from "just maybe" by jonah, modified by communitarian

SCENARIO 1.1 "Liberty"

The Town of "Liberty" was a population of 100,000 with one primary source for its munincipal water; "Freedom Lake". The local statutes allow businesses to make unfettered use of this crucial body of water, and accordingly several local companies have purchased property rights to portions "Freedom Lake".

- Company "A" bottles the lake water and markets it nationally, employing 500 local workers in the process.
- Company "B" operates a nuclear power plant employing 1,000 local workers to supply inexpensive energy for the residents of Liberty and the surrounding region.
- Company "C" harvests millfoil through aqua culture which is processed into an energy/health diet supplement pill, employing 50 local workers.
- Company "D" operates a canoe/kayak rental service and owns the remaining shoreline, for which it charges access fees for swimming and the like. The company employs 100 local workers to operate its variety of recreational services.

In due time, Company "C" has an unforseeable breach in its containment booms. Their millfoil spreads amazingly fast across "Lake Freedom," and despite a genuine effort to stem the breach, there is significant environmental damage -- not the least of is the contamination of Company "A"s property -- its bottled water supply.

In a lawsuit, Company "A" is awarded a substantial amount for damages caused by Company "C"s accident. The Insurers of Company "C" arrange a payout that meets to Company "A"s satisaction, but results in the foreclosure of Company "C" -- and the unemployment of 50 local workers.

In time Company "A" has financial difficulties of its own and Company "B" buys-out the unhealthy business, continuing to market water bottled from "Lake Freedom." With the massive capitol gains from power generation, Company "B" has solved the lingering environmental damage to it's portion of the lake by erecting a containment system. The unintended consequence means that the remaining millfoil contamination has been concentrated in Company "D" portion of "Lake Freedom."

Soon Company "D"s recreational service business, which once drew tourists from a wide area, suffers a devastating drop in attendance. Although Company "D" had always been successful, the scale of the loss is much greater than even the rosiest of future profit forecasts. The unfortunate affect of the several years lag time between the accident and Company "D"s damage has made litigation a fruitless endeavor -- Company "C" has long since closed. In the end, Company "D"s managed so sell its property to a beachcombers society for a fraction of its value leaving another 100 local employees workers unemployed.

Ironically the millfoil menace eventually creeps past Company "B" containment system causing a catastrophic meltdown of the nuclear reactor. Nearly 800 members of Company "B"s workforce died in the tragedy and not surprisingly the town had to evacuated. "Liberty" and its once scenic "Freedom Lake" have become unhatibable for next 500 years.

Finally, a two-months supply of bottled water was irradiated prior to the accident due to cooling leaks as a result of the millfoil-inspired meltdown. An estimated 10,000 people were affected -- their mortality rate over the next decade-or-so is expected to be unprecedented. Ensuing generations will face untold health problem as a result.

The chief executives and principals owners of Company "B" escaped serving any meaningful jail time and now are now gainfully employed in corporations elsewhere.

END OF SCENARIO

To whom it may concern,

Liberty sounds like my kind of town - until all the bad stuff happens. But that would never happen anyway. I trust corporations to do the right thing.

Sincerely,
A patriotic Libertarian

...Corporations to "do the right thing". Anyone who attempts to misrepresent the Libertarian position as a bunch of suck-ups to Corporations is simply pushing a dishonest picture of the Libertarian View.

The Scenario above is simplistic and stilted so as to paint a negative image.

It presumes that Libertarians automatically support the building of dirty Fission Power Plants. Not true.

It presumes that the Polluter would not have been sued out of business in the first place - which is a speculation at best.

It presumes that the law does not allow you to go after those individuals responsible for the problem. Very much not true as the Libertarian Position would be that they should be held personally accountable and responsible for their actions.

The entire article is therefore a carefully constructed LIE and DISTORTION.

What a nitwit you are.

Free-markets mean just that -- there are no laws nor regulations preventing a company from putting a nuclear power plant on Freedom Lake. And Libertarians are for an absolute FREE-MARKET.

No governement interference in business!!!
No bullshit environmental regualtions!!!

Furthermore, the Scenarios shows how shrewd Libertarians can be held accountable and still get off easy, thanks to Big Money and Lots of Lawyers.

You're the one twisting Libertarianism into some kind of "Feel-good" environmentalist-regulatory-agenda -- which we all know is a load of crap to true blooded, honest and patriotic Libertarians.

Don't Tread On Me!

Being in favor of Free Markets is not the same as being Pro-Business or Pro-Nuclear Power.

It does not mean that the People cannot regulate an activity, such as Nuclear Power, which has a proven history of the Negatives outweighing the Positives.

