Re: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was Supporting WAPF or N...

[Guest guest]

_____

From: Berg [mailto:bberg@...]

Sent: Saturday, February 26, 2005 11:31 PM

Subject: RE: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was

Supporting WAPF or N...

* -----Original Message-----

> From: ChrisMasterjohn@... [mailto:ChrisMasterjohn@...]

>

> I don't like the idea either, but I don't feel very

> " uncomfortable " talking about it. You responded to one of my

> line's of reasoning-- the distribution of responsibility

> along different levels-- and your responsible was sensible

> and compelling. But you didn't respond to the other point,

> which I consider more compelling and harder to deal with--

> that pollution-related problems are multi-factorial.

>

> Say consumers are held responsible for their pollution. How?

What

> determines how much they can pollute and how much they can't?

> If 100 million people are driving cars that wreck the air

> molecules that float over my house and transfer that

> destruction to my person and property, which one of them do

> I sue? Can I wage one lawsuit against all of them? If I sue

> one of them, can he not just rightly deny any personal

> responsibility when the damage only occurred through the

> cumulative effect?

Well, one way of dealing with it would be a Pigouvian tax (i.e.,

pay-to-pollute). For example, you'd pay a surcharge on gas (with

discounts

for cleaner cars) based roughly on the amount of pollution you

can be

expected to do with it. Same deal with burning stuff, and

factories and

whatnot. This money would used only to pay out claims of damage

from general

pollution, not for miscellaneous government boondoggles, nor for

damage by

specific entities which could be held directly responsible

(someone dumping

toxic waste directly on your property, for example). If there's

money left

over at the end of the year (or quarter, or whatever), it's

returned in the

form of lower surcharges the next period. If there's not enough,

the state

sells bonds and raises surcharges to pay them off.

Again, though, any time you get away from a pure market solution,

there's

tremendous potential for corruption and mismanagement. Some

caveats specific

to this system:

-Managers of the damage fund would have to protect it zealously

from

fraudulent, erroneous, or excessive claims (i.e., claims that a

given

illness is caused by pollution are not to be accepted at face

value).

-There are many different pollutants, with no incontrovertible

way to

compare them, so the relative charges would be set by a political

process.

-Damages are not always objectively assessable. On the bright

side, if

juries were used, they'd be reluctant to grant extravagant awards

(since

they'd be paying for them).

-There would be intense political pressure to use the funds for

other

things. Well...if we actually lived in a society free enough to

make this

discussion practically important, maybe there wouldn't.

Obviously, I don't like this. But I don't have any better ideas

at the

moment.

----------------------

In context of automobile exhaust, how about this? If a car

manufacturer produces a model that churns out over a

predetermined amount of garbage per average mile, I can sue them

successfully. If a driver drives such a car, I can also do the

same to him. How would that be less fair than current legislative

principles?

-Mark

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/27/2005 3:52:09 AM Eastern Standard Time,

colowe@... writes:

I believe there can be adjudication between groups: class action

suits against whole industries. Therein both cumulative and

individual damages could be accurately ascertained; and the

limits and tolerances could have previously been accurately

determined by the private sector. Gov legislators are by no means

the reference standard of scientific or technical ability, and

certainly not the pinnacle of honesty and fairness. In other

words, all would be better accomplished by private enterprise.

_____

But the problems with pollution aren't limited to individual pollutants or

pollutants from individual industries. For example:

Say pollutant A by itself causes 5 pollution-effect-units of damage for

every 5 pollution-units emitted, and pollutant B by itself causes 5

pollution-effect-units of damage for every 5 pollution-units emitted, and

pollutant C by

itself causes no damage at all, yet pollutant A and B in combination produce

25 pollution-effect-units of damage for every 5-pollution-units emitted of

each, and pollutant C multiplies the effect by a factor of 2 in the presence of

pollutants A and B.

Now say the threshold of biological damage to a human is 10

pollution-effect-units per capita, and each of the three industries emmit 5

pollution-units

of their respective pollutants. Neither industries A or B are polluting

enough to cause biological harm. Yet the two together will result in

biological

harm. Is A responsible for B's activities? What if A's practice pre-dated B?

Would A be innocent while B found guilty? Should B have considered A's

existing practice before it engaged in its harmless (by itself) activity? If

industry C's pollutant in itself is biologically irrelevant, can it not claim

complete denial of responsibility? Or is it responsible for the actions of A

and B?

I'm not saying there aren't ways to resolve these questions, but they

certainly aren't immediately apparent to me.

Now I understand class action lawsuits, but can whole industries be sued?

This is new to me. It might be a workable idea, but I think it's a novel one,

and I'd like to see its implications hashed out.

But then, what if the majority of consumers as a whole are causing more harm

than any given industry?

