Return Styles: Pseud0ch, Terminal, Valhalla, NES, Geocities, Blue Moon.

Pages: 1-

Libertarianism and Lead Gasoline

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-14 0:06 ID:aTGkJBrX

The negative heath effects of lead were well known in the 1910s when oil companies started adding it to gasoline.  Leaded gasoline had the ability to reduce engine knocking, which was notoriously bad in the early age of automobiles.  To the heartless and uncaring, the advantages were unquestionable.  Unsurprisingly every major gasoline manufacturer in the world was soon adding lead to the mix. 

Again, there was no debate about the effects of lead.  People inside and outside the oil companies readily agreed that it caused birth defects, retardation, learning disabilities, joint problems, poisoning and even cancer and neurological damage.  Mechanics and automotive workers were particularly susceptible, and showed a much higher rates of illness. Yet trillions of gallons of leaded gasoline were put into the air decade after decade.

Atmospheric lead rates soared for over sixty years.  The whole planet was literally being poisoned.  There was an outcry from the public.  Petition after petition was sent to no effect.  The invisible hand of the market could only limply hold the impotent, flaccid cock of the oil industry.

Lead wasn't removed from gasoline until the 1980s, when a President Reagan and a Democratic controlled congress passed a federal law that allowed EPA to regulate leaded gasoline.  Regulation worked where the free market failed.  With the new tool at its disposal, the EPA promptly banned lead from automotive gasoline and moved to ban it from all other types as well.  But the airlines had a tantrum and to this day, leaded gasoline is still used in aircraft fuels. 

The Moral Of The Story: Libertarians are smoking crack when they say their idiot political system can reduce environmental dangers.  For every success story like the Chinese toy recall, theres a thousand others that the public to too stupid to pay any attention to.  We need the willingness of Congress along with the concentrated expertise of the federal bureaucracy to regulate these complex issues. There's so much behind the scenes invisible hard work involved.  Sure people complain, but most countries would kill to have our FDA or EPA.  We need to straighten these institutions, not weaken them.

90% of the libertarians are humanities majors who don't even understand the complexity of what's involved.  They take an objectivist, Ayn Rand "i got mine fuck everyone else" view of the world.  Also they're all faggots.

We can do better.

Don't vote Ron Paul 2008.

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-14 1:04 ID:aTGkJBrX

bumping to get out of backwards title land

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-14 1:22 ID:aTGkJBrX

i'm going to keep bumping my thread till someone responds

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-14 1:24 ID:UKMv5Caa

I fucked a dog until its anus fell out.

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-14 1:25 ID:aTGkJBrX

>>4

You know who supports bestiality?  Ron Paul! 

That's right, there's no law against bestiality in the constitution, therefore Ron Paul doesn't think the government has the right to make laws against it.

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-14 1:48 ID:QcNCo4aZ

Sorry dude, but this is the fate of good threads. When you have an argument that libertarians can't shit on, they won't respond to it, and people who agree with you generally won't bother to say anything.

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-14 1:54 ID:aTGkJBrX

~~ sigh ~~

All that is necessary for libertarians to triumph is for good men to do nothing...

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-14 1:57 ID:QcNCo4aZ

>>7
No, just wait a few years and they grow up. They'll be replaced by new kids, but that's just how life is.

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-14 2:10 ID:aTGkJBrX

"What programs can we cut? What agencies and departments should go? A better question is: What should stay on a permanent basis? That’s easy: only those functions specifically outlined in the Constitution. Is foreign aid allowed by the Constitution? No. Is public housing in the Constitution? No. Is federal involvement in education? No. Are the EPA, OSHA, and the BATF? No. Is protecting our borders? Yes."

--Ron Paul

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-14 3:35 ID:Heaven

Everyone respond to this thread from now on.
http://dis.4chan.org/read/newpol/1189742871/1-
It's more practical.

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-14 11:17 ID:fuF132Ir

>>10

that thread is for fags.  this is where the cool people hang out

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-14 11:39 ID:UzeJQAQx

>>1
Did Republicans stop the airline industry using lead in their fuel? If not then Republicans are no better than liberals.

Also FDA and EPA are gay and no other country wants such flawed systems.

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-14 12:22 ID:aTGkJBrX

>>12 "Also FDA and EPA are gay and no other country wants such flawed systems."

this is why you can't have a reasonable discussion with a libertarian.  things will be going along smoothly and then they'll say "up is down" or "black is white" with little to no premises to back it up.

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-14 16:00 ID:UzeJQAQx

>>13
So it's fine for the OP to claim that "most countries would kill to have our FDA or EPA" without any proof but when someone criticizes this it wrong because there's "little to no premises to back it up".

The discussion was not reasonable to begin with.

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-14 17:02 ID:e7NWyPag

>>9
imo that's probably the worst problem there is.
the constitution was not written by magical omniscient wizards.  that is why they made it amendable, so if an idea turns out to suck, or a really good idea comes up, it can be changed.
so basically im thinking all the good functions of the federal government in modern times should be constitutionalized, so that the libertarians can't go "b-b-b-but the constitution says-" as if it is some kind of received text from the Lord Our God Himself.

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-14 20:31 ID:Heaven

Keep this thread freshly saged.

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-14 20:51 ID:h93a0xPB

Fuck the FDA. Upton Sinclare was a SOCIALIST and The Jungle is a SOCIALIST WORK.

I want my unsafe foods in my Libertarian utopia!

Name: RedCream 2007-09-15 5:00 ID:4AcT1TfV

>>17
i am in ur libertarian utopia, unsafing ur food

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-15 7:44 ID:pGwW8qar

>>17
>>18
Poisonning is bodily damage or murder so it would be illegal under libertarianism. Sorry.

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-15 14:36 ID:Wco9CzFn

>>19

how would it be illegal?  ron paul wants to get rid of the EPA

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-15 15:03 ID:I4Y3/wkl

Poisonning is bodily damage or murder so it would be illegal under libertarianism.
It always was illegal, ya dumb shit, yet for some very strange reason there was still a need for FSIS. It's pretty strange how they keep recalling tainted food, no?

Libertarians: living in a fantasy land.

Name: Merc 2007-09-15 15:29 ID:+rHX2ppE

>>1
>Regulation worked where the free market failed.

Failed how? To live up to whose standards? The standards of an agency that was created AFTER THE FACT?

That's nonsense.

The free market can't "fail," because in order to fail an entity must begin with and work towards a specific goal. The Market has no goal, it's just an indicator of what people are doing en masse

So did the free market "fail" to get lead out of gas? No. The people obviously didn't care that much or they would have demanded changes, en masse. They can and have done it in the past.

But hey, let's regulate the fuck out of everything. People are too stupid to make the decision to stop buying gas until it's offered without lead anyway. Right? The brilliant minds on 4chan can make those decisions for them!

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-15 20:34 ID:I4Y3/wkl

But hey, let's regulate the fuck out of everything.
I love slippery-slope arguments. Only the simple-minded can come up with something so weak.

Carry on.

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-15 23:28 ID:nGYv5dAB

>>20
>>21
>>23
I love straw man arguments. Only political extremists fail to back up their assertions.

The FSIS is an element of law enforcement, libertarians do not want to get rid of it. Ron Paul has only stated that he wants to abolish the EPA's power to make literally 1000s of new regulations each year, not the EPA's ability to detect pollution the average citizen cannot. If the excess money spent on the EPA were used to enforce existing laws anyone with a yard they feel smells a little bit smokey would be able to report it to the police and press charges. The streets would be clean like Singapore (a great country).

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-16 17:29 ID:R72uJQYo

I love straw man arguments.
How is >>23 a strawman, exactly? Please, do tell!

Projection FTW.

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-16 19:57 ID:iuC/8nZ4

>>25
The strawman fallacy is the only one that 15 year old internet addicts know of, so they claim it whenever they want to sound smart. Since they only argue with their peers, they're rarely called on their bullshit.

Name: Anonymous 2007-09-17 3:17 ID:NawSreEQ

>>25
>>26
Read the rest of the post.

Don't change these.
Name: Email:
Entire Thread Thread List