Libertarianism means that Government takes a Neutral Stance on the operation of business - neither for nor against. However, it is fundamental to the Libertarian View Point that when an activity is injurious to the liberties, health, welfare, and lives of other individuals that Government does have the right to intervene in it's role of Umpire to prevent damage or to punish those who have done damage. To maintain otherwise is simply a distortion of the Libertarian Perspective and is a LIE.

There is no such thing as the Perfect Human Society and it is impossible to forsee and prevent all damage. When one attempts to use Government in that way all you are doing is infringing upon the Rights of the People to enjoy the "Pursuit of Life, Liberty, and Happiness."

Your final paragraph is simply hyperbolic Horse Shit. Read correctly is shows that you know that you are lying and twisting the Libertarian Perspective to fit your own prejudices.

Tilt

Play Again?

First you argue that regulations and governmental interference is wrong, and then you kick yourself with this backwards statement...

"Government does have the right to intervene in it's role of Umpire to prevent damage or to punish those who have done damage."

That's the very definition of REGULATIONS - that's what they are designed to do, to prevent damage to the "environment" - that's why the Nuclear Industry is regulated!

Now a true patriotic Libertarian knows that deregulate business will lead to a truly FREE-MARKET for the benefit of all.

--------------------------
regulation -- Reg`u*la"tion (-l?"sh?n), n.
1. The act of regulating, or the state of being regulated.
2. A rule or order prescribed for management or government; prescription; a regulating principle; a governing direction; precept; law; as, the regulations of a society or a school.

...through Morose Colored Glasses, eh?

Laws Regulating an activity can be written so as to allow universal enforcement as opposed to the limited self interested enforcement of a "Regulatory Agency". In other words you can write a Regulation so that it can be enforced by Local Governments, the People etc.... To state that Libertarians have a knee-jert opposition to Regualtions in the Public Interest is a distortion of the Libertarian Perspective. No such prejudice exists except in the minds of dogmatic proponents of a more restrictive and intrusive Government. Where there is a Compelling Public Interest it is not inconsistent with a Libertarian Perspective to have Oversight. You just don't need a Regulatory Agency for every Human activity. You Don't need a "Bureau of Sun Glasses".

For example: We now know that the Incident at Three Mile Island was much worse than the NRC ever let on publicly and that the Containment WAS breached. So much for Regulatory Agencies, their independence and honesty. It was covered up and buried by the Carter Administration and the Nuclear REGULATORY Commission. Regulatory Agencies are subject to Political Pressure, and Politicians are subject to Blackmail or Bribery.

Your arguments are still dishonest distortions.

Ahh HA!!! Regulation by local governments -- and if it happens to be a small town where Wal-Mart is the largest employeer...? Hmm, I guess you never learned about Corporate towns in your limited learnings of American history.

I remember the "regulations" of local governments in the South, especially Alabama and Mississippi -- they were very FAIR and JUST. Just ask any white male.

I remember the Governor Wallace of Alabama trying to enforce segregation because that's what the "locals" wanted...

"I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of TYRANNY, and I say segregation NOW, segregation TOMORROW, segregation FOREVER."

Yes, I know what you REALLY mean when you talk about the "tyranny" of the federal government. I guess ol' George Wallace was on the side of justice all along.

Isn't that right Diogenes??? Rebel Yell!

What would a Libertarian do with George Wallace and his defense of State's Rights?

Would a Libertarian support the Federal government forcing the State of Alabama to comply with federal regulations?

Or would a Libertarian support the State government and enforce Segragationist policies in Alabama?

Hmm, are you going to answer Diogenes?

Here's how I see it in terms of the larger menace (Please note that Corporations failed to make the list)

1. Democratic Party (they're completely nutty, have money, and are very dangerous).

2. Organized Labor. These nut cases are controlled by the Mafia and certainly do not have worker interests as a priority.

3. Rainbow Coalition. Jesse is an extortionist. That's the long of it. That's the short of it. That's it.

4. Liberal biased news media. This is very big. We have the obvious left wing radical media that's very dangerous like Pacifica, Indymedia, Salon.com, The Nation, Mother Jones, etc. But just after them we have the other leftists masquerading and fair and balanced. These include the L.A. Times, NY Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, etc. Then you have to add the liberal biased magazines like Time. It's a pretty pitifual picture.

Diogenes seems too afraid to touch this question -- "Bush Admirer," might you have the courage to answer?

How would you respond to George Wallace and his defense of State's Rights?

1. Would you support the Federal government's mandate that the State of Alabama had to comply with federal regulations and Integrate the public schools?
- OR -
2. Would you support the State government and enforce Segragationist policies in throughout Alabama?

