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

[Guest guest]

>I know very little about septic systems, but I was under the

>impression that

>the fluid was designed for outflow, while the solids remained and

>were

>periodically extracted by someone with a poop collection.

>

>Chris

I do know something about this, having just installed a major new $15,000 septic

system. The fluids that go out, ideally, are pure water, and quite save, even IF

the folks in the house had hepatitis or some such. The solids don't need to be

extracted often. Our old " non efficient " one was cleaned after 10 years because

I asked, but, they said, it didn't need it. I expect with something like an EM

system, you'd never need to " clean " it. However, there is the question of toxic

minerals. You don't know how much lead, mercury, etc. a given household

excretes. Not much, in our case, but I'm only guessing.

When any organic material is sufficiently digested by bacteria (except for toxic

minerals) then it makes great plant food. There is no " poop " left, just mineral

solids.

That said ... many septic systems don't work right and the DO pollute the

neighbor's wells. Nasty stuff. I've spent the entire YEAR dealing with the

County on this, because my Mom is moving to our property and that changed our

septics. I don't disagree with the County, either, even though it's a pain. The

engineers I've talked to are tech-heads like me, and they know their stuff.

Heidi Jean

[Guest guest]

> Hi Mark,

>

> You know, many homeowners are forced to pipe their poop off property via

> sewer pipes. Who suffers then? Poop must be sucked out of a septic

> system periodically and shipped off elsewhere. I am the person you were

> addressing. And I have a septic system, do you? Poop must be taken out

> via poop sucker. PERIOD. It cannot remain in the system somehow and

> the system be viable in the pollution-free sense.

>

>>____

>>

>>Where does the fluid outflow lead to though?

>>

>>Chris

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>Well I'm not a plumber or geologist or hydrologist but I believe

>>that by the time the fluid leaches out of the septic system it is

>>plain water again.

>>

>>

>>

>>-Mark

We just had our septic tank pumped after about 12 years. It then goes to a

wastewater treatment plant where it gets processed along with all of the

waste of sewer systems, direct pipes from homes to plant, go to. Fluid

outflows, holes to pipes higher up on septic tank go to a leach field,

system of holey pipes spread out over a large sand filled filtering area.

Think about how much poop water goes to tank in proportion to grey waters,

tub, sink and washing machine. What's leaching is pretty much cleaning

water. Tank size and leach field size are in proportion to house size

usually, although our's size allows another bedroom, person to be added to

use system. Don't know the biology of septic tanks other than taking care of

it like a digester. Need to use 1 ply toilet paper, cushy stuff doesn't

breakdown right. Should use enzymes, bacteria like RidX once a month to

digest solids down similar to a compost pile. Have read that down south in

earlier septic systems women would use old buttermilk. I flush old yogurt

down the toilet. Other than that no bleach, only phosphate, other junk free

soaps and detergents keep septic tanks healthy longer.

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]

> Wanita,

>

>

>

> I will consider that a " no; no one in America should be able to

> buy or sell land. " Do you own land? Do you rent? Are you

> homeless? Are you native?

>

>

>

> -Mark

Has to be a " no " logically. Don't have a what to do from that theory either.

17 acres has our names and money on it for our caretaking and society's

purposes that derive from the concept of ownership, have rented, not or been

homeless, some too far removed from tribal/government recognition ancestry.

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]

>Anything can be abstracted far enough back towards its root principles that

>it's incontrovertible (and also indefensible) on logical or factual

>grounds. At some point, all practical systems are based on root values

>which are held, in a sense, just because. It's the difference between a

>theorem and an axiom.

>

>Admittedly, most people don't really figure out their axioms, and this

>contributes to their frequent espousal of contradictory theorems, but that

>doesn't mean the axioms aren't there -- even when they're as simple as " I

>want it so it should be mine " .

>

>Now, consider libertarians. One libertarian axiom often seems to be that

>property rights should be inviolable -- property uber alles, one might

>say. Admittedly, you could argue that property uber alles is actually a

>theorem derived from the axiom that all force is immoral, and the

>appropriation of any property, whether actively contested or not, requires

>force. I'll get to the implications of that distinction soon, but first

>consider the principle itself.