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/27/2005 4:04:43 AM Eastern Standard Time,

colowe@... writes:

In context of automobile exhaust, how about this? If a car

manufacturer produces a model that churns out over a

predetermined amount of garbage per average mile, I can sue them

successfully. If a driver drives such a car, I can also do the

same to him. How would that be less fair than current legislative

principles?

___

Who sets the predetermined amount of garbage allowable, if not a legislative

body?

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/27/2005 3:22:18 PM Eastern Standard Time,

colowe@... writes:

Yes, those are so complicated details. But why would a government

agency be any more competent at fairly sorting them out than a

high-tech commercial entity? Multiple pollution tolerances could

be better pre-determined by business. But the tolerances would

not be used for criminal enforcement, they would be used as

adjudication criteria in civil suits.

_____

If you are arguing that a private legislative body would set standards over

a public legislative body with compulsory membership, that's not really

contradicting what I was arguing. If you are, however, arguing that any

business

can just draw up these guidelines, then the argument has major problems. A

court can't hold the parties to the dispute accountable to some business's

opinions unless both of those parties have contractually agreed to those

guidelines.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/27/2005 3:26:03 PM Eastern Standard Time,

colowe@... writes:

Who sets the predetermined amount of garbage allowable, if not a

legislative

body?

Chris

----------------------

The high-tech company. Why/how do you think a legislative body

would do the job better?

_____

You mean a high-tech comapny that legislates rather than a legislative body?

Isn't a high-tech company that legislates by definition a legislative body?

Chris

[Guest guest]

More than government creation, all this theorizing, in order to work

requires a hypothetical standard to living for everyone expected to comply

and equal to the cost of compliance. Sure, emission safer cars can be

produced for example. Probably, 9 out of 10 people if asked would say they

" want " to protect the environment, their neighbor's health and themselves

from litigation. Any process with an expectation including a variable

modifier of X amount required to acquire XY, acquired requirement, will

leave just Y, an unworkable requirement.

Is there anyone in this discussion with families or at least a significant

other? Excuse my bluntness, but all this wishful thinking doesn't seem much

further removed from the actuality of most people's daily lives and means,

than any other recent or present decision maker's has been.

Wanita

--

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.

Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.2.0 - Release Date: 2/21/2005

[Guest guest]

Government legislators might not have scientific or technical however they

are not single handedly writing policy. When technical policy has to be

written they hire experts in the field, from government agencies (FDA, EPA

etc) and private industry to do that. And although you are correct in

saying that government isn't the pinnacle of honesty and fairness, private

industry is certainly no better.

Irene

At 11:11 AM 2/27/2005, you wrote:

>Gov legislators are by no means

>the reference standard of scientific or technical ability, and

>certainly not the pinnacle of honesty and fairness. In other

>words, all would be better accomplished by private enterprise

[Guest guest]

What makes you think you could sue successfully? Who predetermines the

amount of exhaust that is acceptable? And what if that amount isn't

acceptable to you?

Irene

At 11:13 AM 2/27/2005, you wrote:

>

>In a message dated 2/27/2005 4:04:43 AM Eastern Standard Time,

>colowe@... writes:

>

>In context of automobile exhaust, how about this? If a car

>manufacturer produces a model that churns out over a

>predetermined amount of garbage per average mile, I can sue them

>successfully. If a driver drives such a car, I can also do the

>same to him. How would that be less fair than current legislative

>principles?

>

>

>___

>

>Who sets the predetermined amount of garbage allowable, if not a legislative

>body?

>

>Chris

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

_____

From: ChrisMasterjohn@... [mailto:ChrisMasterjohn@...]

Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 2:12 PM

Subject: Re: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was

Supporting WAPF or N...

In a message dated 2/27/2005 3:52:09 AM Eastern Standard Time,

colowe@... writes:

I believe there can be adjudication between groups: class action

suits against whole industries. Therein both cumulative and

individual damages could be accurately ascertained; and the

limits and tolerances could have previously been accurately

determined by the private sector. Gov legislators are by no

means

the reference standard of scientific or technical ability, and

certainly not the pinnacle of honesty and fairness. In other

words, all would be better accomplished by private enterprise.

_____

But the problems with pollution aren't limited to individual

pollutants or

pollutants from individual industries. For example:

Say pollutant A by itself causes 5 pollution-effect-units of

damage for

every 5 pollution-units emitted, and pollutant B by itself causes

5

pollution-effect-units of damage for every 5 pollution-units

emitted, and pollutant C by

itself causes no damage at all, yet pollutant A and B in

combination produce

25 pollution-effect-units of damage for every 5-pollution-units

emitted of

each, and pollutant C multiplies the effect by a factor of 2 in

the presence of

pollutants A and B.

