Jump to content

Obama Bows to Libertarian Philosophy


Recommended Posts

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/02/obama-to-announce-rule-to-limit-emissions-from-fossil-burning-plants-part-his/

 

The President has finally bowed to the libertarian and has proposed laws to limit the damage of the coal industry to other people's - and our children's - property. To quote TYTT

 

"Libertarians believe in the strict enforcement of property law. As such, anyone polluting another's property, where damages can be shown, would be 100% liable for costs of clean-up and damages. These amounts, when calculated, are usually multitudes higher than the amounts levied in punitive fines, and are paid directly to the aggrieved party, rather than to a feckless bureaucracy"

 

Who knew?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/02/obama-to-announce-rule-to-limit-emissions-from-fossil-burning-plants-part-his/

 

The President has finally bowed to the libertarian and has proposed laws to limit the damage of the coal industry to other people's - and our children's - property. To quote TYTT

 

"Libertarians believe in the strict enforcement of property law. As such, anyone polluting another's property, where damages can be shown, would be 100% liable for costs of clean-up and damages. These amounts, when calculated, are usually multitudes higher than the amounts levied in punitive fines, and are paid directly to the aggrieved party, rather than to a feckless bureaucracy"

 

Who knew?

 

there's nothing libertarian about what Obama is doing involving either the coal industry itself, or the use of coal in the generation of electricity, and there's nothing libertarian about enacting sweeping new regulatory laws (and they ARE laws if transgressors can be fined or imprisoned for non-compliance) by side-stepping congress.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Obama Is Blowing Smoke On New Emissions Rules.

Apparently, the idea is to force states to start up regional cap-and-trade programs, because a federal program now seems impossible.

 

Does the president actually expect any of this to happen?

 

As with any new Environmental Protection Agency rule, a lengthy comment period will ensue. After the comment period, the EPA presumably has discretion about the deadlines they set. With a big election coming in 2016, and some nice, big, coal-consuming swing states on the line, I would wager cash money that those deadlines are set no earlier than Dec. 31, 2016.

 

 

Kinda like ObamaCare deadlines. Obama’s policies: So popular that they’re all delayed until he’s out of office!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there's nothing libertarian about what Obama is doing involving either the coal industry itself, or the use of coal in the generation of electricity, and there's nothing libertarian about enacting sweeping new regulatory laws (and they ARE laws if transgressors can be fined or imprisoned for non-compliance) by side-stepping congress.

 

So would it be better to allow people to sue the coal industry for damage to the environment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So would it be better to allow people to sue the coal industry for damage to the environment?

Well, according to our resident Libertarian we will have new judges and restrained corporations when the Libertarian revolution sweeps in, and everyone will be happy....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

So would it be better to allow people to sue the coal industry for damage to the environment?

 

I didn't know I was supposed to make some kind of choice on the matter, but since you ask, I think it would be retarded to unleash a wave of lawsuits like that, and I would imagine that you do as well. my comments were aimed at your premise (although it's obviously just a dig at TYTT, which I'm sure he'll set you straight on himself) that Obama is taking a libertarian stance with regard to heightened regulation, which itself is largely a contradiction in terms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't know I was supposed to make some kind of choice on the matter, but since you ask, I think it would be retarded to unleash a wave of lawsuits like that, and I would imagine that you do as well. my comments were aimed at your premise (although it's obviously just a dig at TYTT, which I'm sure he'll set you straight on himself) that Obama is taking a libertarian stance with regard to heightened regulation, which itself is largely a contradiction in terms.

 

Well that's the problem with the Libertarian model - right? Minimum laws other than to be accountable for your actions.....better hire a lot of judges.....my guess is that laws promote much more freedom that they restrict....without specific boundaries....the courts would simply be clogged...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Well that's the problem with the Libertarian model - right? Minimum laws other than to be accountable for your actions.....better hire a lot of judges.....my guess is that laws promote much more freedom that they restrict....without specific boundaries....the courts would simply be clogged...

 

I don't know - I'm not a Libertarian, at least not in the sense that I'm a registered party member, so I don't pretend to know the party platform or what an actual 'Libertarian model' would be. judging by your suggestion that there's anything Libertarian about Obama's regulatory impositions on coal, I'd say that makes two of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/06/02/obama-to-announce-rule-to-limit-emissions-from-fossil-burning-plants-part-his/

 

The President has finally bowed to the libertarian and has proposed laws to limit the damage of the coal industry to other people's - and our children's - property. To quote TYTT

 

"Libertarians believe in the strict enforcement of property law. As such, anyone polluting another's property, where damages can be shown, would be 100% liable for costs of clean-up and damages. These amounts, when calculated, are usually multitudes higher than the amounts levied in punitive fines, and are paid directly to the aggrieved party, rather than to a feckless bureaucracy"

 

Who knew?

I assume that you'll now highlight exactly where my above quote is relevant to this proposed regulatory change.

 

You can start with individuals showing damages.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Waiting.

 

he'll be here eventually for another drive-by to make sure we all know that this is a right-wing circle-jerk and that we're not pragmatic enough. other than that, I wouldn't expect to see him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The notion that people are damaged by carbon emissions, in a vaccum, that doesn't also include them benefitting from electricity, is absurd, before it is anything, including libertarian. We cannot separate the two. The benefit and the emissions are intrinsic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...