>

>Property uber alles (whether axiomatic or theorematic) can obviously have

>some unfortunate outcomes. Consider a hypothetical situation in which a

>rich man owns an enormous stock of medicine, and someone is dying, but the

>medicine owner refuses to give the dying person any medicine. (In this

>hypothetical, obviously, the medicine is safe and effective. <g> Also,

>his motives don't matter -- he could have a grudge against the dying man,

>he could be holding out for a better price, he could be a libertarian

>offended by the dying man's family's politics... it's immaterial.) The

>pure libertarian argument would be that there's no justification for

>appropriating any of the rich man's medicine to save the dying man and so,

>absent other actors in the drama, the dying man would go on to perish in a

>pure libertarian world.

>

>Admittedly, it's true that the mere existence of the potential for some

>undesirable outcomes doesn't automatically render a system

>unacceptable. Many people (myself included) believe that when someone is

>improperly convicted of a crime (based on fabricated evidence, for example,

>or on evidence discovered through a search made without a warrant) the

>conviction should be overturned -- or better yet, that the conviction

>should be impossible in the first place. This can have the undesirable

>outcome of some actual criminals going free, but this allowance for certain

>types of undesirable outcomes is in service of a greater good: helping to

>ensure the safety of all citizens against unjust arrest, conviction and

>imprisonment.

>

>More generally, it seems to me like a sound principle that any allowance

>for undesirable outcomes should be in service of a greater good which

>outweighs the bad of the undesirable outcomes. This principle may seem

>like an axiom itself, but in reality it's more like a mathematical outcome

>of any system of axioms, and the particulars of its implications depend

>entirely on the selection and weighting of the system's axioms.

>

>So let's return to the question of property uber alles. If your axiom is

>that property rights are the most important consideration in any system,

>then the axiom is, in essence, its own defence: it's either obvious and

>unchallengeable or incorrect depending on the degree to which you adhere to

>that axiomatic belief.

>

>But if your goal is to maximize some other good through the use of property

>rights, then you have to defend the principle of property uber alles on at

>least partly pragmatic grounds: what good is it supporting, and why is that

>good more important than the other good of avoiding some undesirable

>outcomes, like the death in my hypothetical situation? If, for example,

>you hold that property should be inviolate because any abridgement of

>property rights requires force and force is universally bad, then you have

>to explain why force is a priori harmful and what damage it causes.

>

>Now consider a subspecies of my hypothetical situation: what if the rich

>man owns more doses of medicine than he can ever use -- in fact, he has so

>many he can't even keep track of them all except perhaps in the

>abstract? If a dose is surreptitiously stolen from him so that nobody is

>hurt, where is the force in the ordinary sense of the word, and what actual

>harm is done to him?

>

>The distinction between appropriating some marginal quantity of that rich

>man's medicine and the sole dose possessed by a sick man should clearly

>resemble the distinctions in taxation achieved under a progressive tax system.

>

>If your objection is that any force, even technical, theoretical kinds of

>force like that used in the above example are unacceptable, then you've

>established a very broad definition of force as a paramount axiomatic

>wrong. Otherwise, you have to defend the absolutism of property rights on

>pragmatic grounds.

>

>I also question the justification of establishing property uber alles as an

>axiom. Consider the origins of the concept of property rights. Since many

>people argue that property uber alles is a natural right, which is to say

>an essential consequence of human nature, they should be able to show that

>it has roots stretching back as far as humanity itself -- but they

>can't. Nomadic hunter-gatherer societies had much narrower definitions of

>property rights. Nomadic Native American tribes, for example, were

>completely mystified by the idea of owning land. Property was a tangible

>good you built or bought yourself, and even then, there were limits. If

>you hunted, you shared your catch. If you gathered, you shared your

>gleanings. Not because it was the nice thing to do and Native Americans

>were such wonderfully nice people, but because that was the system. You

>had to, and if you didn't, there were consequences.