Now say the threshold of biological damage to a human is 10

pollution-effect-units per capita, and each of the three

industries emmit 5 pollution-units

of their respective pollutants. Neither industries A or B are

polluting

enough to cause biological harm. Yet the two together will

result in biological

harm. Is A responsible for B's activities? What if A's

practice pre-dated B?

Would A be innocent while B found guilty? Should B have

considered A's

existing practice before it engaged in its harmless (by itself)

activity? If

industry C's pollutant in itself is biologically irrelevant, can

it not claim

complete denial of responsibility? Or is it responsible for the

actions of A

and B?

I'm not saying there aren't ways to resolve these questions, but

they

certainly aren't immediately apparent to me.

Now I understand class action lawsuits, but can whole industries

be sued?

This is new to me. It might be a workable idea, but I think

it's a novel one,

and I'd like to see its implications hashed out.

But then, what if the majority of consumers as a whole are

causing more harm

than any given industry?

Chris

-----------------------

Yes, those are so complicated details. But why would a government

agency be any more competent at fairly sorting them out than a

high-tech commercial entity? Multiple pollution tolerances could

be better pre-determined by business. But the tolerances would

not be used for criminal enforcement, they would be used as

adjudication criteria in civil suits.

Over-estimations of government competence and fairness and

under-estimations of business competence and fairness are very

common. And a hint these misassumptions might be somewhat lurking

at the heart of your questions and explain why you seem to put

your default trust in government to resolve complicated issues.

I'm not sure, but wasn't the whole tobacco industry sued in a

class action?

Individuals would be no more immune to civil liability than

business.

-Mark

[Guest guest]

_____

From: ChrisMasterjohn@... [mailto:ChrisMasterjohn@...]

Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 2:13 PM

Subject: Re: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was

Supporting WAPF or N...

In a message dated 2/27/2005 4:04:43 AM Eastern Standard Time,

colowe@... writes:

In context of automobile exhaust, how about this? If a car

manufacturer produces a model that churns out over a

predetermined amount of garbage per average mile, I can sue them

successfully. If a driver drives such a car, I can also do the

same to him. How would that be less fair than current

legislative

principles?

___

Who sets the predetermined amount of garbage allowable, if not a

legislative

body?

Chris

----------------------

The high-tech company. Why/how do you think a legislative body

would do the job better?

-Mark

[Guest guest]

Irene,

Could you supply some kind of basis for your last sentence?

-Mark

_____

From: Irene Musiol [mailto:Irene.M@...]

Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 2:43 PM

Subject: Re: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was

Supporting WAPF or N...

Government legislators might not have scientific or technical

however they

are not single handedly writing policy. When technical policy has

to be

written they hire experts in the field, from government agencies

(FDA, EPA

etc) and private industry to do that. And although you are

correct in

saying that government isn't the pinnacle of honesty and

fairness, private

industry is certainly no better.

Irene

At 11:11 AM 2/27/2005, you wrote:

>Gov legislators are by no means

>the reference standard of scientific or technical ability, and

>certainly not the pinnacle of honesty and fairness. In other

>words, all would be better accomplished by private enterprise

[Guest guest]

I assume that you mean that private enterprise not being a bastion of

honesty or fairness. Well, Enron comes to mind. There have been numerous

reports recently of pharmaceutical companies hiding bad data for their

products. This by no means indicts all companies as criminal but you don't

have to look far for examples of cheating and bad behavior.

Irene

At 12:25 PM 2/27/2005, you wrote:

>Irene,

>

>

>

>Could you supply some kind of basis for your last sentence?

>

>

>

>-Mark

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> _____

>

>From: Irene Musiol [mailto:Irene.M@...]

>Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 2:43 PM

>

>Subject: Re: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was

>Supporting WAPF or N...

>

>

>

>Government legislators might not have scientific or technical

>however they

>are not single handedly writing policy. When technical policy has

>to be

>written they hire experts in the field, from government agencies

>(FDA, EPA

>etc) and private industry to do that. And although you are

>correct in

>saying that government isn't the pinnacle of honesty and

>fairness, private

>industry is certainly no better.

>Irene

>

>

>At 11:11 AM 2/27/2005, you wrote:

> >Gov legislators are by no means

> >the reference standard of scientific or technical ability, and

> >certainly not the pinnacle of honesty and fairness. In other

> >words, all would be better accomplished by private enterprise

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

When legislators are compromised, having to be for corporate future campaign

funding as much or more than with who their jobs are meant to be for or ex

corporate individuals go to government you can get an Enron or this

FDA,Vioxx return to market decision in the NY Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/25/politics/25fda.html

coincidentally days after tort reform was passed disallowing state attorney

generals and state courts to file class actions. They now must be screened

for frivolity by federal courts and federally appointed judges. With the

only priority, profit margin now more protected against liability the cause

of the decision, the harmful product, what was broke can be ignored. No

science, no technical know how, no consumer, just business.

