From: les@ravel.udel.edu (Matthew Re Templeton)
Subject: A real bunch of environmentally friendly folks...NOT 
Organization: University of Delaware
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 1992 19:25:51 GMT

The following is really long, so either skip it (hit "n" or equivalent) or
if you're digestified, hit the spacebar a few times...


In article <SOWA.92Oct7110922@netcom.com> sowa@netcom.com (Erik Sowa) writes:
>>>>>> "cls" == Cameron L. Spitzer <cls@truffula.sj.ca.us> writes:
>cls> I like the Libertarians, but the extreme antienvironmentalist stance
>cls> their movement takes scares me.  We can't hide from it, guys.
>
>This is a misrepresentation. Don't let this second-hand opinion dissuade
>you from finding out for yourself: Read the literature for the real
>story. Anonymous ftp to think.com:/pub/libernet/LP

Well Eric, I did just that...what I read wasn't particularly impressive.
Lets look shall we?...


>2. POLLUTION
 
>Pollution of other  people's property is  a  violation  of  individual
>rights.
Good.  I'll buy that.  I've woken up more than once in the morning smelling
the wonerfully aromatic Wilmington landfill, and have more than once asked
God to condemn to hell most of the Wilmington city government...

>Present legal  principles, particularly the  unjust and  false
>concept of "public  property," block privatisation  of the use of  the
>environment and hence  block resolution of controversies over resource
>use. 
Oh, now this is amusing.  I suppose ol' Andre has just got his willie in his
hand - he's so excited about opening up say, the Arctic Wildlife Nat'l Refuge
for oil drilling.  "Shit, who cares about caribou, let's sell 'em to ARCO shall
we?"  Did any of y'all stop to think that just maybe people are *sharing* this
planet with some not-quite-as-"smart"-but-just-about-as-evolutionarily-
successful-if-not-more-so species?  I'm more than happy with a vaguely defined
piece of "public property" if I see trees & animals on it rather than oil rigs.

>We support the development of an objective legal system defining
>property rights to  air and water.  We call for a modification of the
>laws governing such  torts as trespass  and nuisance to cover  damages
>done by  air,  water,  radiation,  and  noise  pollution.  
Look, this idea of property rights brings the image of a waiting line for a
courtroom to mind.  If we don't have legislation which has mechanisms to assign
blame to corporations/individuals that f*ck up things, every single
problem will turn into a corporate/personal liablility case.  Things will be
worse than they are now.  Frankly, the only reason we have the problems with
the EPA/Council on Competitiveness/other obnoxious bureaucrats is because
a)we have a government that doesn't really care about the environment, and b)
that government was put in place by a population that doesn't really care about
the environment either.  Fine, the libertarians say.  If they don't care, they
won't bother to fix things when they're broke.  Well, *I* will, but I can't do
it alone.  I can't do it with 10 other people, I can't do it with a million.
It takes a *government* that will go after people who pollute and/or otherwise
damage ecosystems. Maybe the people of this country really *don't* care about
the environment.  But for the sake of my children, and your children, we damn
well better start.  And to do that, we need a government that will *actively*
work to help the environment, not say "well, if the people don't care, why
bother?"  My unborn child is gonna care, when the U.S. of A. is a wasteland.

>We oppose legislative proposals to exempt persons who claim damage from
>radiation from having to prove such damage was in fact coused by radiation.
Now this is interesting.  If someone has actually gotten away with winning
a case without proving the liability of the polluter, I'll grant you this point.

>Strict liability,  not government agencies  and  arbitrary
>government standards, should  regulate pollution.  We therefore demand
>the abolition of  the Environmental Protection Agency. 
Please see the long pontification above...

>We also oppose government-mandated smoking and non-smoking areas in privately 
>owned businesses.
Not that these do any good anyway, since the ventilation systems in most 
buildings suck anyway (and I don't mean they suck air...)
 
>Toxic waste disposal problems have been created by government policies
>that separate liability  from property.  Rather  than making taxpayers
>pay for toxic  waste clean-ups, individual  property owners, or in the
>case of corporations,  the responsible managers  and employees, should
>be held strictly  liable for material  damage done by their  property.
Lemme give you an example here.  Somewhere in the southeast PA or New
Jersey area, theres a house that sits on a piece of land that once held
a factory where radium dial watches were made.  The factory closed down
over *50* years ago.  Do you think any owner/manager/employee of that
factory is even alive to answer claims?  (Well maybe, if they're 80 or so...)
Well, if not, are you gonna say "tough sh*t" to the people who were forced
out of their house by the outrageous amount of Radon and other stuff floating
around?  As a taxpayer, I'm much happier to help support these folks than I am
paying for an outrageous military budget.  Maybe if you're pissed off about
taxes, you should go have a chat with Dick (not Richard) Cheyney, and even ol'
Georgie boy as well, not sit and bitch about the environment.

>Claiming that one  has abandoned a  piece of property does not absolve
>one of the  responsibility for actions  one has  set  in  motion.   We
>condemn the EPA's  Superfund whose taxing  powers are used to penalize
>all chemical firms, regardless of their conduct.  Such clean-ups are a
>subsidy of irresponsible companies at the expense of responsible ones.
Never in my life have I seen a "totally clean" chemical factory.  Come to 
Delaware; I'll show you around DuPont's "Ti-Pure" plant in Edgemoor sometime.
And like I said in the preceeding paragraph, I'd rather take care of folks
in need than pay for a military.  Why the hell shouldn't chemical firms?
Money aint everything folks.  Not when it's something as important as this.


Ugh.  I usually don't post soapbox tirades like this...My sincere apologies
to digestified folks...

Peace,

Matt

Vote your conscience.  Not your wallet.     
-- 
Matthew Reed Templeton  			  aka les@chopin.udel.edu
  Life is a precious thing - don't let it slip away.  In other words...
			  LIFE IS SHORT, PLAY!
			Smile 'til it hurts! :^)
Newsgroups: rec.music.gdead