This video concludes my contribution to the debate
between Thunderf00t, The Amazing Atheist, and HowTheWorldWorks.
If you haven't seen my first video on the subject,
please understand that I am giving my thoughts on this because my viewers have asked for it,
and I am in no way defending HowTheWorldWorks.
I am just giving my own viewpoint on the subjects raised.
[The Amazing Atheist] "You talk about environmentalists,
"as though there are no greater misanthropes on the planet Earth than the environmentalists.
"They just hate prosperity. They hate human beings.
"Tell that shit to the people in Senegal, Africa,
"where the lack of environmental regulations led to giant corporations dumping car batteries in this country,
"which of course goes to show you the sterling morality that capitalism in its purest form gives us all."
Well, gee, I know when I think of the great free market societies,
Senegal is just at the top of the list!
[silly laugh]
TJ gives his source for this, and I read it, and I looked at several others as well,
and I noticed something that, to me, really stood out by not being there,
an unanswered question that is at the crux of this entire issue:
Who owns the roads and waterways where people were dumping the batteries?
This is important: property owners have an incentive to keep their property clean.
Roads, waterways, and other places that are traditionally owned by government
(that's what it means to be "publicly owned")
are frequently used to dump things people no longer want.
But what if it wasn't like that? What if these so-called "public areas" were privately owned?
We don't have to imagine.
In the UK, there is an organization known as "Fish Legal,"
formerly the Angler's Conservation Association and now represented by Angling Trust.
They're an independent, non-profit organization that fights water pollution throughout the UK
by providing legal protection for property owners whose waterways have been damaged by pollution.
Using nothing more than common law protections,
they seek compensation from polluters on behalf of the property owners.
This not only provides a system where property owners can get compensated for damages,
but also disincentivizes the companies from polluting the land in the first place.
Oh, and the property owner gets 100% of the compensation while paying none of the legal fees.
We see this in the US as well.
The clear-cutting of forests that people complain about only happens on government land;
the forests owned by the logging companies and paper companies
are actually better maintained than our national forests!
You see, no company is going to damage their own property; that hurts the bottom line.
If they damage your property, they know they'll face lawsuits.
But no one has the incentive to care for government land--
the unelected bureaucrat who approved the use of the land has no incentive to protect its value.
Now, sometimes companies HAVE to dump on their own property.
What happens when they do? Look at the case of Love Canal:
In the 1940s, the Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corporation
owned the property and used it to dispose of toxic waste.
It made sure that the toxic chemicals were dumped safely and in full compliance of the law.
And there would be no risk of exposure--as long as no one built on the property.
You see, what they did when they were finished dumping on the property in 1952,
they sealed it over with a layer of clay.
And the clay is a nice, secure seal, as long as no one tries to do anything stupid
like, dig through it, which is what would happen when you build on it.
So they sealed it in clay, covered it in topsoil, and sown grass on it.
The next year, the Niagara Falls Board of Education
wanted to buy the property to create a school district and build a school.
Hooker Chemicals & Plastics refused to sell,
and they told them about the problems of toxic seepage
if they built upon the property and break that clay seal.
The Board of Education wasn't deterred.
They threatened to claim eminent domain and just take the property by force.
So Hooker Chemicals & Plastics sold the land to the Board of Education for $1, and a deed restriction:
The Board of Education and all subsequent owners of the land
(anyone they might have sold it to in the future)
would be notified of the dangers of building on the property.
And they alo agreed not to hold Hooker Chemicals & Plastics responsible for toxic seepage if they did.
Well, despite the numerous warnings, the Board of Education built on the property anyway.
Their own architect who surveyed the site in January of 1954
told them not to build on the property.
He also told them there was a chemical dump
right underneath where the children's playground was to go.
The school was completed in 1955, 400 children attended,
and almost immediately the grounds started crumbling, exposing vats of chemicals,
which made puddles when it rained that the children played in.
There were other problems, too,
such as when the City of Niagara Falls constructed sewers in 1957
and broke through the clay seals, breaching the canal yet again.