Wanita

> Government legislators might not have scientific or technical however they

> are not single handedly writing policy. When technical policy has to be

> written they hire experts in the field, from government agencies (FDA, EPA

> etc) and private industry to do that. And although you are correct in

> saying that government isn't the pinnacle of honesty and fairness, private

> industry is certainly no better.

> Irene

>

>

> At 11:11 AM 2/27/2005, you wrote:

>>Gov legislators are by no means

>>the reference standard of scientific or technical ability, and

>>certainly not the pinnacle of honesty and fairness. In other

>>words, all would be better accomplished by private enterprise

--

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.

Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.2.0 - Release Date: 2/21/2005

[Guest guest]

You are absolutely correct, that is exactly how we got Enron. This is the

major problem with our government today. The revolving door between top

government jobs and industry. Interestingly enough if you are a low level

government worker, as GS-whatever, it is illegal for you to take a job in

an industry that you have had a hand in regulating for 5 years after you

leave government. This doesn't seem to be true of high level government

jobs. And that is a huge problem.

And of course campaign contributions....

These can be fixed. I don't think there was always the revolving door. I am

not sure about the history of that but I think the 5 year rule applied to

all government employees at one time.

Irene

At 01:41 PM 2/27/2005, you wrote:

>When legislators are compromised, having to be for corporate future campaign

>funding as much or more than with who their jobs are meant to be for or ex

>corporate individuals go to government you can get an Enron or this

>FDA,Vioxx return to market decision in the NY Times

>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/25/politics/25fda.html

>coincidentally days after tort reform was passed disallowing state attorney

>generals and state courts to file class actions. They now must be screened

>for frivolity by federal courts and federally appointed judges. With the

>only priority, profit margin now more protected against liability the cause

>of the decision, the harmful product, what was broke can be ignored. No

>science, no technical know how, no consumer, just business.

>

>Wanita

>

> > Government legislators might not have scientific or technical however they

> > are not single handedly writing policy. When technical policy has to be

> > written they hire experts in the field, from government agencies (FDA, EPA

> > etc) and private industry to do that. And although you are correct in

> > saying that government isn't the pinnacle of honesty and fairness, private

> > industry is certainly no better.

> > Irene

> >

> >

> > At 11:11 AM 2/27/2005, you wrote:

> >>Gov legislators are by no means

> >>the reference standard of scientific or technical ability, and

> >>certainly not the pinnacle of honesty and fairness. In other

> >>words, all would be better accomplished by private enterprise

>

>

>

>--

>No virus found in this outgoing message.

>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.

>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.2.0 - Release Date: 2/21/2005

>

>

>

>

>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES

> * < />NATIVE

> NUTRITION online

> * <http://onibasu.com/>SEARCH the entire message archive with Onibasu

>

><mailto: -owner >LIST OWNER: Idol

>MODERATORS: Heidi Schuppenhauer

> Wanita Sears

>

>

[Guest guest]

Ex CEOs and former corporate Board of Directors members are who is in top

positions other than legislators. Campaign contributions can be fixed. They

should be to insure the individual's integrity running as well as the

integrity of the position. Replacing the whos that gave what contribution in

expectation of what who personally wants with an impartial method seems the

biggest barrier to clean elections. Secondly, a campaign ceiling or other

form of level playing field wouldn't hurt.

Wanita

> You are absolutely correct, that is exactly how we got Enron. This is the

> major problem with our government today. The revolving door between top

> government jobs and industry. Interestingly enough if you are a low level

> government worker, as GS-whatever, it is illegal for you to take a job in

> an industry that you have had a hand in regulating for 5 years after you

> leave government. This doesn't seem to be true of high level government

> jobs. And that is a huge problem.

> And of course campaign contributions....

> These can be fixed. I don't think there was always the revolving door. I

> am

> not sure about the history of that but I think the 5 year rule applied to

> all government employees at one time.

> Irene

>

>

> At 01:41 PM 2/27/2005, you wrote:

>

>>When legislators are compromised, having to be for corporate future

>>campaign

>>funding as much or more than with who their jobs are meant to be for or ex

>>corporate individuals go to government you can get an Enron or this

>>FDA,Vioxx return to market decision in the NY Times

>>http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/25/politics/25fda.html

>>coincidentally days after tort reform was passed disallowing state

>>attorney

>>generals and state courts to file class actions. They now must be screened

>>for frivolity by federal courts and federally appointed judges. With the

>>only priority, profit margin now more protected against liability the

>>cause

>>of the decision, the harmful product, what was broke can be ignored. No

>>science, no technical know how, no consumer, just business.

>>

>>Wanita

>>

>> > Government legislators might not have scientific or technical however

>> > they

>> > are not single handedly writing policy. When technical policy has to be

>> > written they hire experts in the field, from government agencies (FDA,

>> > EPA

>> > etc) and private industry to do that. And although you are correct in

>> > saying that government isn't the pinnacle of honesty and fairness,

>> > private

>> > industry is certainly no better.

