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

81–90 of 229 posts

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

#81

Post by ByteJockey »

meed2000 wrote: post #15
sokoloff wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Suing you to the extent of having to pay back whatever your father passed on to you, at least what's left of it would be reasonable, don't you think?

No. No I do not think that's reasonable.

Having a period after death for the government to bring charges against the estate seems reasonable. We already have this, but I could see a reasonable person arguing to make it a longer period.

I think it's unreasonable for the same reason getting rid of all statutes of limitations would be unreasonable. At some point, you have to let people stop looking over their shoulder. Society doesn't work very well when you incentivize people to dig up century old dirt on their enemies.

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

#82

Post by gpm »

billyhoffman wrote: post #67
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 illegal at the time" The idea that a government can make something illegal and retroactively punish previous offenders is so colossally bad that in the United States the Founding Fathers wrote a prohibition against it into the Constitution. It's not an amendment, such as the right to free speech. They wrote it into Article 1 . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_f…

It seems unlikely that this would be retroactive. It would probably fall under some pre existing statute like vandalism.

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

#83

Post by macspoofing »

darkcha0s wrote: post #25
meed2000 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suing you to the extent of having to pay back whatever your father passed on to you, at least what's left of it would be reasonable, don't you think?

Yes let us just start collective punishment, because we have such a justice boner. Jesus christ, sometimes HN has some wild opinions. Just to be absolutely clear -- it's not reasonable, and what you're suggesting is literally how North Korea handles crime. "Oh but you know here it's different" -- you're setting a precedent which, if allowed, would mean your family members could face jail time for crimes YOU commit.

>Jesus christ, sometimes HN has some wild opinions.

I'm not a libertarian myself, but I miss the libertarianism of Silicon Valley and HN. They are still around, but there's a lot more progressives around and there is a very real authoritarian and violent strain that runs through that movement.

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

#84

Post by eesmith »

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…

If that's punishment for the children of the rich, then those children born to parents who are broke must also live a punished life, yes?

If you are against children being punished because of the economics of their parents, then surely you are in support for a strong social safety network for children (universal subsidized/free childcare, including meals, and healthcare), yes?

Which requires taxation or other funding sources.

Which means we must ponder things like: how much of Sam Walton's $100 million inheritance did his children need in order to not be punished by a higher inheritance tax? $5 million each?

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

#85

Post by [deleted] »

dusted wrote: post #52
sokoloff wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#86

Post by effingwewt »

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?

I'll do you one better. Suppose your forebears made the money illegally.

Most certainly the ill-gotten gains must be clawed back. Are you seriously positing that you should keep illegally obtained money because you yourself didn't know?

Punishment is another story, of course it wasn't your fault, so you won't do the time, but you certainly don't get to be rich off the proceeds of the crime.

ie If I rob a bank and leave the money for my kids, they don't get to keep the money when the feds finally crack the case.

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

#87

Post by krallja »

dusted wrote: post #52
sokoloff wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> we are not forced to pay their debts, yet, we're somehow entitled to any riches they may have left behind?

Uh. The debts are paid with the riches before any inheritance is passed on. That’s part of the process.

https://www.dummies.com/personal-finance/estate-planning/how...

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

#88

Post by lol636363 »

darkcha0s wrote: post #25
meed2000 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Suing you to the extent of having to pay back whatever your father passed on to you, at least what's left of it would be reasonable, don't you think?

Yes let us just start collective punishment, because we have such a justice boner. Jesus christ, sometimes HN has some wild opinions. Just to be absolutely clear -- it's not reasonable, and what you're suggesting is literally how North Korea handles crime. "Oh but you know here it's different" -- you're setting a precedent which, if allowed, would mean your family members could face jail time for crimes YOU commit.

This is not collective punishment. There are already laws where children have to give up inheritance because it was created with illegal activities. There are laws against illegal dumping of dangerous chemicals. It is not too far fetched idea that existing laws can be used to recover some of damages caused by this.

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

#89

Post by chmaynard »

billyhoffman wrote: post #67
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 illegal at the time" The idea that a government can make something illegal and retroactively punish previous offenders is so colossally bad that in the United States the Founding Fathers wrote a prohibition against it into the Constitution. It's not an amendment, such as the right to free speech. They wrote it into Article 1 . https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ex_post_f…

On the other hand, I don't think it's unreasonable that the remaining assets of the Montrose Chemical Company should be used to help pay for the salvage and proper disposal of their DDT wastes.

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

#90

Post by macspoofing »

pessimizer wrote: post #80
macspoofing wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>post-hoc punishment is the only reasonable punishment. Maybe a little charitable interpretation is warranted? I clearly meant, post hoc rationalization for the punishment. Typically you punish when AN EXISTING law is broken. In this case, OP is arguing for new punishment based on new laws that were broken in the past. >My guess, it was already illegal to poison the environment No. The devil is in the definition of '…

> All the rights that corporations have stem from the rights of the owners. Corporations have rights, because the owners have rights. This is simply not true. All of the rights that corporations have stem from a public-interest grant by the state. If the rights of corporations came from the owners, we 1) could jail stockholders for the crimes of the corporation, and 2) wouldn't need corporations, because all they are…

>This is simply not true

That is exactly true.

>All of the rights that corporations have stem from a public-interest grant by the state.

That's right. But that's missing half the equation. If property rights weren't enshrined to corporations, and corporations could be arbitrarily raided by any two-bit socialist politician, nobody would incorporate. And those property rights come from the property rights of the owners because if the owners own the corporations, and if the corporations property rights are violated, then it follows the owners property rights are violated. If I own a corporation, that owns a local business (maybe a grocery store, or a autobody shop), and a looter steals from the store, I, the owner lose. Remember those videos of store owners in tears when looters and rioters destroyed their stores - some (all?) of those business owners are incorporated, so why are they in tears if it's just corporate property that was affected??????

Post reply on HN