Jay Austin's Beautiful, Illegal Tiny House
Posted by jchristyatty 10 years, 4 months ago to Government
101/2 minute video by Reason TV on government regulation and zoning laws....
SOURCE URL: http://youtu.be/n-zESacteu4
- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
If businesses were responsible enough to reduce emissions on their own, then we wouldn't need the EPA.
It really comes down to responsible business operators.
Until then, do your best with our modern technology to keep yourself healthy when traveling there.
The companies just don't bother to apply the same standard for emissions in those country even though the technology is available.
It's a clear case of irresponsible behavior by businesses when operating in a loosely regulated area.
The country I was in was Peru, which I wouldn't consider a third world country or even a second world country.
I had a recent opportunity to discuss the inefficient engine question in a manufacturing facility here in the US.
This factory makes custom vehicles and the exhaust system required to meet EPA standards is so massive and expensive hat it inhibits the manufacturing process.
The engine manufacturer came up with the appropriate solution by designing a highly efficient engine which when tested equaled or exceeded EPA standards with normal stock exhaust components.
The EPA refused to budge. The expensive and bulky exhaust is still being installed.
The efficient engine isn't being manufactured.
From a different point of view, Ayn Rand once said, "Anyone over 30 years of age today, give a silent 'Thank you' to the nearest, grimiest, sootiest smokestacks you can find." (http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ecolog...)
Courts don't operate for free, and when you throw legal lobbying into the equation, you go down the path that feels very much like Atlas Shrugged. You create a situation for the creation of looters.
The most effective solution is for the business to operate responsibly even if it costs them profits. This is starting to pay dividends now as the need for unions is diminishing.
We have let businesses be immune from the known repercussions of their works, and this encourages heedlessness. The problem here is putting real parameters on 'repercussions'. I would not want those repercussions to include the impact on free living cockroaches in North Dakota, or even having to assess that level of affect, but I would want 'repercussions' to include rendering a stream unsafe to drink or causing emphysema in a population.
Jan
Imagine for profit businesses that watched for individual right violations like these and brought the cases to court. No EPA, no lobbying.
Businesses that were guilty of these violations would be fined, based on their violations, and the victims compensated. Businesses that were constantly blatant, would not be in business long.
These business would quickly learn they "need to operate responsibly even if it costs them profits."
Nuisance suits primarily exist because of the insanity of the system today.
How would a business profit from watching for individual right violations? What's the business model?
When enough businesses have stopped their violations, these watchdog business would start disappearing.
Free-market capitalism.
If I give a business money, I expect a return, so after the court fees and attorney fees, I still need to make enough money back on my investment to make this work.
Again, this goes down the dark hole of lobbying.
I don't want government regulations, but I'm also not naive enough to think all businesses will act responsibly and make good decisions.
How popular would lobbying be if the government wasn't violating individual rights, and individuals would be punished for trying?
Who said anything about government regulations. That would be up to the private sector.
Currently, EPA does not act in that way. They have a politically motivated agenda and the regulatory power to stop, litigate, or bankrupt people and corporations out of step with the agenda. That's not regulation, that's force.
One issue I see is trying to treat those countries like a fully-developed first-world nation. None of them qualify as that. Some are second-world and some are third-world. Environmental concerns are way up the scale on Maslow's hierarchy of needs compared to the daily needs for food and shelter. Until those countries have sufficiently developed in terms of economy and governmental structure, environment doesn't rank high on the priority list. Thus to me, the point is moot - especially when most of those countries face severe problems with organized crime and drug cartels.
(Didn't say it was easy.)
of digestion means that this perpetual-feeding-machine
will falter quickly. why do people (not you, Herb!)
keep thinking that you can make national wealth with theft? -- j
If one wants zoning, then buy a bunch of land, then determine what you want to do with it using whatever discriminatory means you see fit (all fat people live here, idiots over here, Gulch over here, Muslims here, etc....).
Government determining what and where certain certain things should reside and take place is a pure exercise in elitism and partiality without accountability because those that put these often unelected people in their positions have sway that benefits themselves.
If I want to live next to a trash heap, then stay out of my way.