Another victory for proponents of laissez-faire government.

[RgrF]

The Big Picture

[mattkime]

wow

[Lux Interior]

Nothing there that the free market, tax cuts and apple pie won't fix.

[cbelt3]

Uh huh... Google Map Butte, Montana. Look at the big 'lake'. That's an exceptionally acidic water-filled open pit copper mine.

Or better yet, the Hanford Nuclear Reservation. A lovely little toxic and radioactive chemical dump. Placed there by the American Government.

I'm in favor of reasonable environmental regulations within the law.

[Mac1337]

A former communist country, which no doubt still retains much of their 50 year history, is held up as model of free markets. How far are you willing to go to besmirch your country? You are on my list too, rgrf.

[cbelt3]

Dakota-

Yugoslavia was never a 'communist' country. Ok, well, the whole Soviet Union stopped being 'communist' as soon as Stalin took over. Sure, rG is being sarcastic. Fine. Whatever. But the international impact of environmental disasters that could have been averted are significant.

What SHOULD be expressed here is the negative effect that central government planning has on local environmental conditions. China, for example, has succeeded in desertifying and polluting chunks of their country through unchecked industrial expansion and a significant lack of environmental sensitivity. And back in the corpse of the USSR, the poisonous corpses of centrally planned enterprises continue to cause problems. In the west, we're most familiar with Chernobyl, but if you look at places like Baku (among others) you'll find environmental disaster zones that make the worst US "Superfund Site" look like a little oil slick in a swimming pool.

In the US, state laws and local laws helped keep some abuses at bay, and of course the national level problems are being addressed by the national environmental laws put in place starting in the 1970's with the emergence of the environmental movement. Prior to those laws, some areas of the US had a better environmental safety record than others, usually due to local sensitivity by farmers and ranchers. You see, conservation is considered a conservative ethos in many areas of this nation.

In summary.... the local population and government needs to be sensitive to the safety and health of their environment. Trusting a central government to do it for you is foolish in the extreme.

[OWC Jamie]

yes communism is a fine example of laissez-faire governement.

Hey if we can blame Bush somehow, that works, too.

[mattkime]

>>What SHOULD be expressed here is the negative effect that central government planning has on local environmental conditions.

Is that "central government planning" or simply poor planning? they are not one in the same.

>>You see, conservation is considered a conservative ethos in many areas of this nation.

BWAAAHAAAHAAAHAA! That form of conservatism is pretty much dead.

>>Trusting a central government to do it for you is foolish in the extreme.

I don't think anyone advocating government intervention intends for the government to remain unwatched. Nice straw man.

[Rick-o]

Dakota wrote:
A former communist country, which no doubt still retains much of their 50 year history, is held up as model of free markets. How far are you willing to go to besmirch your country? You are on my list too, rgrf.

It's ok, we know you don't comprehend the issues being discussed here.

[Acer]

If not a strong central government to watch, then WHO??

The industries themselves?

The neighbors with their own checking accounts?

Or just wait for the "free market" to correct it all by moving on to the next great resource when the first one is depleted or poisoned?