How Dirty Laws Trash The Environment | Learn Liberty

How Dirty Laws Trash The Environment | Learn Liberty


39 Comments on "How Dirty Laws Trash The Environment | Learn Liberty"


  1. Government is the biggest polluter so if we want to save the environment what we need is clearly more government. That is how dumb librels sound.

    To all the neocons that feel the need to deny climate change in order to defend your ideology please just stop because for once your ideology is on the side of reality and you're to stupid to tell.

    Reply

  2. What Learn Liberty always fails to understand is the concept of "might makes right".
    While government will always lessen competition through regulation, the court system will side with money and power at least as often.
    That farmer would need to be pretty rich today to even consider successfully suing the multi national corp that owns the mill.

    Reply

  3. The problem with relying on the common law to deal with pollution is when there are a large number of pollutes and a large number of victims, where it is hard to identify which individuals are most responsible for harming which individuals yet still clear that significant harm is being done in aggregate. In those cases it makes sense to levy a tax on the amount of pollution released and use the tax to pay dividends to all residents of the area effected.

    Reply

  4. Nice propaganda bit, too bad that justice system today is so inherently broken that a Farmer would never have enough capital to actually sue a company polluting his waters. This is how it would go.

    Farmer: "Hey Corporation X I sue you for polluting the water that I give to my cows"
    Corporation: "Okay sure, are you ready to battle in the court for the next 10 years before a single verdict is passed?"
    Farmer: "Let me get my shotgun and get those animals out of their misery"

    Reply

  5. If you do not already have a problem you will by the time the government finishes with you.

    Reply

  6. i think we may need to change how courts/lawsiuts operate so that people with more wealth have less/no atvantage over people with less wealth. i don't have any ideas but it's worth considering. another thing that would help is a private nfp organization to provide money/free legal services to people who have had their proporty damaged by untoward business practices.

    Reply

  7. The EPA was NEVER about protecting tbe environment! It's like the mafia, forcing companies, corporations, and people to pay "protection" money to them. It's about money and power just like ALL big govt acronyms.

    Reply

  8. This is under the assumption that judges cannot be corrupted. Perhaps there is some corruption within government agencies as well. So you have to address the corruption

    The fact of the matter is that not everyone has the time and resources to go out and litigate every time they have been wronged. That could be chaotic especially with judges that are corrupt. They almost never follow precedent regardless, hence more laws. And this is from the people who brought you the idea of tort reform.

    If someone is destroying or tainting someone else's property or natural resources, there most certainly should be criminal consequences to set an example.

    Reply

  9. Are you freaking kidding me? So, the only way that anything involving the environment can be protected is if there is some way for me, or some other citizen, has the resources and ability and initiative to sue? 

    Who would I sue for carbon emissions? Who do I sue for causing acid rain? For making inefficient cars? For polluting my city and giving me asthma? If we want change across the board, we need regulation. 

    Reply

  10. The EPA, for an agency, has way too much power and authority. The EPA should be abolished because it's burdening way too many people. The points made in this video further highlights the EPA overreach of its mandate.

    Reply

  11. To bad even with common law the courts are about money and not laws, I can't pay a team of lawyers to defend my land any more than I can get the EPA to pay for spilled milk. The EPA and the clean water act do on the other hand make criminal prosecution possible with the most powerful companies with the team a lawyers, because the EPA has the most powerful legislation at its disposal. The clean water act and the endangered species act make it possible for the EPA to manage all sorts of polluting companies, instead of suing every single one in a civil or common court where the one who wins is always the one with more money,(I don't have more money than Chevron who with out the EPAs intervention would constantly get away with dumping fracking chemicals into the Colorado River, You know how I know things would get worse with out the EPA? Because these companies do it even with paying the fines and court settlements..

    Reply

  12. As usual, my only criticism of this Learn Liberty video is that it does not go far enough. Yes, abolish the EPA, but also abolish the government courts, where people who have suffered legitimate harm have to grovel before black-robed deities and then wait months or years for a remedy. Private courts would be forced to make a choice: either deliver swift, fair and courteous judgements or go out of business.

    Reply

  13. https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

    So instead of having a mandatory set standard for pollution it'd be up to the whim of whatever local judge? terrifying.

    Also wouldn't the burden of proof for proving that the pollution is harmful up to the small farmer? and wouldn't he have to pay for tests to prove that? 

    Reply

  14. Hold on.

    You are claiming an equivalency between the two scenarios that isn't there.

    The first case is a person suing because there were no regulation governing the pollution.  The farmer was able to show damages.

    In the second case, there were regulations in place and the farmer was unable to show damages.  That is why he had to go to the EPA instead of the courts.

    Reply

  15. The paper mill anecdote is nice and that is how the system should work in theory, but nowadays it's just too arduous and expensive to sue a large profit motivated entity with a legal team the size of an NFL roster. No way a single person can successfully sue a large company over environmental damages unless it's actually killed people in the process. See Erin Brockovich

    Reply

  16. the government strikes again.
    it is interesting how the truth tends to just sound more reasonable. i haven't fact checked this, but i am confident when i do it will either be right on the money, or quite close.

