Constitution) and plenty of historical data(most written by the authors
themselves) that show what "freedom" in this country really mean. The
EPA has been empowered to terrorize citizens into following their own
radical environmental agenda. Remember, we didn't elect the EPA.
Thankfully, it seems that some "repeal and rescind" actions are in the
works to restrict this agency.
I WRITE:
We elected our representatives who appointed as our agents the
responsibility to protect our environment just as we appoint
people to protect our security. I'll repeat, it wasn't the EPA
that created the mess in Silver Valley. Sometimes markets just
can't work the way you learn it in a simple text book.
> Andy we are all in favor of "free
countries", the issue is where the
> right of your "fist" ends and the right of my face begins.
Andy Wrote:
You are exactly correct. I'm tired of the gov'ts fist in my face.
I write:
Perhaps people got tired of you dumping your waste products into
their face.
ANDY WROTE:
> That kind of
> rhetorical extremism is just not constructive.
At some point we all must take a stand. I refuse to be the frog boiled
because the "rate of change" of the temperature was so small.
I WRITE:
I don't think you got the idea yet. As long as you cannot look for
constructive dialogue, you WILL be the "frog boiled" or people will
simply use the delete button. The right wing militias have their own
bulletin board with plenty of "temperature". Personnally I see that
as a waste of time. We live in a pluralistic country so we have
to find consensus and compromise.
ANDY writes:
much of the "debatable" ground has been lost and we are
finally to the point where people are saying "enough is enough" and
digging in. When environmental groups "sued and legislated" their way
into public policy much of the goodwill was lost. Besides we have lost
the common goal in what should be "constructive". Constructive to
environmentalism is to worship kangaroo rats and snail darters and having
us all live in hovels without electricity and cars and live off of
berries and herbs. Constructive for me is having a "cost/benefit"
analysis to all environmental issues.
I write:
Of course enironmentalists don't "worship snail darters and want us to
live in hovels" That is obvious to anybody that can read or listen to
them. There are extremists on all sides of any issue and they can
usually be identified as the ones that are most involved in name
calling and insulting. Your rhetoric is really no different than
the extremists on the other side. As far as cost/benefit analysis
is concerned, it is no where near a final word on public goods unless
you ignore thirty years of economic research on the subject.
ANDY WRITES:
But many don't care whether there are logical reasons why people should
have freedoms. They tend to focus on their own selfish ideas about what
they think others should do. Would I appreciate the traffic that a new
development would bring? No. Would I apprecate the fact that some nice
foreground for Moscow mountain would be lost? No. But I am willing to
allow others freedom because I believe in the concept of private property
as fundamental. I will restrain my selfish desires and tolerate the
actions of others because I value *freedom*. The reason? Because the
stick can always strike the opposite direction once the threshold is
breached.
I Write:
People always tend to focus on their own selfish ideas about what
others should do. Those that pollute the environment are in effect
telling others that they should be dealing with the waste not
themselves. Unrestricted rights to do what you want with the land
requires that the landowners restrict themselves and voluntarily
curb their own actvities when it effects the public good. This very e
rarely happens in our system of private property rights. So the issue
of what restrictions is society to impose is legitemate and
constitutional. Do I think some nice foreground in Moscow Mountain is
legitemate? No. Do I think pollution of my neighbors water supply is
legitimate? Yes. Others may dissagree with both. WRTo to cameron farms
and zoning Andy has written that zoning should be based on the
community values and costs to the tax payers. Perhaps we should discuss
what community values are appropriate and what costs.