From: asylvain@felix.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ca.environment
Subject: Re: "Ecofascists" In Action
Keywords: Pollution, Volunteerism, Environment
Date: 11 Sep 92 21:06:06 GMT
Reply-To: asylvain@fritz.filenet.com (The Chipmunk)
Organization: Foundation for the Increased Wealth of Chipmunks

Written in article <8281.1984@stratus.SWDC.Stratus.COM>
 by bruce@godzilla.swdc.stratus.com (Bruce Overby):

: In article <19936@fritz.filenet.com> asylvain@fritz.filenet.com
:    (The Chipmunk) writes:
:> Written in article <8239.3866@stratus.SWDC.Stratus.COM>
:>    by bruce@godzilla.swdc.stratus.com (Bruce Overby):

:>: The "public" land (in this case, the bay) *is* owned--by the
:>: public. There *is* somebody taking a proprietary interest--the
:>: volunteers of BayKeeper. And there *is* somebody held
:>: responsible for the problems with it--the San Francisco Bay
:>: Regional Water Quality Control Board, and, ultimately, the
:>: polluters.
:>
:> What would be your opinion then, if the KKK performed a similar
:> "watchdog" operation to investigate "reverse discrimination" against
:> the public?  I'm sure they'd staff with volunteers.
:
: I would give very little credence to their findings, but I would
: respect their right to do all the investigating they please.

In other words, because you are pre-disposed to disbelieve their
opinion, you'd do nothing?

How about folks pre-disposed to disbelieve the opinions of BayKeeper?

Suppose the KKK did a study of reverse discrimination, but were
countered by the NAACP?  Suppose the NAACP did a study of reverse
discrimination?

Suppose BayKeeper did a study of pollution in the bay, but were
countered by Polluting Companies?  Suppose Polluting Companies did a
study of pollution in the bay?

Assume Justice is Blind.  Who's going to have the final say?

: [...] we *don't* know the watchdogs were "right" any more than
: we know, under the private property model, that the property actually
: belongs to the person claiming it. How would we find out?

Under MOST circumstances, determining proper ownership is pretty simple
and straightforward.

The only difficulty I've heard in the private property model IRT env'tal 
problems is a general, reliable way of determining a perpetrator.

Ie, when someone dumps a trash-can full of toxic waste into YOUR river,
YOU spot him and turn him in.  Simple.  Same as if he were to drive his
tractor over your back-yard and trample your petunias.

But, if he dumps it on his own property, and no one sees him do it, and
it seeps into the water table where it eventually ends up in your river,
well then, who did it?  That damage was done is clear, but the source of
the damage may not be.

Of course, we have that same problem with the public property model, so
I don't see that as a major obstacle.  Ie, factories do the same thing 
today, under the same circumstances as in a private model, and you have 
the same problem of being able to locate the perpetrator and prove a
case against him/her.

But, an open sewer pipe leading into the bay is fairly obvious, under 
both public and private models.  The difference is the "proof" isn't
necessarily the same.  Under a public model, you need reams of env'tal
impact reports and dozens of studies that the substance is actually toxic.
Conversely, a polluter needs similar reams which may prove the opposite.

Again, assume Justice is Blind.  Who will have the final say?

Then again, assume "Justice" goes to the Highest Bidder.

Under a private model, I don't have to prove the toxicity of any parti-
cular substance, only that it's entering my property without my express 
permission.

This would have been particularly germaine under the recent Med-fly 
spraying.  Despite studies as to how "safe" the malathaion supposedly
was, many people (myself included) did not want their property sprayed.
(It'll take the paint off your car, but it's perfectly safe, ri-ii-ight.)

Under private property constraints, the govt would not have been able to
do the spraying.  Under a private property model, it wouldn't matter
whether the stuff is safe or not.  If you think it's toxic, don't allow
it on your property.  End of story.

However, I believe that in this case, "Justice" went to the highest bidder,
namely agri-businesses who's crops were at risk from Med-fly infestation.
Politicians receive large sums of campaign contributions, so I believe 
this added some bias to their "studies."

One fellow actually swallowed 100% pure, undiluted malathaion to
demonstrate how safe it is, neglecting the fact that there are
industrial impurities introduced into the stuff that's actually 
sprayed.  Let's see him drink THAT stuff 100% undiluted.

: BayKeeper exists only because, according to the article,
: public agencies are underfunded.

Public agencies are ALWAYS underfunded, according to public agencies.  
I believe public agencies which claim not to have enough money like I
believe Imelda Marcos actually needs 3000 pairs of shoes.

: I would say people *_in general_*
: (Alvin Sylvain obviously excepted) have been willing to pay out quite
: a bit.

If that's the case, it should be a simple matter to ask people *_in_
_general_* to send checks to the agencies and/or BayKeeper.  When people 
want something and are willing to pay for it, they buy it.

Since you already presume that I don't care (for one thing, I don't live
anywhere near the bay), you can save postage by removing my name from
the mailing list.  Or, send the brochure to me anyway, and perhaps I'll
find a different interested party for you.

:> BTW, I asked on the original post what "proper disposal" meant, and I
:> don't know if I got an answer.
:
: You didn't get an answer from me because I don't know. I'll promise
: to look into that, though.

I only bring it up because the media too frequently does not follow-up on
a story.  "Proper disposal" for all I know was shoving the stuff into 
Hefty-bags and leaving it on the curb for the weekly garbage pick-up.
The reporter probably never asked, even if we can be so presumptuous to 
assume s/he even thought about asking.

: Bruce Overby

-- 
The Chipmunk.
Opinions are mine, void where prohibited, taxed, licensed or regulated.
186,282 miles per second: It isn't just a good idea, it's the law!
Xref: sparky ca.politics:7622 talk.politics.misc:44742