>> > Irene

>> >

>> >

>> > At 11:11 AM 2/27/2005, you wrote:

>> >>Gov legislators are by no means

>> >>the reference standard of scientific or technical ability, and

>> >>certainly not the pinnacle of honesty and fairness. In other

>> >>words, all would be better accomplished by private enterprise

>>

>>

>>

>>--

>>No virus found in this outgoing message.

>>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.

>>Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.2.0 - Release Date: 2/21/2005

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>IMPORTANT ADDRESSES

>> * < />NATIVE

>> NUTRITION online

>> * <http://onibasu.com/>SEARCH the entire message archive with Onibasu

>>

>><mailto: -owner >LIST OWNER: Idol

>>MODERATORS: Heidi Schuppenhauer

>> Wanita Sears

>>

>>

[Guest guest]

> Now say the threshold of biological damage to a human is 10

> pollution-effect-units per capita, and each of the three industries emmit

> 5 pollution-units

> of their respective pollutants. Neither industries A or B are polluting

> enough to cause biological harm. Yet the two together will result in

> biological

> harm. Is A responsible for B's activities? What if A's practice

> pre-dated B?

> Would A be innocent while B found guilty? Should B have considered A's

> existing practice before it engaged in its harmless (by itself) activity?

> If

> industry C's pollutant in itself is biologically irrelevant, can it not

> claim

> complete denial of responsibility? Or is it responsible for the actions

> of A

> and B?

>

> Chris

This reminds me of the air testing done to determine where and what was

causing extreme levels of dioxins in Inuit mother's breast milk. Canada's

technological machine, which was put into use after NAFTA went through

determined the sources to be 4 U.S. factories and 2 Mexican iirc, but then

is the responsibility each individual polluter's, all of them combined,

some, the air course mixing and carrying them or where the Inuit are? Source

being man made from likely some natural products and all else being natural,

the common sense solution is to know and realize all possible results and/or

be willing to be responsible if not, before making anything and making it

public in the first place.

Wanita

--

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.

Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.2.0 - Release Date: 2/21/2005

[Guest guest]

Irene,

What makes you think I couldn't? Business would determine

acceptable pollution levels. Are current levels, that are

determined by gov agencies, acceptable to you?

-Mark

_____

From: Irene Musiol [mailto:Irene.M@...]

Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 2:49 PM

Subject: Re: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was

Supporting WAPF or N...

* What makes you think you could sue successfully? Who

predetermines the

amount of exhaust that is acceptable? And what if that amount

isn't

acceptable to you?

Irene

At 11:13 AM 2/27/2005, you wrote:

>

>In a message dated 2/27/2005 4:04:43 AM Eastern Standard Time,

>colowe@... writes:

>

>In context of automobile exhaust, how about this? If a car

>manufacturer produces a model that churns out over a

>predetermined amount of garbage per average mile, I can sue

them

>successfully. If a driver drives such a car, I can also do the

>same to him. How would that be less fair than current

legislative

>principles?

>

>

>___

>

>Who sets the predetermined amount of garbage allowable, if not a

legislative

>body?

>

>Chris

>

[Guest guest]

Irene,

Business corruption is the exception. Government corruption is

the rule. If you trust government over business, you know little

about either.

-Mark

_____

From: Irene Musiol [mailto:Irene.M@...]

Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 3:41 PM

Subject: RE: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was

Supporting WAPF or N...

I assume that you mean that private enterprise not being a

bastion of

honesty or fairness. Well, Enron comes to mind. There have been

numerous

reports recently of pharmaceutical companies hiding bad data for

their

products. This by no means indicts all companies as criminal but

you don't

have to look far for examples of cheating and bad behavior.

Irene

At 12:25 PM 2/27/2005, you wrote:

>Irene,

>

>

>

>Could you supply some kind of basis for your last sentence?

>

>

>

>-Mark

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> _____

>

>From: Irene Musiol [mailto:Irene.M@...]

>Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 2:43 PM

>

>Subject: Re: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes

(was

>Supporting WAPF or N...

>

>

>

>Government legislators might not have scientific or technical

>however they

>are not single handedly writing policy. When technical policy

has

>to be

>written they hire experts in the field, from government agencies

>(FDA, EPA

>etc) and private industry to do that. And although you are

>correct in

>saying that government isn't the pinnacle of honesty and

>fairness, private

>industry is certainly no better.

>Irene

>

>

>At 11:11 AM 2/27/2005, you wrote:

> >Gov legislators are by no means

> >the reference standard of scientific or technical ability,

and

> >certainly not the pinnacle of honesty and fairness. In other

> >words, all would be better accomplished by private enterprise

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

You have no idea what my background is so you couldn't possibly know what I

do and do not know. I don't know what makes you believe that government

corruption is the rule and business but I don't believe it is true. And I

don't really think you could back up the claim or you would have done so.

