty clear that you do. 

 

Now maybe you can re-read the rest of the post see that I'm not saying what you think I am saying. 

[Winchester]

This is dumb.

[4588686]

This is dumb.

RON PAUL 2012!!!

[Winchester]

Judges who are government officials.  

Those things are not inherently related.

[Nihil Obstat]

Right.  Common law was certainly a decentralized process.  Or at least much more decentralized that most facets of the law.  But the heart of it is still a judge, who is a government official and makes his rulings.  So, maybe we're talking past each other?  But that's why I don't understand how common law would solve negative externalities without government involvement since common law is developed by Judges who are government officials.  

 

 

Those things are not inherently related.

Yeah, I was going to say the same thing. I do not think there is an essential reason that judges must be affiliated with the government. There have been historical cases where they were not.

[NotreDame]

There are great companies and organizations (like NASA) who DO actually care about innovation and what not however their budgets were slashed. :(

 

Sad panda.

 

 

Speaking of NASA, here's a cool blog from Dr. Roy Spencer, a climatologist and former NASA scientist, which Apotheoun recently shared with me:  

 

http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/

 

When was NASA's budget slashed? 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA

 

It was down 3% last year, but still up 20% over the last 10. 

 

If you care about innovation, it's worth noting Obama has changed NASA's focus pretty heavily from research to "outreach" on things like "climate change" and "muslims in science."  No joke.

[NotreDame]

This is dumb.

 

Yes it is.

 

RON PAUL 2012!!!

 

Sort of like on Fringe, there is an alternate reality where we are all tougher and better looking and wear more denim and in that timeline Ron Paul 2012 happened.

[4588686]

Yeah, I was going to say the same thing. I do not think there is an essential reason that judges must be affiliated with the government. There have been historical cases where they were not.

 

 

Maybe, maybe not.  But I thought you were talking about actual common law.  Not common law in a counterfactual history.