re: corporate welfare vs socialism

quote:

---

You did, you just didn't tell me you'd be dishonest:

---

quote:

---

You didn't ask how they worked, you asked for an example of how one could work.

---

No, I specifically asked for an example of a regulation and how it works. You failed to produce both. You simply stated that certain things are regulated and that they could work. I already know that you believe they work. This is simple, you said they work, i asked for proof, you failed to produce it.

It's actually very simple for you to go online and find a regulation and show me how it works to achieve its purpose. You didn't do that.

quote:

---

Pollutant discharge limits are regulated.

If one plant is discharging an herbicide into a stream, and a farmer pulls water from the stream to irrigate his crops, he will suffer losses. Many streams, lake and reservoirs are public drinking water supplies.

Regulations attempt to keep water safe to drink.

---

I in no way misrepresented your argument. From the top: you provided a generalized hypothetical regulation, a vignette concerning an externality that only exists because of a government regulation, then you say that regulations "attempt" to stop this.

My quote:

quote:

---

1. Please include the specific regulation. I will not just assume that the regulation actually fulfills its purpose in either A. protecting the river or environment or B. protects other businesses from externalities. You are arguing those points, so prove it.

---

So I see that there is no specific regulation, nor any attempt at all to explain how an actual regulation of your choosing works to achieve the stated goal. I see you have done none of the things highlighted in bold. So one can only assume that you are creating a hypothetical in which there are only two possibilities 1. There are no regulations and people are free to destroy property as much as they want or 2. There are regulations that will actually prevent number 1. This is the exact discourse I said I would not engage in.

Again, it is your contention that regulations are necessary to protect against externalities. There are a lot of great arguments to support your case. Many people I respect greatly believe the same as you believe. To be clear though, they actually provide arguments to support their case. You have not.

quote:

---

You didn't ask how they worked, you asked for an example of how one could work.

---

1. Please include the specific regulation. I will not just assume that the regulation actually fulfills its purpose in either A. protecting the river or environment or B. protects other businesses from externalities. You are arguing those points, so prove it.

quote:

---

Sorry, I didn't mean to invade your personal space.

---

Ok, that was a good one.

quote:

---

Much of the surface water in the US in held in public trust. That's how it is now. That's not a regulation, that's based in common law.

---

So now we are parsing the difference between laws and regulation?

quote:

---

Oh, I see, you think regulations aren't laws.

---

Is this a "regulations are all law, but not all laws are regulation"?

quote:

---

Suppose all waters were held privately, don't you think there would be laws protecting owners of the water? These would actually be in the form of regulations. Public commons is not necessary for my position. I'm sorry you are just so blind and closed minded that all you have is attempted ridicule.

---

If everything is privately owned then I think it's fairly obvious that no particular regulation is necessary, as any violation of another person's property rights can be adjudicated based on the particular circumstances of that case. You are again missing one of the strongest arguments to support your position. A better argument on would be this:

"Private owners of what are now considered public properties would quickly devolve into monopolies over said properties. This implies these properties should be controlled and regulated by the state to prevent monopolies and increase access to vital resources."

Of course that argument is also rather weak, but it is much more sound than assuming we need specific regulations concerning property damage claims.

quote:

---

What you extreme Libertarians don't realize is how much you come across like Utopian Socialists. NEWSFLASH: You'll never get to your Utopia, try to deal with the real world. Also, berating people will never win them over to see your position, and without any support, your just farting in the wind.

---

Just pathetic. This is at least the second time you have misconstrued my position. Again, I expect this as you have not actually formed a position at all. I remind you that you are the one accusing me of being trite, yet have not provided any footholds for any meaningful discussion. I will also remind you that I warned you not to engage in this conversation because we would never agree.