spoke-:
Forgive me for my misunderstanding. I thought in a debate you provided evidence for your conclusions and offered cites to support your claims. Maybe I can learn better debating from you.
spoke-: Pollution control is one of the many areas where libertarianism fails.
First glance, I would say this was an unsupported conlusion. No, wait…there are some premises afterwards:
spoke-: First, you’re assuming that the populace will be informed.
I guess this is a premise. Unfortunately, it is also an unsupported conclusion.
spoke-: Without government inspections, companies can simply keep their pollution out of the public eye.
An irrelevant statement. Do you have some reason to believe that libertarianism prohibits inspections?
spoke-: Furthermore, what happens when a company simply goes out of business, and leaves pollution behind? (E.g., buried toxic waste.) Who cleans up then?
And the second premise is…a question.
So far, we’ve got two unsupported conclusions, one irrelevant statement, and a question. Obviously, you were debating up a storm before I got involved. Having seen this, and not wishing to completely hijack the thread, I offered you some evidence of how libertarian thought addresses environmental pollution. The sites I linked are articles from Reason Magazine, which is a well-respected monthly publication for libertarian thought. You have to pay to receive this magazine. The articles are not tracts. Had you bothered to even glance at them, you would know this.
Instead, you decided to show off your debating skills:
spoke-: Hey smartass! Quit handing out libertarian tracts and bring your own thoughts to the discussion.
Ah, yes, a classic technique of refutation: Imply that your opponenet is not able to think. So, now we have one personal attack.
spoke-: How do you think libertarianism can address environmental issues. (Hint: It can’t.)
Had you looked at the articles I linked, you would now know how. Obviously, you didn’t, but you were good enough to throw in another unsupported conclusion. In an effort to give you a chance to debate something, and having already provided the how, I offered the why:
Smartass: Those things like clean air and water and other open-access commons are things we all have equal rights to. Of course it can. The purpose of libertarian thinking is to protect individual rights.
So, I have now offered that libertarianism has proposed methods for dealing with environmental pollution, and explained the philosophical basis for believing that a libertarian government would have authority to act.
Did you refute anything that I have offered? No. Did you offer anything in support of your previously unsupported conclusions? No again. Instead, you offered this demonstration of debating skill:
spoke-: The purpose of this board is not to pass tracts back and forth. It is to debate.
Irrelevant statements.
spoke-: In an earlier post, I gave my own reasons (not taken from any tract) for believing that a libertarian approach to pollution control will not effectively address the problem.
Snuck in another personal jab I see. In an earlier post, you gave two unsupported conclusions, one irrelevant statement, and a question. Maybe you would be able to argue better if you got hold of some tracts.
spoke-: What are your thoughts? How do you respond to the points I have raised?
So far, you haven’t really raised any. I’ve seen more personal attacks than points. Should I be checking the Pit for your reasoned arguments?
Maybe I’ve made this too complicated for you by answering your charges without directly addressing the monument to reasoned argument you’ve constructed. I’ll try again.
spoke-: Pollution control is one of the many areas where libertarianism fails.
This is simply not true. In fact, libertarian ideas are currently being put into use in several areas. As evidence, I ask again that you check out the articles I linked. Because I know this may be difficult for you, I will give a short synopsis. Libertarians prefer market based solutions. Therefore, a libertarian approach to pollution control would as follows: “An overall level of acceptable pollution is set, a market is created through tradeable permits, and then the firms are allowed to pursue various means to reach the goal.”
This technique has actually been tried with great success: “In the U.S., for instance, sulfur dioxide emissions have been cut much faster and at less cost since the creation of a (very imperfect) market for such emissions”
spoke-: First, you’re assuming that the populace will be informed.
This is also simply untrue. Libertarian solutions do not require that the populace be “informed”.
spoke-: Without government inspections, companies can simply keep their pollution out of the public eye.
This statement may be true, but it is irrelevant. Libertarianism does not preclude government checks that companies are complying with the pollution levels they have obtained permits for.
spoke-: Furthermore, what happens when a company simply goes out of business, and leaves pollution behind? (E.g., buried toxic waste.)
Your question is too nonspecific. If the buried waste is on private lands, then it is the landowners decision what, if anything, should be done. You do understand, I assume, that toxic waste must go somewhere. If it is removed from this site, it will have to be taken somewhere else.
If the buried toxic waste is on public land, then the answer is more complicated. Since libertarians are against government ownership of land, this is a situation that should not have occurred. Chances are that libertarians would recommend selling the land to private owners, who would then choose to renovate the site or continue to use it as a waste dump. You do realize, I hope, that a large amount of buried toxic waste is, in fact, on public land?
Now, as I see it, you have several options:
[list=1][li]Launch more personal attacks against me.[/li][li]Make some more unsupported assertions about libertariansim in general.[/li][li]Ignore this post and go attack someone in another thread.[/li][li]Concede that you made statements that you are unable to support.[/li][li]Either refute that the answers I have provided or refute that they are libertarian.[/list=1][/li]I recommend one of the last two, unless you are just hell-bent on convincing everyone who reads this thread that you are an idiot.
-VM
