A Smog Hypothesis

tito · 12-05-2008, 10:17 AM

Quote:

That's a bit of a Robin Hood argument though. You could argue that robbing some rich fat ******* and giving his money to 30 families has a net benefit. It is still morally wrong though and will lead us all to hell. What is perfect anyway? I don't expect perfection, but I do expect the right to breath without choking. Actual, proveable physical harm has to be dealt with by the rule of law.

Driving a car physically harms others. So does killing a pot plant

Though the courts can and should be used for the more extreme cases.

Quote:

Then I would support suggested measures. My beef is than NONE of those issues have been proven. Indeed, there is utter ********, assumption and dismisal of debate which means it is more likely to be fascists trying to get their own way, rather than any real concern for the environment.

My beef is with the pure evil that drives environmentalists, hatred of man.

mkpdavies · 12-05-2008, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Though the courts can and should be used for the more extreme cases.

I would suggest that Smog was one of those cases.

The way I see it is freedom should be at the core of everything.

Before you can touch freedom, you should have to break through a number of shells, that question why you want to affect that freedom.

If you bust through all of those shells, then you have to go to democracy (real democracy, not the fake **** we have now), to decide the best way to go.

Clippo · 15-05-2008, 07:37 AM

Tito wrote:-

Quote:

The London smog, should it have been cleaned up by decree and legislation?

On the assumtion that it was desirable to deal with the smog problem, what other way would you suggest it could have been dealt with ?

Ea of Dune · 15-05-2008, 03:17 PM

With regards to the asbestos issue. Things like that I think should be ruled on by the courts when presented with correct scientific information.
Whilst a company might be free to use asbestos in their walls, if they don't tell their employees and these people end up ill because of it, I think that's criminally wrong as well as morally wrong.
You could say, well a company should be free to make their building out of asbestos but they have to put signs up saying 'We use asbestos blah blah" but this seems just plain silly to me.

Ea of dune

mkpdavies · 15-05-2008, 08:36 PM

Quote:

You could say, well a company should be free to make their building out of asbestos but they have to put signs up saying 'We use asbestos blah blah" but this seems just plain silly to me.

Why?

...

Ea of Dune · 15-05-2008, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Why?

...

Why would you want to build a building that would poison your workforce and yourself, that's if you could actually get anyone to work in it?
Unless your idea of a profitible business is chocolate fire guards?

Unless of course we are talking in the context of a Libetarian society and people are permitted to build an office out of plutonium or whatever they want as long as they advertise it?

Ea of dune

mkpdavies · 16-05-2008, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Why would you want to build a building that would poison your workforce and yourself, that's if you could actually get anyone to work in it?

If you can't hide the fact, then there is none. Which is why you don't need to stop them from doing it, they will stop themselves. If they do make it and tell people the risk, then it is up to people whether they take the chance or not.

Quote:

Unless your idea of a profitible business is chocolate fire guards?

Weird comment. Not sure what it has to do with the price of fish.

Quote:

Unless of course we are talking in the context of a Libetarian society and people are permitted to build an office out of plutonium or whatever they want as long as they advertise it?

Not sure about plutonium, unless they agree to buy all the sounding area too,

Ea of Dune · 16-05-2008, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Weird comment. Not sure what it has to do with the price of fish.

I was suggesting the only kind of people who would build an office that poisoned their staff on purpose, are also the sort of people who would probably think a choccie fire guard is a good business plan

Ea of dune

tito · 16-05-2008, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Clippo

Tito wrote:-

On the assumtion that it was desirable to deal with the smog problem, what other way would you suggest it could have been dealt with ?

With the exception of direct physical harm provable in court and compensated, not at all.

Dr. Yaron Brook on the matter

YouTube - Yaron Brook on Capitalism, Question 3 -...

Westcountryman · 16-05-2008, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tito

With the exception of direct physical harm provable in court and compensated, not at all.

Dr. Yaron Brook on the matter

YouTube - Yaron Brook on Capitalism, Question 3 - Ayn Rand Institute

It impacts on quality of life, wildlife and the environment, therefore it should be dealt with. The same for pollution of rivers, the countryside etc.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

15-05-2008, 03:17 PM	#14 (permalink)
Ea of Dune Senior Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Hell Posts: 1,049	With regards to the asbestos issue. Things like that I think should be ruled on by the courts when presented with correct scientific information. Whilst a company might be free to use asbestos in their walls, if they don't tell their employees and these people end up ill because of it, I think that's criminally wrong as well as morally wrong. You could say, well a company should be free to make their building out of asbestos but they have to put signs up saying 'We use asbestos blah blah" but this seems just plain silly to me. Ea of dune