>

>Furthermore, there's an inescapable contradiction in all practical

>applications of property uber alles: advocates defend their absolute

>property rights on the grounds that any appropriation is unjustifiable

>theft, but the present-day distribution of property -- and indeed all

>distributions of property throughout history -- have been arrived at partly

>through appropriation. War, slavery, taxation, eminent domain, outright

>theft, immoral business practices... you name it. If all appropriation is

>theft and all theft is indefensible, then why should current property

>owners be allowed to keep their ill-gotten gains? And that said, how is it

>even possible to figure out what portion of whose property really belong to

>whom?

>

>There's a way around that impossible problem, though: accept that property

>rights are not absolute and inviolable. Property is acquired in part

>through systemic benefits. Atlanta, Georgia, for example, profited

>enormously through the creation of the interstate highway system. And so

>it makes sense that some portion of the property thus gained should be

>returned to the people who people who enabled that gain via the system.

>

>I could refine and extend this further, but I don't have time.

>

>

>

>-

>

,

This piece is brilliant. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this very

thoughtful writing. I have nothing to add, but just wanted to recognize

it. Bravo!

Deanna

[Guest guest]

>

>> Wanita,

>>

>>

>>

>> I will consider that a " no; no one in America should be able to

>> buy or sell land. " Do you own land? Do you rent? Are you

>> homeless? Are you native?

>>

>>

>>

>> -Mark

>

> Has to be a " no " logically. Don't have a what to do from that theory

> either.

> 17 acres has our names and money on it for our caretaking and society's

> purposes that derive from the concept of ownership, have rented, not

> or been

> homeless, some too far removed from tribal/government recognition

> ancestry.

>

> Wanita

Real estate is an interesting problem. It's counter-intuitive to claim

ownership in something which existed before humanity and created

humanity. OTOH, people exchange created property and sweat for land.

I'm a firm believer in security in land ownership, particularly against

things like eminent domain abuse, and I believe that history has shown

that it's safest for humanity and the land. But I have to at least

admit the possibility that what we're actually buying/selling is

" stewardship rights " and that land ownership might not be an absolute

in the same way that owning my musical instruments is.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 2/27/2005 3:42:56 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Irene.M@... writes:

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.

____

Other obvious examples: tobacco, aspartame.

Chris

[Guest guest]

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Quick [mailto:jaq@...]

>

> Real estate is an interesting problem. It's counter-intuitive

> to claim ownership in something which existed before humanity

> and created humanity. OTOH, people exchange created property

> and sweat for land.

> I'm a firm believer in security in land ownership,

> particularly against things like eminent domain abuse, and I

> believe that history has shown that it's safest for humanity

> and the land. But I have to at least admit the possibility

> that what we're actually buying/selling is " stewardship

> rights " and that land ownership might not be an absolute in

> the same way that owning my musical instruments is.

Ultimately, everything that we have is a product of natural resources, often

nonrenewable. Suppose that one of your musical instruments is a trumpet.

It's made of metal, right? And that metal was in the ground before humanity

existed. And now it's not in the ground, so you're claiming exclusive

ownership of something which existed before humanity. Do you actually own

your trumpet, or do you just have a stewardship right to it?

[Guest guest]

>> From: Quick [mailto:jaq@...]

>>

>> I'm a firm believer in security in land ownership,

>> particularly against things like eminent domain abuse, and I

>> believe that history has shown that it's safest for humanity

>> and the land.

Man made law to the land in reverse sequence to the natural law of the land.

> But I have to at least admit the possibility

>> that what we're actually buying/selling is " stewardship

>> rights " and that land ownership might not be an absolute in

>> the same way that owning my musical instruments is.

>

> Ultimately, everything that we have is a product of natural resources,

> often

> nonrenewable. Suppose that one of your musical instruments is a trumpet.

> It's made of metal, right? And that metal was in the ground before

> humanity

> existed. And now it's not in the ground, so you're claiming exclusive

> ownership of something which existed before humanity. Do you actually own

> your trumpet, or do you just have a stewardship right to it?