    Reply

  17. Wow, great one!  You Learn Liberty folks are making great videos!  I hope you are doing an equally good job of getting social studies teachers to show them, or their students to use them in presentations, or getting these videos watched by middle of the road centrist voters!  (We fiscal conservatives and libertarians love 'em, but that changes nothing, and the far left liberal/socialists won't be changed by anything rational, so the target should be middle-of-the-political-spectrum…)

    Reply

  18. This is what happens when the government gets over bloated (as it is now) and tries to control everything.

    Reply

  19. Another point to mention is that of all organizations, the organization that is responsible for the most pollution is the government.  The Dept. of Energy and the Dept. of Defense have more total uncleaned-up dump sites (as measured in the dollars required to clean them up) than of all other polluted sites put together.  Think of the Tri-Cities nuclear area in southern WA state…  Think of all the depleted uranium shells at all of the bomb training sites in the West…  It dwarfs anything created by industry.  And people want to trust the environment to govt agencies?  That's like trusting politicians not to break promises.

    Reply

  20. Their depiction of the EPA is a little unfair.  They set a quota of acceptable levels of pollution that shouldn't be surpassed, and companies must pay for the right to pollute within the bounds of the quota.  What the video fails to address is that maybe the quota isn't always set at the correct level, not that the quota isn't inherently bad.  Imagine if there weren't a quota and it was simply any level of pollution.  Clearly that would far more damaging to business than the costs associated with maintaining compliance with EPA regulation.  Not saying the EPA is perfect, but to take attack it on that issue seems short-sighted.

    Reply

  21. Well yea… because the Bush Admin along with the Conservative Republicans, gutted all the real rules! They did it to protect their energy tycoon friends!

    Reply

  22. This nonsense the EPA is a viable program needed to battle off those who want the blatantly pollute our land and air. The fight that this farmer needs to have is with the real enemy corporations who patent the genetics in the seeds and polluters who have no desire to protect the planet but to protect their wallets. Stop with your ignorance the EPA wont destroy your land climate change will, meaning the oil companies. Conservative Politicians will lie to you to the bone to protect the oil companies and yes i do agree the Democrats that also support oil companies need to go as well. Liberty is the tool they use to make you think that it our government who it taking it from you but in Reality its the same people the working class has been fighting against for 2000 years the rich and the greedy. Wake up to the reality your being taken advantage of and government is your only power that you have. Those who preach against our government is trying to weaken your voice so that you and your children can be taken advantage of just like what happened in the early 1900s.

    Reply

  23. Left unsaid is that the companies often have far more money to mount an aggressive defense, appeals, and probably bribes to help sway the outcome in ways that the average individual cannot.  And with the SCOTUS neutering class action lawsuits recently, this approach of endless lawsuits would not result in a better environment.  

    Reply

  24. Hi! Have you ever tried – Devans Dirty Dialogues? (should be on google have a look) Ive heard some great things about the things it teaches and my sister-in-law got cool money with it. 

    Reply

  25. Hi! Have you ever tried – Devans Dirty Dialogues? (should be on google have a look) Ive heard some great things about the things it teaches and my sister-in-law got cool money with it. 

    Reply

  26. There's a lot of misinformation in this video. Just because the EPA exists, that doesn't mean the farmer couldn't sue the factory for his dead cows. Moreover, federal regulation would likely make his suit easier to win than if he were just suing under common law. In fact, tort law is a very expensive and often ineffective way to protect one's rights. It's a bit of a lottery. For every successful suit, many more are unsuccessful. This often leads to unjust results whether the plaintiff wins or loses. I'm not going to waste much more time on this, but this video is simplistic and very misleading.

    Reply

  27. Misleading video that suggests that environmental torts can replace federal or state regulation. The fact that you must prove your property is damaged to bring suit to the polluter will essentially mean that only action will occur once the pollution has cause material damage but torts cannot replace regulation. The video suggest that as long as polluters don't cause damage to another private party, the water you drink will be safe and air you breathe is clean. But our regulation, which is based on scientific research, identifies safe air and water levels and imposes controls if those levels are exceeded. Torts cannot hope to provide similar protections and forces the burden of proof to the party damaged to establish the damage and who had caused the harm (which is not to establish that burden of proof). Removal of environmental regulations will irreparably harm the public. I understand if you feel that regulations can increase the cost of business but before you believe this erroneous video, think about how much money you would pay to have prevented an incidence of cancer or other serious disease linked to air and water pollution. Clean air and water cannot be left up to market forces and the court system because by the time a suit will be ready, too much public harm will have occurred (Anderson v. Cryovac or Anderson v. PGE).

    Reply

  28. He's arguing for time. Lawyers get work done faster than agencies. Is that where you want to place your clean water in?

    Reply

  29. easy .. make the permits from the epa as something in mandatory ADDITION to a full responsibility for any harm the pollution causes.

    Reply

  30. Hahahaha. Undermining the function of the EPA by using an oversimplified example. Private citizens lack the knowledge nor the financial means to hold big corporations responsible. Furthermore, how would you expect the public to understand the repercussions of various types of polution? Clean water, clean air and clear policies for business to adhere to are a governments' responsibility. I think the pre versus post EPA era speaks for itself. This video is a terrible way of pushing a corporate agenda of loose environmental regulations which harm the many for the short term financial gain of the few. Actually, from the perspective of future generations this is disgusting and whoever is behind this should be ashamed. Deeply. Ashamed. /rant

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *