Two Political Questions...

[Wandering Monk]

No.
No.
Germany.

(In an ideal world my neighbour would never even think of polluting his and my air and water.
In an ideal government with less ideal people the answers would be "Yes", of course.)

Problem is, sometimes the pollution is unknown or not obvious at first.

 

[Heyo]

Problem is, sometimes the pollution is unknown or not obvious at first.

Yes, but then neither I nor the government would want to have a say.
And when it becomes apparent, an ideal neighbour would discuss ways to reduce pollution

 

[Revoltingest]

I just did.

I missed it.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

1) In an ideal world, do you believe you should have a say in whether or not your neighbor can pollute your air and drinking water?

2) In an ideal world, would you want and accept government intervention to stop your neighbor from polluting your air and drinking water (assuming your neighbor were doing it)?

EXTRA CREDIT QUESTION: In what nation or jurisdiction do you live?

Unequivocal yes to both questions -- and I live in Canada, where we are accustomed to living with laws that do regulate some of the things that we must not do -- and even a few that we must.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Yes.

Yes - although I’m open to a healthy debate over “smart” regulation of air and water pollution. Smoke from a barbecue or some runoff from washing the car might be okay. It just shouldn’t be a no-limit free-for-all to pump anything into the air and water, in any amount.

USA - the great state of Texas.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Affirmative.
Affirmative.
Earth.

About the answers:
Generality: Ideal & otherwise.
Basis: Libertarian

Careful! That second "yes" may cause friction with your stated political stance. And you appear to be getting more and more Canadian by the moment -- this is a concern to both of us, I think.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

By the way: remember acid rain? Remember smog? Those are still huge problems in the US. But we have reduced and mitigated those problems with a cap-and-trade program on sulfur emissions.

Coal and petrochemical plants, and other emitters, were required to reduce sulfur emissions gradually, over time. Plants that reduce emissions beyond what is required generate sulfur credits. Plants that cannot reduce their emissions have to purchase sulfur credits to make up the difference and remain in compliance.

Guess what? This cap and trade system has been pretty successful. Sulfur emissions have been meaningfully reduced over many years. The government effectively created a “price on sulfur” and gave capitalism time to invest, innovate and adapt to that price without creating an undue burden on consumers.

The city of Houston, which certainly has air quality issues, nevertheless has a lot of blue sky considering it’s the fourth largest city in the US. I am told the smog was much worse decades ago when emissions standards in the petrochemical industry were more lax.

And remember the hole in the ozone layer? It’s starting to heal, because of the Montreal Protocol, in which virtually every country on the planet agreed to drastically cut their ozone-depleting emissions. Not instantly. Not without work. But they set targets over time. And it’s working.

People who think we can’t solve these problems don’t understand the power of free market competition and innovation, in my opinion.

People who think government shouldn’t set regulations and that unguided free markets will do the right thing for the environment on their own, don’t understand the limitations of capitalism, in my opinion.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Yes.

Yes.

Detroit area, Michigan, in the U.S.

Oh, hell, you're like what, an hour from Canada? Take the last step, man!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Humans can't exist without polluting. Humans create waste. So fantasy world.
Sure the ideal world would be a world where humans don't create waste. Problem solved.

Nothing living can exist without creating waste.

The question then devolves into what is the nature of the waste you produce, and can it be utilized by some other entity, resulting in a stable ecosystem.

The answer to that, for a lot of waste, is yes. It's just our human, technological waste that fails that test. And that's up to us to deal with.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

How about we turn the questions around.

1) In an ideal world, do you believe you should be able to pollute your neighbor's air and drinking water for your own gain?

2) In an ideal world, would you want and accept government intervention to stop you from polluting your neighbor's air and drinking water (assuming you were doing it)?

#1: Yes, but only if the pollution for my neighbor is small and the benefit to me is large. Like, for example, a campfire. Otherwise, no.

#2: Yes, assuming I get a vote in said government process / decisions and am equally protected as my neighbor.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

"The questions are straight forward and to the point."

"ideal world" = imaginary world
"a say" = telling your neighbor he's a bad person? punching your neighbor in the face? forcing him to wait until you get there so that you can pollute together? voting on a law of questionable specificity? Burning his house down and killing his cat?
"your air and drinking water" = not "your" air and drinking water
"your neighbor" = my neighbor? another country? an imaginary ideal neighbor
"pollute" = fails to specify how or in what way or for what reason.... campfire with their kids? pooping on your lawn? Deliberate massive CO2 emission?
"government intervention" = legislation? police home invasion? military control? fines? jail time? lobotomy?

I think I have to say in the most straight and to the point way possible... Probably Yes and Probably No.
"Hey neighbor... could you not poop on my lawn?"
Ideal World "Sure friend, no worries."
Ideal Government: "Yeah, that seems about right."

I think by government intervention, Sunstone meant lobotomy.

That’s clearly the most sensible interpretation of what he likely meant, so let’s just assume that so we can get to the inevitable fearful rant against Big Brother.

 

[Revoltingest]

Careful! That second "yes" may cause friction with your stated political stance. And you appear to be getting more and more Canadian by the moment -- this is a concern to both of us, I think.

Libertarianism is about one's right to swing one's arms
ending at one's neighbor's nose.
Anti-libertarians (liberals) will characterize us mischievously,
but they're just jealous cuz we're pretty.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Libertarianism is about one's right to swing one's arms
ending at one's neighbor's nose.
Anti-libertarians (liberals) will characterize us mischievously,
but they're just jealous cuz we're pretty.

Oh, please! Compare our avatars!

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh, please! Compare our avatars!

Exactly!

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Exactly!

Just beware of my familiar -- if she doesn't like you, it might be best you hide for a bit. (The baby in my lap is my half-brother -- can you believe I still have this photo after all I've told you?)

Oh, and these are really all me.

 

[metis]

Oh, hell, you're like what, an hour from Canada? Take the last step, man!

Make that 20 minutes, and my wife & I almost moved to Windsor back in the early 70's. Up until covid hit, we would go there at least every other month, and the Italian Festival there was so much fun as my wife was borne and raised in Italy.

 

[Ponder This]

I think by government intervention, Sunstone meant lobotomy.

That’s clearly the most sensible interpretation of what he likely meant, so let’s just assume that so we can get to the inevitable fearful rant against Big Brother.

I rest my case, even a straight-forward explanation will be found wanting...

 

[SonOfElElyon]

I shouldn't have a say in my neighbor polluting and the government shouldn't get involved. For the bonus question, we're under admiral maritime jurisdiction.