A wet winter and spring that followed turned the canal into a pool of oil and other waste
that ran into people's yards and basements.
The company had done everything in their power to prevent building on the site,
and yet it was their new owners, Occidental Chemical, who were sued in 1995 by the EPA,
and not the Niagara Falls Board of Education, who was really responsible for the travesty.
Government excels at creating lots of problems on its own, and blaming the free market for it.
[The Amazing Atheist] "I never understood this about you small-government free-market types:
"You don't want the government to protect the environment,
"you don't want the government to provide people health care,
"but goddamn it if you don't want the government to kill people!"
No, I don't! I'm against the death penalty, 100%!
I don't care if it's Timothy McVeigh we're talking about here!
And it isn't just me: the Libertarian Party in my home state of North Carolina
has this as part of their platform:
And the funniest thing about this, TJ? You yourself said:
[The Amazing Atheist]"If you want to watch the episode of Penn & Teller's 'Bullshit'
"about the death penalty, that also affirms my belief."
But TJ, Penn and Teller both ARE "small-government free-market types"!
Maybe you shouldn't go painting people with a wide brush in the future, you think?
I don't want the government to execute prisoners
for the same reason I don't want the government to protect the environment or provide health care:
Because it sucks at it!
And the reason I'm in favor of police, courts, and national defense
is not because government doesn't suck at those; it does.
It just doesn't suck as badly as mob rule.
[The Amazing Atheist] "We know this shit's gonna run out,
"so let's try to open this bottle NOW, before we absolutely have to!
"Before millions of people can't afford to drive their cars around anymore!"
But TJ, they are! While government has their corn ethanol boondoggle,
which results in a fuel source that takes more fuel to create than it actually provides,
and benefits nobody except corn growers with lots of money to lobby Congress,
free market players have been busy working on REAL solutions.
Toyota and other manufacturers now have hybrid cars made out of carbon fiber.
They weigh one-third of what normal compact cars weigh and get close to 100mpg.
It's being done by Google, of all people!
And before too long, some of the experts are saying that the fuel burning in 100mpg cars
will be all that we need to power our homes!
You drive it around for the day, then plug your HOUSE into your CAR at night!
Right now, our cars generate more than enough energy to power all of our homes,
and these guys are trying to take advantage of that, while government just pussy-foots around.
And yes, these cars will run on alternative fuels.
While our government obsesses over corn ethanol
as their fascist boondoggle to their big corporate corn buddies,
free market players are studying switchgrass as a much more efficient source for ethanol.
The grass only needs to be planted once, it has incredibly dense growth,
and will deliver over THIRTEEN TIMES the amount of fuel needed to create it!
It's been so successful that the USDA is finally starting to look into it.
[The Amazing Atheist] "I want to force people to use alternative fuels. This is wrong.
"This is just flat-out wrong. I never advocated any such thing.
"What I advocate is, quite simply, that the government fund research
"to make alternative fuels more cost-effective."
But TJ, government IS force!
Okay, you're not wanting to force people to use alternative fuels like you were accused of,
but you DO want to force people to PAY for them!
Government is force! Everything government does it does by force!
And yet, you say:
[The Amazing Atheist] "First of all, I don't advocate violence against anyone, by anyone,
"for any reason unless your survival is being threatened by an aggressor.
"I don't believe that the use of violence is called for or permissible.
"I apply this set of ethics to individuals, to institutions, and to governments."
But TJ, what do you think happens to people who refuse to pay taxes,
because they don't want their money spent on wars,
or on bogus technologies such as corn ethanol, or whatever,
what do you think happens?
Ask Ed and Elaine Brown, who found out after their repeated refusal to pay taxes
ended up in armed men storming their house.
Okay, so they're a couple of conspiracy nutwing yahoos,
but the fact remains: if you don't pay your taxes, the government responds with violence.
So if you advocate tax money being used for purposes
other than the defense against and punishment for violent acts,
you're advocating violence for reasons other than survival.
Just be a man and admit it and justify it!
But don't stand there and say how you don't advocate violence
when that's an inevitable result of someone refusing to comply with a policy that you support.