I figured I'd just let you guys run amok for a bit. I wish people would read more before they post these things, but I'm here to help.
Not impossible at all. But without the government regulations the big corporations wouldn't have spent the money to do it. They would have continued to dump garbage into the lakes and rivers, because it's cheaper that way.
Possibly, but you forget that in many of those kinds of cases, it was the government that did the dumping. See the NYC offshore garbage mound, or the city of Chicago dumping pollution into the Chicago river. Maybe we could talk about the US government monopoly on nuclear plant design and construction and the resulting waste from their 40 to 65 year-old designs. Or the ending of the breeder reactor program that would have significantly reduced the waste problem. Or how we could have cheap, widespread, local reactors with less transmission loss if the feds would get out of the way of the recent thorium reactor designs.
Good thing they're looking out for us, yeah.
People who post such silly bumper sticker slogans really have no clue. All they need to do is some historical research but that would require effort. Rivers catching fire, acid rain, coal slurry ponds leaking, no food labels, worker protections, the list goes on. And yes forcing powerful non caring people to change requires power that the common man only has in government. We are about to learn that lesson again.
I think you have far too much faith that the "common man" has power in government. The average citizen has no say whatsoever. If your response would be "ah, so you just endorsed community action - thanks you just proved my point nicely". I would have to say, if community action works to everyone's benefit, then why don't you rely on that instead of government? How is it that people can't be trusted in corporations, but those exact same people somehow take on a mantle of sincerity when they assume a government position?
I think its telling that you justify the use of force instead of voluntary compliance. Corporations care about profits. In the age of the internet they are well aware that the slightest inkling of bad policy can cost them millions of dollars. Why would you need to use force on them? Probably because people get some kind of substitute satisfaction out of seeing the govt hammer drop on a company. When its all done, what does that do for the common man? Nothing. Companies don't pay fines - people do. The legal costs of the MS monopoly suit were passed on to customers and shareholders. The various oil spill costs show up at the pump, and any penalties that result from those accidents show up there too. The list goes on.
Sure. But they would charge you 1,99 for a can of water. Just look at Nestle
Odd that we have to pay for water to begin with. Of course many many jurisdictions now have bans on personal well installation, or severe restrictions. Locally, they tell people they're doing free water quality tests so they ask for access to the homeowner's well. People hear "free" and say "Sure!". Then they come home and find water meters installed on their well and they start getting bills in the mail for their own water.
But regardless, why don't you bring water from home? If thats not convenient, then why is it wrong to find a $1.99 container of water in a store that has been reserving it, just for you the paying customer, in a chilled case next to a ton of other stuff you might want. I think you really need some perspective.
Yes, I'm sure Volkswagen would have voluntarily stopped blowing high amounts of NOx into the air without government intervention. But what's a little lung cancer as long as the corporations can do as they want, right?
The lack of comprehension of the general public regarding the VW emissions charges is an ongoing source of frustration to people who have been following this story. VW TDi motors are extremely clean running, efficient motors. They have to pass the stringent German TUV emissions standards. The TUV tests are based on real world driving, whereas the US tests are simply laboratory simulations performed with the vehicle on a chassis dyno.
When the lapdog US media was given their talking points by the EPA, one of those points was "up to 80 percent more" emissions. That didn't mean "up to 80 percent of the exhaust was pollution". The VW diesels weren't blowing "high amounts" of pollutants into the air. It was a a fraction of a percent of total output - a minuscule amount, and it was only on the completely arbitrary EPA test bed.
The fact remains that the TDi motors were extremely clean and efficient, and cheaper than any other diesel in their class. VW figured that they could lean their cars out when a particular pin on the ODBII connector found test gear connected. When the car was on the road, it used a proper map and met German standards. The cars got far better mileage than if they were tuned for the dyno/had a DEF system, and the cars were cheaper as well. The other manufacturers had to factor in the cost of DEF systems in order to get their emissions down. VW didn't. They gamed the system to get a very well-made, more powerful, and cheaper running car into willing buyers' hands for a significant savings. But - great victory, EPA!! - now people will pay more for cars that get far worse mileage and cost more to maintain. Thanks for looking out for us.
So, please let that lie fade out already.
Oh, water and power would exist, you'd just be paying 100x or more for them. Those with the water would hold a monopoly and could charge whatever they liked for it as you'd have no other choice but buy from them or die. We see this in some 3rd world countries. Only the very rich can afford the basic things required to live.
Wait - are you not aware that in many municipalities, the government maintains its own monopoly on the water? Can you see why that is a bad idea?
In any case, the only way a monopoly exists is if there is a state to protect it. Otherwise competition enters into the fray and costs go down. See Lysander Spooner vs the Post Office Dept, or Cornelius Vanderbilt (you know - that extremely wealthy guy who used a big chunk of his fortune to build libraries and other public-use facilities) vs the NY Port Authority.
Perhaps you'd like to look into the story of how John Rockefeller made his fortune. Back when kerosene was the main source of fuel for lamps, Rockefeller found ways to manufacture it and distribute it very cheaply. Where formerly only the well-to-do had lamplight at night, with his efforts people far down the social ladder could afford to light their homes. The effects were even larger when you consider that people were more productive given that they could work more hours with cheaper illumination. Too bad he wasn't the government, huh? Then they would have just kept the prices higher for the wealthy and given the lamp oil away to the poor, right?
Those government regulations and enforcement do things like protect you and your family from business men that run drug companies that don't want to test their products to ensure that they are safe. Those regulations ensure that the peanut butter your family eats is safe (and if its not, punish the businessman that knew it was contaminated and sold it for consumption anyway). Those government regulations ensure that if your family members participate in a medical study that they are not abused as often occurred be fore those regulations existed.
Those government regulations are also there to ensure that the local lumber company does not strip the forest of all the trees on the hillside that turns to a huge mudslide killing your family members. And if they do strip the lumber, those regulations allow for punishment.
Your comment was either incredibility ignorant posting by a middle school age child, or sarcastic.
Sorry to tell you, but in each and every one of your examples, the government has actually made things worse.
-those testing regulations put onerous burdens on new drugs that could help terminally ill people, people who would otherwise have the option of choosing between dying while waiting for testing to conclude or incurring possible health risks from using unproven meds.
- how about the government colluding with high-paying donor companies to provide substandard products to American troops? Everything from food to weapons to clothing. Try the Army beef scandal for starters.
- I'm not sure what you mean when you're referring to medical study abuses, or the government being there to protect us from that. If you think thats true, then perhaps you could explain the Tuskegee Syphilis experiment, or the widespread testing of hallucinogens on US soldiers, or uninformed use of experimental vaccines on large swaths of population.
- protect us from landslides? Are you serious? How about the EPA poisoning a river a couple years back. We didn't even get an "oops" out of them for that.
Your last sentence was not called for.
Maybe they want to back to the time when salami contained the occasional unlucky factory worker...
Ah, the good old days.
Again, those big, worker-digesting factories were protected from competition by payoffs.