Irene

At 09:27 PM 2/27/2005, you wrote:

>Irene,

>

>

>

>Business corruption is the exception. Government corruption is

>the rule. If you trust government over business, you know little

>about either.

>

>

>

>-Mark

>

>

>

> _____

>

>From: Irene Musiol [mailto:Irene.M@...]

>Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 3:41 PM

>

>Subject: RE: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was

>Supporting WAPF or N...

>

>

>

>I assume that you mean that private enterprise not being a

>bastion of

>honesty or fairness. Well, Enron comes to mind. There have been

>numerous

>reports recently of pharmaceutical companies hiding bad data for

>their

>products. This by no means indicts all companies as criminal but

>you don't

>have to look far for examples of cheating and bad behavior.

>Irene

>

>

>At 12:25 PM 2/27/2005, you wrote:

>

> >Irene,

> >

> >

> >

> >Could you supply some kind of basis for your last sentence?

> >

> >

> >

> >-Mark

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > _____

> >

> >From: Irene Musiol [mailto:Irene.M@...]

> >Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 2:43 PM

> >

> >Subject: Re: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes

>(was

> >Supporting WAPF or N...

> >

> >

> >

> >Government legislators might not have scientific or technical

> >however they

> >are not single handedly writing policy. When technical policy

>has

> >to be

> >written they hire experts in the field, from government agencies

> >(FDA, EPA

> >etc) and private industry to do that. And although you are

> >correct in

> >saying that government isn't the pinnacle of honesty and

> >fairness, private

> >industry is certainly no better.

> >Irene

> >

> >

> >At 11:11 AM 2/27/2005, you wrote:

> > >Gov legislators are by no means

> > >the reference standard of scientific or technical ability,

>and

> > >certainly not the pinnacle of honesty and fairness. In other

> > >words, all would be better accomplished by private enterprise

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Some are some aren't.

If the companies are setting the pollution standards that they have to meet

then I don't see the point in bothering to sue a company. Than they would

just set the standard for what they already do even if is not safe. What

would motivate them to set a safe standard if that will cost them money? So

they might be polluting like crazy but are still meeting the standards, so

what is the point? How would you even know if they exceeded those

standards. Would you be testing all models of automobiles yourself?

Irene

At 09:23 PM 2/27/2005, you wrote:

>Irene,

>

>

>

>What makes you think I couldn't? Business would determine

>acceptable pollution levels. Are current levels, that are

>determined by gov agencies, acceptable to you?

>

>

>

>

>

>-Mark

>

>

>

> _____

>

>From: Irene Musiol [mailto:Irene.M@...]

>Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 2:49 PM

>

>Subject: Re: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was

>Supporting WAPF or N...

>

>

>

>* What makes you think you could sue successfully? Who

>predetermines the

>amount of exhaust that is acceptable? And what if that amount

>isn't

>acceptable to you?

>Irene

>

>

>At 11:13 AM 2/27/2005, you wrote:

>

> >

> >In a message dated 2/27/2005 4:04:43 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> >colowe@... writes:

> >

> >In context of automobile exhaust, how about this? If a car

> >manufacturer produces a model that churns out over a

> >predetermined amount of garbage per average mile, I can sue

>them

> >successfully. If a driver drives such a car, I can also do the

> >same to him. How would that be less fair than current

>legislative

> >principles?

> >

> >

> >___

> >

> >Who sets the predetermined amount of garbage allowable, if not a

>legislative

> >body?

> >

> >Chris

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Mark,

Where's the boundary line between where business is obtaining legislative

interest protection and legislation is obtaining corporate and/or business

interest enumeration? What about industry specific lobbyists and campaign

contributions? Granted there are special interest group lobbies as well,

working with less power and funds for the interests of specific groups of

people or issues.

Wanita

> Irene,

>

>

>

> Business corruption is the exception. Government corruption is

> the rule. If you trust government over business, you know little

> about either.

>

>

>

> -Mark

>

>

>

> _____

>

> From: Irene Musiol [mailto:Irene.M@...]

> Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 3:41 PM

>

> Subject: RE: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was

> Supporting WAPF or N...

>

>

>

> I assume that you mean that private enterprise not being a

> bastion of

> honesty or fairness. Well, Enron comes to mind. There have been

> numerous

> reports recently of pharmaceutical companies hiding bad data for

> their

> products. This by no means indicts all companies as criminal but

> you don't

> have to look far for examples of cheating and bad behavior.

> Irene

>

>

> At 12:25 PM 2/27/2005, you wrote:

>

>>Irene,

>>

>>

>>

>>Could you supply some kind of basis for your last sentence?