>

>

That's where you can at least respect the resource it's made from and the

inventor that created it. Unlike many other possessions or necessities it

could only have a negative effect if it's overproduced or maybe hurts

someone else's ears if you haven't learned to play well. Otherwise it's

purposes are more to the positive for the individual and humanity.

Wanita

--

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]

At 1:53 PM +0000 2/28/05, wrote:

>Message: 5

> Date: Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:57:48 -0500

> From: " Wanita Sears " <wanitawa@...>

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

>Supporting WAPF or ...

>

>>> From: Quick [mailto:jaq@...]

>>>

>>> I'm a firm believer in security in land ownership,

>>> particularly against things like eminent domain abuse, and I

>>> believe that history has shown that it's safest for humanity

>>> and the land.

>

>Man made law to the land in reverse sequence to the natural law of the land.

That's pretty enigmatic. Care to expand on it?

> > But I have to at least admit the possibility

>>> that what we're actually buying/selling is " stewardship

>>> rights " and that land ownership might not be an absolute in

>>> the same way that owning my musical instruments is.

>>

>> Ultimately, everything that we have is a product of natural resources,

>> often

>> nonrenewable. Suppose that one of your musical instruments is a trumpet.

>> It's made of metal, right? And that metal was in the ground before

>> humanity

>> existed. And now it's not in the ground, so you're claiming exclusive

>> ownership of something which existed before humanity. Do you actually own

>> your trumpet, or do you just have a stewardship right to it?

>>

>>

Ground isn't portable. And it's interesting that we speak of owning

something, particularly land as " holding " or " tenancy " , when really

it's the land that holds us.

>That's where you can at least respect the resource it's made from and the

>inventor that created it. Unlike many other possessions or necessities it

>could only have a negative effect if it's overproduced or maybe hurts

>someone else's ears if you haven't learned to play well. Otherwise it's

>purposes are more to the positive for the individual and humanity.

>

>Wanita

But " positive purpose " has nothing to do with ownership. Even a

toxic waste dump has a positive purpose.

--

Quick, USUM (ret.)

www.en.com/users/jaquick

" If you ever hear the term " deconstruction, " it will be from someone

interested in reconstruction. Specifically, they will be interested

in reconstructing the Berlin Wall. This will not be true of all your

professors. Some are not yet aware that the Berlin Wall has

fallen. " --Mike

[Guest guest]

>This piece is brilliant. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this very

>thoughtful writing. I have nothing to add, but just wanted to recognize

>it. Bravo!

Thanks, Deanna. I wish I had time to refine and extend it (it'd need to be

orders of magnitude longer) but it wouldn't accomplish anything anyway.

-

[Guest guest]

: I'm a firm believer in security in land ownership,

>>>> particularly against things like eminent domain abuse, and I

>>>> believe that history has shown that it's safest for humanity

>>>> and the land.

>>

>> Wanita: Man made law to the land in reverse sequence to the natural law

>> of the land.

>

> :That's pretty enigmatic. Care to expand on it?

It's about the unnatural actions against nature and other humans over land

and resources.The natural precedes what's been made into unnatural, land

then humans.

: Ground isn't portable. And it's interesting that we speak of owning

> something, particularly land as " holding " or " tenancy " , when really

> it's the land that holds us.

Yup!

>

>>That's where you can at least respect the resource it's made from and the

>>inventor that created it. Unlike many other possessions or necessities it

>>could only have a negative effect if it's overproduced or maybe hurts

>>someone else's ears if you haven't learned to play well. Otherwise it's

>>purposes are more to the positive for the individual and humanity.

>>

>>Wanita

>

: But " positive purpose " has nothing to do with ownership. Even a

> toxic waste dump has a positive purpose.

Don't agree there. Toxic waste dump is a negative result. Positive purpose

was negated when the maker of the toxic substance or whoever else along the

line ok'd it without recognizing that negative result or any others. Another

not thought out through processes example. In this case it's the future

processes rather than the historical that are ignored.

Wanita

--

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