"....in the current circumstances, devolution from the federal government to the state level is disastrous. The federal government has all sorts of rotten things about it and is fundamentally illegitimate, but weakening federal power and moving things to the state level is just a disaster. At the state level even middle-sized businesses can control what happens. At the federal level only the big guys can push it around. That means, that if you take, say, aid for hungry children, to the extent that it exists, if it’s distributed through the federal system, you can resist business pressure to some extent. It can actually get to poor children. If you move it to the state level in block grants, it will end up in the hands of Raytheon and Fidelity—exactly what’s happening here in Massachusetts. They have enough coercive power to force the fiscal structure of the state to accommodate to their needs, with things as simple as the threat of moving across the border."

that's one guy's perspective.. any counter-arguments?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.angrynerds.com/readings/ojrc.html";>ahttp://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/03/43143_comment.php#43294";>nhttp://la.indymedia.org/news/2002/12/23562_comment.php";>thttp://www.rmfdevelopment.com/political/LAIM_USImperialism_timeline.htm";>ihttp://la.indymedia.org/news/?comments=yes&;medium=&keyword=lynx-11">chttp://la.indymedia.org/news/2003/03/35537_comment.php#36301";>rhttp://www.parecon.org/";>ihttp://www.neravt.com/left/newslinks.html";>shttp://www.zmag.org/chomsky/search.cfm";>ihttp://la.indymedia.org/news/2002/09/19056_comment.php#23141";>s

I believe George Wallace was a Democrat.

A typical Democrat too (talking out of both sides of his mouth, much like Hillary).

Of course he was a racist. Of course the Federal Government mandates to integrate should have applied.

If the voters would have had the good sense to electt a Republican, I doubt that the problem would have ever come up.

In the 1948 election STROM THURMOND was a candidate for President of the United States of America on an independent ticket of the States Rights Democratic Party, also known as the DIXIECRAT Party, which had SPLIT from the Democrats over the issue of segregation. Thurmond carried four states and received 39 electoral votes. His primary campaign plaform was the perpetuation of SEGREGATION. One 1948 speech, met with cheers by supporters, included the following:

"I wanna tell you, ladies and gentlemen, that there's not enough troops in the army to FORCE the southern people to break down segregation and admit the NIGGER race into our theatres, into our swimming pools, into our homes, and into our churches."
See: http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strom_Thurmond
Hear MP3 file: http://www.wikipedia.org/upload/e/e2/Strom_Thurmond_1948_Speech_Clip.mp3


Senator TRENT LOTT of MISSISSIPPI, the leader of the REPUBLICAN Party in the Senate, expressed regret last week that Strom Thurmond did not win the presidency in 1948 when he was the candidate of the segregationist States Rights Party. Thurmond, then the governor of South Carolina, challenged incumbent Democrat Harry S. Truman on a program of JIM CROW RACISM and opposition to any concessions to the oppressed black population of the South.


Most notable has been Senator Lott's close ties to the CONSERVATIVE CITIZEN'S COUNCIL, an openly racist and anti-Semitic group which grew out of the TERRORIST White Citizen's Councils, and which today, among other unpalatable positions, calls interracial marriage "WHITE GENOCIDE."

In 1992, Lott was keynote speaker at the Council's national board meeting, ending his speech by enthusing that "the people in this room stand for the RIGHT PRINCIPLES and the right philosophy." Throughout the 1990s, Lott maintained his intimate relations with the CCC, hosting a private meeting with Council leaders in 1997, writing a column for the CCC magazine Citizen's Informer for eight years, and attending at least two CCC banquets in his honor.
See: http://www.commondreams.org/views02/1212-06.htm

Dog - I don't believe Trent Lott said that. Let's see your documentation. Put up or shut up.

Trent is one of the good guys. Please don't try to lump him in with those racist Democrats like Strom Thurmond and George Wallace.

...Dixie Democrat.

To the un-paper trained doggie: I do believe the Constitution covers ALL THE PEOPLE. What Wallace was doing was not only wrong it was unconstitutional. That means it was illegal. Your argument is really stupid.

The Civil Rights Movement, if you bother to read History, was winning. Wallace was fighting a losing battle even if the Feds had not stepped in. It might have taken a little longer but the outcome would have been the same.

Despite what you might think the Federal Government was not that big of a booster of Black Civil Rights. Martin Luther King was constantly hounded by the FBI and their COINTELPRO Operatives; as were Malcom X and most other Black Civil Rights Leaders. Hoover was constantly looking for dirt on King, with whom he was obsessed, and kept a big file on him. Some of the Records are now public and are available on the Web. Johnson was a Racist Pig but he saw the handwriting on the Wall and so was just taking Political advantage of it.

