From: bruce@godzilla.swdc.stratus.com (Bruce Overby)
Newsgroups: ca.politics,ca.environment
Subject: Re: "Ecofascists" In Action
Keywords: Pollution, Volunteerism, Environment
Date: 9 Sep 92 17:29:22 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc., San Jose, CA

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):
>
>: In article <z!bnlta.phil@netcom.com> phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) writes:
>
>:> I think you are missing the major point. The problem is the lack of
>:> ownership of ALL land -- the so-called "public" land is really
>:> (effectively) unowned. There is nobody to take a proprietary interest,
>:> and nobody to be held responsible for problemns with it.
>
>: To respond to this point, let's return to the original post
>: on BayKeeper:
>
>:>- A BayKeeper patrol spotted a San Francisco shipyard
>:> discharging toxic paint and sandblasting wastes into the bay.
>:> Water samples taken by volunteers indicated heavy-metals
>:> levels hazardous to fish. The San Francisco Bay Regional
>:> Water Quality Control Board forced the yard to spend several
>:> hundred thousand dollars to eliminate its pollution.
>
>: 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. You've got to admit, Phil, that at least in this
>: specific circumstance, *the system worked*.
>
>Query:
>
>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.

>My point being that, how are we to know that in this instance, the
>"watchdogs" were "right?"  At least under a private property model, 99.9%
>of the population agree as to what's right and wrong (even tho they may
>not always act that way).
>

The answer is, 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? Well, we'd
have to look into it, right? We'd have to go to some office that has
some piece of paper, etc.

>We can always find one or two examples where "the system" happens to
>"work," even despite itself, no matter what "the system" happens to be.
>this question leads to the next question ...  can it work *_in_general?_* 
>How much work are the volunteers of BayKeeper willing or able to do?
>

Well, it's a little bigger than that, isn't it? I mean, the question
more accurately put would be, How much are people willing to pay out
in taxes? BayKeeper exists only because, according to the article,
public agencies are underfunded. I would say people *_in general_*
(Alvin Sylvain obviously excepted) have been willing to pay out quite
a bit. If they don't think the money is being wisely spent, then they`ve
got to look into it, right?

>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.

>Just questions.
>

I'm not sure my contributions would qualify as "answers." But I'm
sure you'll let me know. :-)

-------------------------------------------------
Bruce Overby
Stratus Computer, Inc.
San Jose, CA


"Get at dem beans!"  -- Hoss Cartwright

My opinions may not reflect those of my employer.
--------------------------------------------------

Xref: sparky ca.politics:7638 talk.politics.misc:44848