131–140 of 229 posts
While this dumping is horrific you also have to understand how beneficial DDT was: > Between 1945 and 1965, DDT saved millions-even tens of millions-of lives around the world, perhaps more than any other man-made drug or chemical before or since. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2001/07/02/the-mosquito-k...
While this dumping is horrific you also have to understand how beneficial DDT was: > Between 1945 and 1965, DDT saved millions-even tens of millions-of lives around the world, perhaps more than any other man-made drug or chemical before or since. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2001/07/02/the-mosquito-k...
It's easy to get outraged (as we should) when we hear about a developing country recklessly polluting the environment but it's important to remember that the West has been doing this on a very large scale for a very long time. Climbing onto this (somewhat) high horse hasn't been an overnight process.
> “We found actual photos of the workers at 2 in the morning dumping — not only dumping barrels off of the barges in the middle of the Santa Monica Basin,” he said, “but before they would dump the barrels, they would take a big ax or hatchet to them, and cut them open on purpose so they would sink.” Incredible.
See? This is why we don't need environmental regulations. The market will regulate itself if externalities are properly priced in! (Just pay no mind to how those externalities might be systematically priced and how penalties might be retroactively enforced. If you do you're a freedom-hating socialist!)
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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>yet, we're somehow entitled to any riches they may have left behind The kids of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are getting a miniscule amount of their fathers' wealth - how is that possible if supposedly they have a right to it? So you have it all backwards. The descendent are not entitled to the wealth of their parents or ancestors. The right to property (including disbursement through inheritance) is given to those…
> The kids of Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are getting a miniscule amount of their fathers' wealth Define "miniscule". > how is that possible if supposedly they have a right to it? Tax evasion 101
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> Is this not chosen as a form of punishment? It's only punishment if you think there is a natural right to control the disposition of property after death. Otherwise, it's just a argument as to why a purely optional benefit not grounded in rights should not be extended by the state. Not extending a benefit to which there is no entitlement is not inherently a punishment.
Countries that seize this much property don’t do too well economically.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, I do not. If my grandfather left my father $X, my father left me $Y, at the very most the maximum would have to be the lesser of $X and $Y, decremented by the full cost of answering the lawsuit. This is problematic from a variety of practical angles, though, not just mathematical ones. It seems like something the forensic accounting lobby would salivate over. Should I be forced to defend a lawsuit because my grea…
Yes. The only think which could in anyway get close to legality would be to: - Legally hold a case against whoever did it and win it. (Can even legally have a case against a dead person?) This requires thinks to have been illegal when done. - Requiring that (likely dead) person to pay a fine based on existing law. - Arguing that whoever accepted an inheritance did inherit the fine, too. But as far as I know every poi…
I don't see how you could have a criminal trail against a dead person in the US, without violating the sixth amendment. It would be impossible to inform the deceased of the charges, etc.
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?