It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by stanguilles7
It's all to do with property rights.
If you OWN your property and BP comes in and does something they aren't suppose to then let the courts deal with it. You don't need a government bureaucrazy telling you what is acceptible for your land.
Originally posted by stanguilles7
So what if BP comes in to your neighbors land and spills oil and corexitt in a river that feeds into your property? If it doesnt bother your neighbor, should you have any legal right?
What if your neighbors land is in another state, but that river still feeds onto your property, and provides drinking water for a city of 1 million people?edit on 25-4-2012 by stanguilles7 because: (no reason given)
One of my main sticking points is with the idea of getting rid of the EPA.
Originally posted by pierregustavetoutant
The EPA initially pretended to care about the effects of corexit on coastal Louisiana. Less than a day after that pretense, they allowed unlimited and massive corexit spraying and dumping in the Gulf of Mexico.
The EPA has, for years, allowed the large chemical companies in South Louisiana to dump into the shipping canals which feed into the Mississippi River (the drinking water for SE Louisianans). Their "regulations" only apply to small companies which might pose a competitive future threat to the big boys.
While i have no doubt that the courts might not always rule in favor of the smaller property owners, I'll trust them over the corrupt federal agency any day of the week.
GEAUX PAUL
Yes cause the river feeds into MY property, their actions upstream effect those down stream, they are still responsible.
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
reply to post by stanguilles7
The reason that litigation against these multi-nationals is so hard is because of government bureaucracy and regulations that allow for loohopes and ways to game the system so that they can't be found guilty in court.
Secondly, these sorts of courts would be jury only. No bought judge should be making a decision about your land, and what constitutes a crime.
The Jury was ALWAYS supposed to be the ones that decided if a crime had taken place and to award the appropritate punishment.
Originally posted by OutKast Searcher
reply to post by tothetenthpower
And what does "State B" do when the river upstream is in "State A" that allows dumping of certain chemicals that "State B" has outlawed. A company that is on the boarder but still in "State A" can dump all the chemicals they want ...and people in "State B" can't do a damn thing about it under Ron Paul's world view.
Originally posted by tothetenthpower
And actually yes they can do something as BP's right to dump into that river ends at the border, they would need to pay for a water treatment plant that REMOVED these things from the water before it crossed into another state.
It's quite simple.
Same thing. As for the state, under proper libertarian practice, it doesn't matter what the "state" considers legal , because your land belongs to you and you are the ONLY person who can deem what is ok and what isn't on your own land.
Originally posted by KonquestAbySS
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
So do you think the EPA works better at the Federal or State level?