>>

>>

>>

>>-Mark

>>

>> _____

>>

>>From: Irene Musiol [mailto:Irene.M@...]

>>Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 2:43 PM

>>

>>Subject: Re: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes

> (was

>>Supporting WAPF or N...

>>

>>

>>

>>Government legislators might not have scientific or technical

>>however they

>>are not single handedly writing policy. When technical policy

> has

>>to be

>>written they hire experts in the field, from government agencies

>>(FDA, EPA

>>etc) and private industry to do that. And although you are

>>correct in

>>saying that government isn't the pinnacle of honesty and

>>fairness, private

>>industry is certainly no better.

>>Irene

>>

>>

>>At 11:11 AM 2/27/2005, you wrote:

>> >Gov legislators are by no means

>> >the reference standard of scientific or technical ability,

> and

>> >certainly not the pinnacle of honesty and fairness. In other

>> >words, all would be better accomplished by private enterprise

--

No virus found in this outgoing message.

Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.

Version: 7.0.300 / Virus Database: 266.5.1 - Release Date: 2/27/2005

[Guest guest]

Irene,

You are right about my ignorance of your background, but not

about what you know. What you know is evidenced in your typed

words that I am reading.

Government has incentive to be inefficient at best and corrupt at

worst. Business has incentive to be efficient, competent and

fair. Incentive = tendency = basic nature - which is dictated by

fundamental setup, regarding how they get their money.

Governments essentially extort it by force and businesses

essentially earn it by consent.

The first piece of evidence I would use to back up my

anti-government claim(s) would be the Constitution of the US and

the amount of it that is dedicated to limiting the abusive/ " evil "

nature of government and its powers. Would you accept that as a

credible piece of evidence?

-Mark

_____

From: Irene Musiol [mailto:Irene.M@...]

Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 12:49 AM

Subject: RE: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was

Supporting WAPF or N...

You have no idea what my background is so you couldn't possibly

know what I

do and do not know. I don't know what makes you believe that

government

corruption is the rule and business but I don't believe it is

true. And I

don't really think you could back up the claim or you would have

done so.

Irene

At 09:27 PM 2/27/2005, you wrote:

>Irene,

>

>

>

>Business corruption is the exception. Government corruption is

>the rule. If you trust government over business, you know little

>about either.

>

>

>

>-Mark

>

>

>

> _____

>

>From: Irene Musiol [mailto:Irene.M@...]

>Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 3:41 PM

>

>Subject: RE: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes

(was

>Supporting WAPF or N...

>

>

>

>I assume that you mean that private enterprise not being a

>bastion of

>honesty or fairness. Well, Enron comes to mind. There have been

>numerous

>reports recently of pharmaceutical companies hiding bad data for

>their

>products. This by no means indicts all companies as criminal but

>you don't

>have to look far for examples of cheating and bad behavior.

>Irene

>

>

>At 12:25 PM 2/27/2005, you wrote:

>

> >Irene,

> >

> >

> >

> >Could you supply some kind of basis for your last sentence?

> >

> >

> >

> >-Mark

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > _____

> >

> >From: Irene Musiol [mailto:Irene.M@...]

> >Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 2:43 PM

> >

> >Subject: Re: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes

>(was

> >Supporting WAPF or N...

> >

> >

> >

> >Government legislators might not have scientific or technical

> >however they

> >are not single handedly writing policy. When technical policy

>has

> >to be

> >written they hire experts in the field, from government

agencies

> >(FDA, EPA

> >etc) and private industry to do that. And although you are

> >correct in

> >saying that government isn't the pinnacle of honesty and

> >fairness, private

> >industry is certainly no better.

> >Irene

> >

> >

> >At 11:11 AM 2/27/2005, you wrote:

> > >Gov legislators are by no means

> > >the reference standard of scientific or technical ability,

>and

> > >certainly not the pinnacle of honesty and fairness. In

other

> > >words, all would be better accomplished by private

enterprise

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Of course they would not be the same companies. I did not mean to

imply that. Separate pollution-technology businesses would be a

part of a whole new industry. They might possibly work with

insurance companies.

-Mark

_____

From: Irene Musiol [mailto:Irene.M@...]

Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 1:04 AM

Subject: RE: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was

Supporting WAPF or N...

Some are some aren't.

If the companies are setting the pollution standards that they

have to meet

then I don't see the point in bothering to sue a company. Than

they would

just set the standard for what they already do even if is not

safe. What

would motivate them to set a safe standard if that will cost them

money? So

they might be polluting like crazy but are still meeting the

standards, so

what is the point? How would you even know if they exceeded

those

standards. Would you be testing all models of automobiles

yourself?

Irene

At 09:23 PM 2/27/2005, you wrote:

>Irene,

>

>

>

>What makes you think I couldn't? Business would determine

>acceptable pollution levels. Are current levels, that are

>determined by gov agencies, acceptable to you?