From a Libertarian perspective - an individual is free to be a Racist Pig. I do not approve - but ignorance and prejudice held privately are not illegal. They are irrational and stupid but not illegal. if you had not noticed, and I have commented on it before where appropriate, my ancestry is mostly Jewish and Native American both groups that have historically been on the receiving end of considerable prejudice. Throw in a bit o' Irish and Welsh and you have covered quite a bit of territory.

When it comes to a Government Run Institution, such as the University of Alabama, no such right exists. What Wallace did was illegal under his own State's Constitution as well as the Federal Constitution.

Your ignorance knows no bounds.

To accuse someone, because they believe in individual liberty and the rights of all, of supporting a Pig like Wallace is again nothing more than an irrational distortion. You are clutching at straws.

Does Freedom scare you that much?

SOURCE #1:

FAIR - Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting
130 W. 25th Street New York, NY 10001

Trent Lott Supported White-Supremacist Group—
Evidence Emerges: Senator's Spokesperson Misled Journalists

Contact: Steven Rendall
December 15, 1998 SRendall@fair.org

After interviewing Lott's representative, the Los Angeles Times reported on December 13th:

According to John S. Cwartacki, Lott's spokesman, the senator only vaguely remembers that, while serving in the House of Representatives, he was invited to an event in his Gulf Coast district by two acquaintances who, it turned out, had ties to the group. "That was over a decade ago," Cwartacki said. "His recollection isn't that straightforward."

-- Trent Lott addressed the CCC's national conference in Greenwood, Mississippi on April 11, 1992—as a Senator, not while a member of the House and not ten years ago, as his spokesperson claimed—according to the CCC's newsletter, Citizens Informer, which published pictures and a report on the event in its Spring 1992 edition.

After urging those at the gathering to increase their recruiting efforts for the "conservative" cause, Lott concluded his address praising CCC members: "The people in this room stand for the right principles and the right philosophy. Let's take it in the right direction and our children will be the beneficiaries!"

-- Senator Lott also addressed an event sponsored by the Carrol County (Miss.) chapter of the CCC and the Black Hawk Bus Association on July 22, 1995, according to a story (with photos) in the Summer 1995 edition of Citizens Informer.

-- Lott's column is regularly featured in Citizens Informer.

As much as we enjoy educating you about this and many other facinating topics, it's becoming apparent that you don't care to wake up to the truth, no matter how much information we spoon-feed you.

We didn't ask for your permission to take back our World. It will simply happen, and the more you seek to antagonize, the more irrelevent you become.

SOURCE #2 (I think you'll just LOVE this source - it's not Liberal!!!)

Bush Calls Lott's Remarks 'Offensive'
FOX News, Friday, December 13, 2002

...Lott told Time magazine more than five years ago that he SUPPORTED segregation while a student at the University of Mississippi, when U.S. marshals brought the first black student to the school.

Lott reportedly led the effort in his ALL-WHITE fraternity to prevent integration. The Sigma Nu fraternity voted to continue supporting segregation. That policy changed years later.

Critics have also listed such past actions as his 1983 vote against a federal holiday for Martin Luther King Jr., his 1982 vote against the Voting Rights Act extension and his efforts to restore CONFEDERATE president Jefferson Davis' citizenship.

In 1981, he quoted court rulings upholding affirmative action programs at colleges in order to defend a DATING BAN between black and white students at Bob Jones University.

Lott has also been tied to the Council of Conservative Citizens, successor of the 1960's White Citizens Councils of the South.

In 1992, Lott spoke to a CofCC group in Mississippi and said, "The people in this room stand for the right principles and the right philosophy. Let's take it in the right direction, and our children will be the beneficiaries."

He has since sought to distance himself from CofCC, which this week filed a friend-of-the-court brief defending CROSS BURNING as free speech. The Supreme Court heard the case on Wednesday...

"When it comes to a Government Run Institution, such as the University of Alabama, no such right exists. What Wallace did was illegal under his own State's Constitution as well as the Federal Constitution." -- Diogenes


But what about PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS, Diogenes???

Would you support George Wallace if he was instead defending the segregationist policies of a private university?
-- OR --
Would you support John F Kennedy and the Federal government for protecting the Civil Rights of the integrated students at a private university?

"Would you believe ...?"

Wallace was not defending Segregation at a Private Institution so your hypothetical is just that hypothetical and irrelevant to your original question.

However I will answer as a general priniciple: Private Institutions are by definition Private. What they choose to do is their own business. Whether I approve or disapprove is irrelevant. I do not believe in using government as a weapon against opinions I disagree with. In a FREE society private individuals and groups have the right to have an unpopular, or wrong, opinion. It is their right to be stupid, so long as their actions do not actively infringe on the rights of another. A private institution harms primarily itself by following Prejudicial Policies. So what? As long as they are harming no one it is their right to be ignorant fucks.

Please leave me out of this. Your arguments need a lot more help than that.