Read this Dr. Detroit

[Jsc810]

Hey warrentard, do you ever have a take that does not suck? All I've ever seen from you is mere name-calling, I have a 4 year old daughter that can do that.

[Ruff Dogg]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Smackie Chan:


Here's where we depart. In an unregulated, totally free capitalist system, the environment would be quickly and utterly raped. It's not that capitalists are evil, but the nature of capitalism is such that a buck will be made right now as long as there is nothing preventing it from being made; it's economic inertia. Capitalism is not what has improved the quality of the environment over the past few decades, but rather government regulation and enforcement. And the fact that it is better now than it was then is not sufficient reason to suppose that it's now OK and that environmental protection is somehow under control. While some improvements have been made, there are many that haven't but should be, and the only thing that'll keep the environment from returning to a state of degradation is eternal vigilance.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Hate to admit it, but I agree with Cuda. With free markets and the protection of property rights the environment will be better cared for. This is assuming that most people want a clean environment.

If people value a clean enviroment and the current condition is undesirable, then the economic value to change it would create an incentive for someone to own it and clean it up.

[Cuda]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Smackie Chan:


Here's where we depart. In an unregulated, totally free capitalist system, the environment would be quickly and utterly raped. It's not that capitalists are evil, but the nature of capitalism is such that a buck will be made right now as long as there is nothing preventing it from being made; it's economic inertia.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Schmokie, much the same can be said for the various "Workers Paradises" of the world, except that a buck will be made right now because 1) so many bucks are required to keep a socialist system from collapsing under it's own weight, and 2) rights come from the state and since the needs of the state take priority, nothing can be ALLOWED to prevent the making of bucks the state so desperately needs.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> Capitalism is not what has improved the quality of the environment over the past few decades, but rather government regulation and enforcement.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Then you ARE arguing that "Workers Paradises" are environmental paradises after all.

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> And the fact that it is better now than it was then is not sufficient reason to suppose that it's now OK and that environmental protection is somehow under control. While some improvements have been made, there are many that haven't but should be</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Improvements, such as...?

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">, and the only thing that'll keep the environment from returning to a state of degradation is eternal vigilance.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny, when people use the phrase "eternal vigilance" in the context of preserving liberty and freedom, they're called "extremists" and "Wackos"

[XXL]

As well, I never disagreed with the general economic theory that you posted. The prbolem I had was your "panacea" approach to recessionary conditions.

Yeah, sure looks like you kicked my ass.

Admission by Party-Opponent: Traditionally at common law, an admission by a party opponent was an exception to the hearsay rule. An admission by a party opponent is not hearsay at all under FRE 801(d)(2). Let the record reflect the admissions supra of Dr. Detroit in the thread at hand.

How about them apples?

[Cuda]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Jsc810:

Oh allright damnit, I'll bite.

How can there be a general rule that programs are unconstitutional when there is a presumption that all laws and governmental actions are constitutional?</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>


Because it's MY general rule, and I make no such presumption.

Is there some strange, irrational reason why, in the face of all evidence to the contrary I should ?

[mvscal]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">Originally posted by Jsc810:

How can there be a general rule that programs are unconstitutional when there is a presumption that all laws and governmental actions are constitutional?</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>


You know better than that.

[Uncle Fester]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">What was said earlier is true. We capitalistic societies have done a far better job ecologically than the various workers paradises throughout the world. Mainly because our highly efficient capitalistic economy can afford to take care of the environment.</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

I remember reading a deposition taken from the head of a chemical company in Texas. He told the lawyer that in the "good old days," his plant simply pumped all of its waste products into the ocean via Galveston Bay. The lawyer asked what environmental laws applied at that time (1920s-40s) and the guy said "None. We didn't have all these rules and regulations. It was the free market at its best."

Government regulation was the impetus behind a cleaner environment in this country. Period. Read the history books if you think otherwise.