>

>

>

>

>

>-Mark

>

>

>

> _____

>

>From: Irene Musiol [mailto:Irene.M@...]

>Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 2:49 PM

>

>Subject: Re: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes

(was

>Supporting WAPF or N...

>

>

>

>* What makes you think you could sue successfully? Who

>predetermines the

>amount of exhaust that is acceptable? And what if that amount

>isn't

>acceptable to you?

>Irene

>

>

>At 11:13 AM 2/27/2005, you wrote:

>

> >

> >In a message dated 2/27/2005 4:04:43 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> >colowe@... writes:

> >

> >In context of automobile exhaust, how about this? If a car

> >manufacturer produces a model that churns out over a

> >predetermined amount of garbage per average mile, I can sue

>them

> >successfully. If a driver drives such a car, I can also do

the

> >same to him. How would that be less fair than current

>legislative

> >principles?

> >

> >

> >___

> >

> >Who sets the predetermined amount of garbage allowable, if not

a

>legislative

> >body?

> >

> >Chris

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

>

> Government has incentive to be inefficient at best and corrupt at

> worst.

If there is no profit motive, then the incentive would have to come from laws.

There is always incentive to be corrupt - isn't that built into the idea of

corruption? So, there have to be built in disincentives that outweigh the

incentives.

>Business has incentive to be efficient, competent and

> fair.

Fair? LOL! That's a good one. Ruthless yes. I just don't see fair.

>Incentive = tendency = basic nature - which is dictated by

> fundamental setup, regarding how they get their money.

> Governments essentially extort it by force and businesses

> essentially earn it by consent.

oh, yeah, right. And this is FACT to you? If the society is democratic, is it

right to say that the government " extorts " money by " force " ? Note that I am not

basing this on any conception that the U.S. is democratic.

>

>

>

> The first piece of evidence I would use to back up my

> anti-government claim(s) would be the Constitution of the US and

> the amount of it that is dedicated to limiting the abusive/ " evil "

> nature of government and its powers. Would you accept that as a

> credible piece of evidence?

>

No. The problem is that there isn't enough legislated to limit the

" abusive/evil " nature of corporations.

[Guest guest]

So OK, a company would be regulated by another company. Why would they

choose accept the standards imposed on them by this other company.

Irene

At 08:21 AM 2/28/2005, you wrote:

>Of course they would not be the same companies. I did not mean to

>imply that. Separate pollution-technology businesses would be a

>part of a whole new industry. They might possibly work with

>insurance companies.

>

>

>

>-Mark

>

>

>

> _____

>

>From: Irene Musiol [mailto:Irene.M@...]

>Sent: Monday, February 28, 2005 1:04 AM

>

>Subject: RE: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes (was

>Supporting WAPF or N...

>

>

>

>Some are some aren't.

>If the companies are setting the pollution standards that they

>have to meet

>then I don't see the point in bothering to sue a company. Than

>they would

>just set the standard for what they already do even if is not

>safe. What

>would motivate them to set a safe standard if that will cost them

>money? So

>they might be polluting like crazy but are still meeting the

>standards, so

>what is the point? How would you even know if they exceeded

>those

>standards. Would you be testing all models of automobiles

>yourself?

>

>Irene

>

>

>

>At 09:23 PM 2/27/2005, you wrote:

>

> >Irene,

> >

> >

> >

> >What makes you think I couldn't? Business would determine

> >acceptable pollution levels. Are current levels, that are

> >determined by gov agencies, acceptable to you?

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >-Mark

> >

> >

> >

> > _____

> >

> >From: Irene Musiol [mailto:Irene.M@...]

> >Sent: Sunday, February 27, 2005 2:49 PM

> >

> >Subject: Re: POLITICS - Adjudicating Pollution Disputes

>(was

> >Supporting WAPF or N...

> >

> >

> >

> >* What makes you think you could sue successfully? Who

> >predetermines the

> >amount of exhaust that is acceptable? And what if that amount

> >isn't

> >acceptable to you?

> >Irene

> >

> >

> >At 11:13 AM 2/27/2005, you wrote:

> >

> > >

> > >In a message dated 2/27/2005 4:04:43 AM Eastern Standard Time,

> > >colowe@... writes:

> > >

> > >In context of automobile exhaust, how about this? If a car

> > >manufacturer produces a model that churns out over a

> > >predetermined amount of garbage per average mile, I can sue

> >them

> > >successfully. If a driver drives such a car, I can also do

>the

> > >same to him. How would that be less fair than current

> >legislative

> > >principles?

> > >

> > >

> > >___

> > >

> > >Who sets the predetermined amount of garbage allowable, if not

>a

> >legislative

> > >body?

> > >

> > >Chris

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >