3 ms·

The leaders of the govt have at least basic rights to retract lots of things that are public, unless there some specific rule requiring something to be out ther

The leaders of the govt have at least basic rights to retract lots of things that are public, unless there some specific rule requiring something to be out there. This seems pretty clearly to be bad, is there any defense of this? My older relatives insist the current us govt 'changes' with Trump are what we need to succeed in the future. They aren't aware of things like this, but is there any defense of actions like this? My dad would probably say increasing business activity is the central goal of the govt, so it's okay not to cause trouble by pointing out all these pollution sources. But I can't see any good for this kind of stuff.

cosmodisk 7y ago
The people in most governments are quite cheap,so no surprise here. However,what I don't get is that same people forget that they live in the same country, breathe the same air and their kids will continue to do so. It's like trying to burn neighbor's house without impacting your help own,even though they are both connected...
- ljw1001 7y ago
  > The people in most governments are quite cheap... Have you seen our budget? <wink>
  - throwaway19271 7y ago
    Have you seen a government pay scale?
angry_octet 7y ago
I'll bet he wouldn't like it if he discovered toxic waste was being stored/leaked just next door. But as a theoretical situation he'd probably just say that it's fine as long as it's to code. Even if it were real, people cling to being told it is okay. There are two problems I see. First, people seem to lack empathy -- it could just as easily be them suffering through no fault of their own. Second, people subconsciously know they could be struck by any number of random bad things, and there is nothing they could do about it, and no one would help; they rationalize this as the victim somehow being at fault. Same as crops failing because of sins or inadequate sacrifices. Maybe explain to him that these businesses are run by big Democrat donors, and they are getting a free lunch by having tax payers pay for their pollution.
mistrial9 7y ago
US Citizen here -- some activity under the Federal umbrella can be privitized, of course, maybe with different and/or better results by some measures. BUT those sort of activity, tend to be commercially valuable. Some company is able to do the same, plus add their own marketing or efficiencies to it, and turn a profit by charging some fee to others. Pollution is not like that. Pollution, toxic wastes and looking after industrial activity to make sure it plays by the established rules, is simply a cost center. No one wants to pay for looking after someone else's wastes, someone else cheating the rules to reduce costs or simplify an industrial process. This is a responsibility of government because the actions of a few are expensive to others with no control over it, and pollution and toxic wastes do not have value, they are a cost. So society decides to use tax revenue and the authority of government to deal with pollution, toxics and industrial regulation. Your older relatives have probably seen a tax money used badly, and this is true. However, not many people have the time and resources to even know about pollution and toxics, let alone do anything effective about it.
ljw1001 7y ago
> My dad would probably say increasing business activity is the central goal of the govt That's a deeply sad, but I suspect increasingly common view of the role of government

cosmodisk 7y ago

The people in most governments are quite cheap,so no surprise here. However,what I don't get is that same people forget that they live in the same country, breathe the same air and their kids will continue to do so. It's like trying to burn neighbor's house without impacting your help own,even though they are both connected...

ljw1001 7y ago
> The people in most governments are quite cheap... Have you seen our budget? <wink>
- throwaway19271 7y ago
  Have you seen a government pay scale?

angry_octet 7y ago

I'll bet he wouldn't like it if he discovered toxic waste was being stored/leaked just next door. But as a theoretical situation he'd probably just say that it's fine as long as it's to code. Even if it were real, people cling to being told it is okay. There are two problems I see. First, people seem to lack empathy -- it could just as easily be them suffering through no fault of their own. Second, people subconsciously know they could be struck by any number of random bad things, and there is nothing they could do about it, and no one would help; they rationalize this as the victim somehow being at fault. Same as crops failing because of sins or inadequate sacrifices. Maybe explain to him that these businesses are run by big Democrat donors, and they are getting a free lunch by having tax payers pay for their pollution.

mistrial9 7y ago

US Citizen here -- some activity under the Federal umbrella can be privitized, of course, maybe with different and/or better results by some measures. BUT those sort of activity, tend to be commercially valuable. Some company is able to do the same, plus add their own marketing or efficiencies to it, and turn a profit by charging some fee to others. Pollution is not like that. Pollution, toxic wastes and looking after industrial activity to make sure it plays by the established rules, is simply a cost center. No one wants to pay for looking after someone else's wastes, someone else cheating the rules to reduce costs or simplify an industrial process. This is a responsibility of government because the actions of a few are expensive to others with no control over it, and pollution and toxic wastes do not have value, they are a cost. So society decides to use tax revenue and the authority of government to deal with pollution, toxics and industrial regulation. Your older relatives have probably seen a tax money used badly, and this is true. However, not many people have the time and resources to even know about pollution and toxics, let alone do anything effective about it.

ljw1001 7y ago

> My dad would probably say increasing business activity is the central goal of the govt That's a deeply sad, but I suspect increasingly common view of the role of government