From: dean@vexcel.com (dean alaska)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.elections,misc.taxes,alt.society.civil-liberty
Subject: Re: What keeps me from being Lib. (was Re: FW: news release:
Date: 16 Apr 92 20:02:30 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: VEXCEL Corporation, Boulder, CO

In article <LEE.92Apr15150047@meercat.wang.com> lee@wang.com (Lee Story) writes:
>
>Alright, I asked for it, so I'll try to answer Dean point by point.
>
>(dean alaska) writes:
>
>   Do you always make so many assumptions about what other people say so that
>   you can fit them into your neat little definitions?
>
>Yes, but see below.
>
>   Did I say anything about a police state?
>
>Indirectly.  You said "When all pollution violations are subject to
>criminal law [...] then the important step towards a clean economy
>will have been made."  But "pollution" is practically impossible to
>define exactly (and I challenge you to do so) in any but the broad
>terms of "modifying an ecosystem by human action to the detriment of
>some one or more of its preexisting components", and even that may
>not be broad enough to satisfy everyone.  You would either criminalize
>all human action, or would have vague and therefore arbitrarily-applied
>law (not that we don't now!)  In such circumstances, civil litigation
>and arbitration are much more appropriate than criminalization.

I will admit to being vague when I said "all pollution".  I was referring
to human activity, in the form of production or consumption, that harms
another human.  Although other forms of pollution do exist, the difficulty
in defining them would preclude them from application here.
>
>   Radical Greens DO NOT look to an enlarged govt
>   for solutions.  That is why I said that people must support a concept
>   before it becomes a law.  The law will do no good if a small percentage
>   support it.  In a Green society, the central govt wouldn't be too
>   much bigger than for Libs.  
>
>This business of "people must support a concept before it becomes a
>law" is so ill-defined that I ignored it.  My presumption is that this
>is irrelevant, and that your party would increase government in any
>case, to administrate the enormous prison system in which the victims
>of the War on Pollution join those of the War on Drugs.

Thats pretty incredible.  Why is it ill-defined to say society must support
a law before it is created?  The whole point here is to prevent a police
state, like we have now.  Although big government is bad, a police state
is more accurately defined by heavy-handed enforcement, such as the WOD.
You choose to ignore my central thesis and then decide that I would
instead support that which you seem to find highly objectionable.  This
is what I meant by fitting me into your neat little definition.
>
>   Doing a cost analysis of whether to prosecute a burglary is very
>   different than doing a cost analysis of whether a burglary should
>   be permitted.
>
>You said "cost benefit analyses for burglars", an ambiguous wording
>which led me to believe that you meant analysis of the worth of
>prosecution, though I agree with you that perhaps the other
>alternative (studying whether a burglary should take place) is more
>parallel to explicit regulation of industrial pollution.  I still
>don't see why the non-criminal alternative isn't to be preferred:
>admit that some practices are damaging, and charge an excise for
>permission to perform then---a high enough one to render most such
>practices not cost effective.

The criminal alternative is perferred for consistency.  If the principle
is that property and personal damage should be against the law and are
an appropriate area for government involvement, then I don't see why
such damage/harm from pollution (using the limited definition above)
should be excluded.  The problem with using civil enforcement is that
a totally different legal mechanism exists.  Although it may be
a wrong interpretation, the drug forfeitures are permitted because due
process is not considered to apply to civil matters. As such, making
this issue a criminal matter gives the accused more protection.
>
>   Today, it is considered acceptable to
>   subject my property and health to damage and injury so that someone
>   else may make a profit.  Is it okay for a burglar to subject a store
>   owner to crime so that the burglar may make a profit?
>
>Yes and no.  The situations are fairly parallel.  Responsible
>government (I don't say Reagan or Bush) doesn't accept pollution
>which may damage your health "so that someone else may make a profit"
>(image of Pacifica Lumber boss, or maybe Mark Hanna with a big cigar,
>looms large) but because industrial society is a series of compromises
>between economic, physical, and psychological welfare.  I seek no
>"neat little definitions" here.  Some pollution will occur.  If it is
>more than the environment can absorb, we're headed for
>ecological/environmental collapse.

Now you look to the government.  It isn't so important whether government,
responsible or not, tolerates pullution harm.  It is more important
that society does.  Industrial society may be a series of compromises
but is it permitted for a starving person to steal a loaf of bread?
The store-keeper may CHOOSE not to prosecute, or even to give the bread
away, but it is the store-keepers choice to make that sacrifice.  More
and more people (though still a small minority) are choosing to live
in a lifestyle that greatly reduces environmetal harm.  Their life
in polluted environments is analogous to a store-keeper being forced to
support starving people.  I am willing to accept certain levels of
pollution during a transtition to a cleaner economy BUT IT IS MY CHOICE
TO DO SO.  Noone has the right to demand this of me.  This acceptance
is a matter of both realsm and compassion to those whose livlihood
depends on destructive enterprise.  This willingness dries up quickly
when I am told that these conditions must be permanent.
>
>Nor does government devote all the citizens' resources to police
>protection, saving the store owner from any possibility of crime, but
>devouring economic welfare in the process (and, as I said, instituting
>a "police state" which would also destroy psychological, then physical
>welfare).  Some stores will be robbed.  If so many stores are robbed
>that old ones close and no new ones replace them, a city is heading
>for economic collapse.

This is as it should be.  I simply seek to close a major loophole in
regard to "harm", as the term is used by Libs.
>
>   Please explain to me what the fundamental difference is.
>
>Only that environmental collapse is much less likely to allow for a
>second chance.

Which is why preventive actions are desired.
>
>   Please explain how preventing property damage or personal injury in the
>   form of polution is "wiping their arses on the Bill of Rights".
>
>Criminalizing ordinary unavoidable behavior is giving to government
>powers which it should not have, even if those powers prevent a
>certain amount of property damage or injury.

It is ordinary and difficult (but not impossible) to avoid today, 
which is why I am against such laws now.  This comes
directly from my concept of not supporting a law until it has societal
acceptance.  Do you understand the concept, now?  As I said before, laws
cannot be used to modify human behavior (although it certainly has
been tried).
>--
>------------------------------------------------------------------------
>  Lee Story (lee@wang.com) Wang Laboratories, Inc.
>              (Merrimack Valley Paddlers)
>------------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 

		dingo in boulder	(dean@vexcel.com)