quote:
If no property is being damaged then we are wasting time talking about it. When it comes to externalities, which is what you were describing in your hypothetical, the issue is in fact property damage. Damaged crops, polluted river killing fish etc...

The regulations define damage. Should the upstream plant divert all water to their process, leaving none for downstream uses, nothing is damaged. You claim ownership of the water in your hypothetical, yet you don't actually mean owning the water, you mean owning access to freely flowing water. That's quite different. In order to maintain your right to freely flowing water, the flow of the water must be regulated.

You stated:

quote:
any time businesses are taxed and regulated less that is a good thing

And I replied:

quote:
That's just wrong.

I know it's fun to be trite, but it very rarely ever accurate.

But then you contradict yourself here by setting up a hypothetical pre-condition:

quote:
If everything is privately owned then I think it's fairly obvious that no particular regulation is necessary...

That's what I called dishonest. Everything is NOT privately owned.

If you want to set up hypothetical pre-conditions to support your position, may I suggest a slightly more tautological one, such as:

quote:
If I can imagine a universe where there are no good regulations, then there are no good regulations in that universe.

THAT would be unassailable.

The problem with your hypothetical pre-condition 'if everything is privately owned', is that it's about as likely as the socialist position of, 'if everything were publically owned'. They are both unlikely as they represent extreme hypothetical positions.

And generally, when I encounter absolute statements such as, "any time businesses are taxed and regulated less that is a good thing" my first response is to call bullshite. Absolutes are rarely (never?

) accurate.

You accused me of not even having apposition, when my position, if not clearly stated before, is that in our current state, with no unlikely, hypothetical, pre-conditions, there are some good regulations.

Your problem seems to lie more in the existing condition of publically held resources. Fair enough.

I'm not going to go too far into your lengthy response, as I do have actual work to accomplish before the weekend, but I think we have another irreconcilable disagreement:

quote:
when the state owns that property

I don't see the State as being separate from the People from whom the power to govern derives. WE are the State. So, in effect, it is not the State which owns anything, but the People who have ownership, and use the State to manage the resources held in common.

I also don't quite understand you here:

quote:
For instance, if the safe levels of fluoride in the water are 1ppm, but the EPA regulation states that the concentration must .5ppm, then that simple and arbitrary change in standards might exclude all but on manufacturer from producing this product, as they could potentially be the only players with the capability of meeting said standard.

First of all, it doesn't really make sense to me. If the product to be made is .5 ppm of flouride water, and a producer can make 1 ppm fluoride water, all they have to do is dilute the solution to achieve .5 ppm. Your example seems to be not one of discharging pollutants, but actually manufacturing a product. Secondly, standards are not arbitrary, they are based on scientific research. If you're talking about a process by-product, or some other waste product, such as polychlorinated biphenyls, it's not a factor of whether or not someone can produce PCBs in a low enough concentration, it's a matter of they're not being allowed to discharge it into the public commons. If PCBs are a by-product of your process, you simply must find an alternate way to dispose of them besides discharging into public waters, as they have been scientifically proven to be a hazard to human health.

But ultimately, you're right, I was wrong to call your statement trite, you've put far too much thought into it. However, since I believe your statement to be based on an unlikely, hypothetical ideal, I would call it idealistic, not trite.

But what you were wrong about was:

quote:
I don't want to go down some hypothetical...

Not only did you go down the hypothetical path, you even set up your own hypothetical condition.

But I'll admit to having picked up a live wire by taking your bait.