Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 229 posts

Re: L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

#51

Post by throwaway0a5e »

FDSGSG wrote: post #50
ChrisLomont wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So punishment for everyone because someone, somewhere may have done something that decades later was made illegal? What kind of bizarre sadism is that?

Who does estate tax punish?

The children of the people who managed to live out their days without going broke and becoming a burden on everyone else have less money than if their parents spent it all (presumably some of which would have been on them) and died with debt.

The people who lived out their days without going broke lose because their property rights are being violated. Their property and their dollars that they have already paid taxes on should be theirs to give away as they see fit.

Re: L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

#52

Post by dusted »

sokoloff wrote: post #11
dusted wrote: post #2

It's amazing how little some people have cared, this was not that they didn't know, they certainly knew, otherwise, it'd not have resorted to hiding the stuff by dumping it into the sea.. It'd not be unreasonable to hunt down those responsible, and make them pay for cleaning it up. Sure, they're probably dead by now, but they probably left a lot of money. I don't think it's even relevant that "it was not illegal at t…

He didn’t, but suppose my grandfather legally (or even semi-legally) disposed of some DDT and left my father some money. My father later me some money. What’s the legal process to claw some of that money back to pay for the cleanup? Do you or the state have standing to sue me for something I never did, knew nothing about, and can’t reasonably answer to any specifics about?

Have you noticed how we generally do not bear any responsible for the wrongs of our parents? For instance, we are not forced to pay their debts, yet, we're somehow entitled to any riches they may have left behind? Seems asymmetrical to me. I'd say, yeah, I guess if you accepted the money, you should accept at least some of the responsibility for how they were amassed.

Re: L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

#53

Post by ses1984 »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #49
charlesu wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a great argument for an absurdly high estate tax. You can’t inherit ill-gotten gains if you don’t inherit anything at all!

So we should tax the crap out of everyone's estates on the premise that they probably wronged society and that society will need to pay to un-screw up whatever they did?!? Whatever happened to giving people the benefit of the doubt? Whatever happens to presumption of innocence? Firstly anyone with a brain is gonna conveniently go broke before they die if you try and pull something like that. Second I'm struggling to…

How about we just tax the crap out of everyone's estates so that our democracy doesn't devolve into a feudal oligarchy.

Oops, too late.

Re: L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

#55

Post by tsdlts »

dusted wrote: post #2

It's amazing how little some people have cared, this was not that they didn't know, they certainly knew, otherwise, it'd not have resorted to hiding the stuff by dumping it into the sea.. It'd not be unreasonable to hunt down those responsible, and make them pay for cleaning it up. Sure, they're probably dead by now, but they probably left a lot of money. I don't think it's even relevant that "it was not illegal at t…

"I don't think it's even relevant that it was not legal at the time".

Imagine setting the precedent that the government can unilaterally decide to steal your property based on something your great grandfather did which wasn't even a crime. Do you not see how such a power might be abused in future when you can retroactively punish people for laws where the ink has yet to dry and that they never even committed?

Re: L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

#56

Post by ChrisLomont »

FDSGSG wrote: post #50
ChrisLomont wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So punishment for everyone because someone, somewhere may have done something that decades later was made illegal? What kind of bizarre sadism is that?

Who does estate tax punish?

The parent poster stated that people breaking laws is argument for high estate tax. Is this not chosen as a form of punishment? If it had zero punishment effect, why do it? If taking money away was not a form of punishment, why is it used as punishment in so many court cases?

It punishes those who would have had the assets otherwise. Especially when the stated reason is to punish them.

Re: L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

#57

Post by Hokusai »

macspoofing wrote: post #46
dusted wrote: post #2

It's amazing how little some people have cared, this was not that they didn't know, they certainly knew, otherwise, it'd not have resorted to hiding the stuff by dumping it into the sea.. It'd not be unreasonable to hunt down those responsible, and make them pay for cleaning it up. Sure, they're probably dead by now, but they probably left a lot of money. I don't think it's even relevant that "it was not illegal at t…

The problem with your approach, besides the immorality of arbitrary post-hoc rationalization for punishment, is that it is not pragmatic. What's done is done, and you need people to get behind making it better. If you come out and push a policy that in part entails rooting and punishing those responsible (or even descendent of those responsible), you'll have people come out against it just for that reason and the env…

> post-hoc punishment

post-hoc punishment is the only reasonable punishment. The alternative it to punish people before they commit a crime, and that seems immoral at best.

> push a policy

My guess, it was already illegal to poison the environment. They just got caught now.

> those responsible with something like reconciliation committees ... symbolic gestures are accepted in lieu of prison or capital punishment.

Corporations are not people. You can punish a corporation without any of that considerations.

Re: L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

#58

Post by hyperbovine »

macspoofing wrote: post #46
dusted wrote: post #2

It's amazing how little some people have cared, this was not that they didn't know, they certainly knew, otherwise, it'd not have resorted to hiding the stuff by dumping it into the sea.. It'd not be unreasonable to hunt down those responsible, and make them pay for cleaning it up. Sure, they're probably dead by now, but they probably left a lot of money. I don't think it's even relevant that "it was not illegal at t…

The problem with your approach, besides the immorality of arbitrary post-hoc rationalization for punishment, is that it is not pragmatic. What's done is done, and you need people to get behind making it better. If you come out and push a policy that in part entails rooting and punishing those responsible (or even descendent of those responsible), you'll have people come out against it just for that reason and the env…

> the immorality of arbitrary post-hoc punishment, is that it is not pragmatic

I don’t see why it needs to be arbitrary, and all punishment occurs post hoc.

Re: L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

#59

Post by macspoofing »

hyperbovine wrote: post #58
macspoofing wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with your approach, besides the immorality of arbitrary post-hoc rationalization for punishment, is that it is not pragmatic. What's done is done, and you need people to get behind making it better. If you come out and push a policy that in part entails rooting and punishing those responsible (or even descendent of those responsible), you'll have people come out against it just for that reason and the env…

> the immorality of arbitrary post-hoc punishment, is that it is not pragmatic I don’t see why it needs to be arbitrary, and all punishment occurs post hoc.

>I don’t see why it needs to be arbitrary

It's arbitrary because we're creating a new standard and judging (and punishing) those who did not follow it in the past. And OP is clearly arbitrary in their reasoning. They suggested collective punishment and didn't bother thinking through the implications of how that policy would be implemented and what unintended consequences it would have.

>and all punishment occurs post hoc.

Post hoc rationalization for punishment. The actions taken were legal at the time, and OP argued that that shouldn't stand in the way of punishing those individuals (or their descendants) today.

Re: L.A.'s coast was once a DDT dumping ground, but no one could see it until now

#60

Post by pessimizer »

throwaway0a5e wrote: post #51
FDSGSG wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who does estate tax punish?

The children of the people who managed to live out their days without going broke and becoming a burden on everyone else have less money than if their parents spent it all (presumably some of which would have been on them) and died with debt. The people who lived out their days without going broke lose because their property rights are being violated. Their property and their dollars that they have already paid taxes…

Not being entitled to something no one else is entitled to either is not a punishment, otherwise it's a punishment to me when I can't have your dad's money.

Children aren't even entitled to their parents money in adulthood. Parents have to choose to give it to them either explicitly or by omission.

Post reply on HN