From: brown@sunspot.noao.edu (Todd Brown)
Subject: Re: Libertarian Party (RE: Al and Tipper Gore)
Organization: National Solar Observatory/SP, Sunspot NM, USA
Date: Wed, 7 Oct 92 23:43:59 GMT

In article <1992Oct7.221748.2680@udel.edu> gallo@almira.asel.udel.edu (Andy Gallo) writes:
>
>
>	To me, the Libertarian platform has no respect for
>environmental concerns.  Essentially they want to repeal all the laws

Where do you get this idea, there is no mention of repealing
enviromental laws, except if you mean eliminating the acceptable
limits of pollution concept, there are no acceptable limits of
pollution. Pollution is pollution.

>and then let we the citizens fight the multi-national corporations in
>the courts when our kids are born with 2 heads.  Joe Citizen, who is
>hardly able to make the mortgage payment each month, doesn't have the
>cash needed to take these guys on in a long protracted battle.  

Do you see the current parties in control doing this for Joe Citizen,
I do not, and if they do who get the fines or penalities levied on the
polluters Joe Citizen, no the EPA.


In
>addition, the Libertarian position is "reactive" instead of
>"proactive" 

First what the hell is proactive, to be for activity? And there is
nothing wrong with being "reactive or reactionary" this is how change
is accomlpished.

- let the companies dump and then sue them for doing it
>instead of preventing them from dumping in the first place (nobody is
>going to win a suit where the plaintiff claims the company is
>harboring "intention to dump").

So who's stopping them from dumping now? Do you think the current
government is stopping toxic dumping better read around. Of course
there are alot of legal ways to dump these days, you can find so land
in far west Texas or in New Mexico and haul it out here and dump your
shit and never have to worry about it, I say keep it in your own back
yard, we got enough shit of our own.


>	The problem with the situation as it exists now is that any
>environmental legistlation that is enacted has sufficient loopholes
>for corporations (thanks to the lobbies and the lawyers) so that the
>laws are hollow anyway.  But if the company follows the letter of
>these laws, the citizen has no leg to stand on in a suit.  Statements
>like "people can't do it, only governments can" is valid only if the
>government is working in the best interests of the people, which it is
>clearly not doing.  The Libertarian would say, perhaps correctly, that
>since government is already in the hands of business, let's restrict
>the powers of the government, so that business therefore has less
>power, and then free up the people to fight back in the courts.  In
>theory it sounds nice, but as some people have suggested, in practice
>its scary.

You've just stated many of the ideas of the party you are trying to
put down.

Libertarians want to limit the power of government and get government
out of our personal business. And to get government out of business,
whats the problem here, you don't like living your own life or do you
perfer the government taking care of everything so you needn't have
worry about anything.

It's scary being responsible for yourself and what you do?

>	To me, the only way to protect the environment, and "take back
>America" in general, is to get government out of the hands of big
>business.  We can start by eliminating PAC's, enacting campaign reform
>(Brown's $100 max contribution idea is a good place to start), and
>returning to the original intention of the Constitution, which is
>government by the people for the people.
>

Which is exactly what The Libertarian Platform purposes.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<|>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 
>TODD|-ODD-|:-)                   |         Nothing Left To Do But  <
>brown@sunspot.sunspot.noao.edu  /|\             :-) :-) :-)        <
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>/ | \<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<