NationStates Jolt Archive

There are TWO environmental resolutions in the queue now. You can crash your economy all you want but I'm compelled to leave the UN again.

Wohoo!

I mean, we'll be losing a powerful ally in
THE WAR AGAINST EVIL LIBERAL BOLSHY COMMUNISM!

There are TWO environmental resolutions in the queue now. You can crash your economy all you want but I'm compelled to leave the UN again.

He economy is a relative thing. If everybody goes down, yours will still be the highest. And since you believe it to be important, you will restore it the quickest too. So actually it is in your favor.

In reality free trade compared with enivormental laws leaves the advanced nations completely on top and all other practically gone.

Afcourse, the real world doesn't have to possibility to leave the UN like that afcourse :P

Foul treason as opposed to the good kind?

Treason is like betraying your country. Are you planning on overthrowing yourself?

Or if you like a challenge. It will be great fun. Try to set up an alliance that stops at least one of the enivormental acts.

It will be a great experience for trying it :)

I am to new at this forum to know the details, but I am willing to help if you will take the challenge :) I do know my way around diplomatics :)

There are TWO environmental resolutions in the queue now. You can crash your economy all you want but I'm compelled to leave the UN again.

Though funny. In reality nations are capable of ignoring UN resolutions. IT was the idea that it wasn't possible here. I guess this is the way. And the penalty is quite funny too, just some temporary lose of influence in the UN.

I love it when very simplistic systems have deeper options than might seem at first glance :)

:twisted:

It seems that our position on the environment has the support of enough delegates to make it to quorum.

Lord Evif, Goobergunchian UN Ambassador
DU Regional Delegate

There are TWO environmental resolutions in the queue now. You can crash your economy all you want but I'm compelled to leave the UN again.
Economy relies on environment so if you want to think long-term, support this resolution. And please don't do this enter, leave, re-enter, re-leave again!

There are TWO environmental resolutions in the queue now. You can crash your economy all you want but I'm compelled to leave the UN again.
Economy relies on environment so if you want to think long-term, support this resolution. And please don't do this enter, leave, re-enter, re-leave again!

Yes. This is why we should DEVELOP new technology, not kill our current economy in the hopes that it might be restored in the future.

Yes. This is why we should DEVELOP new technology, not kill our current economy in the hopes that it might be restored in the future.
Very, very foolish. In my opinion, given that we have virtually no idea of the consequences of our reckless expansion, we should be prudent; it makes no sense to rush headlong into potentail disaster. Moreover, given your stance, if this potential technology is even developed it must be profittable to individual firms before it is applied. I just don't think it makes much sense to risk extinction when given slight austerity measures we can at least give oursleves time to consider.

Yes. This is why we should DEVELOP new technology, not kill our current economy in the hopes that it might be restored in the future.
Very, very foolish. In my opinion, given that we have virtually no idea of the consequences of our reckless expansion, we should be prudent; it makes no sense to rush headlong into potentail disaster. Moreover, given your stance, if this potential technology is even developed it must be profittable to individual firms before it is applied. I just don't think it makes much sense to risk extinction when given slight austerity measures we can at least give oursleves time to consider.

This is what people have been saying for a hundred years, and we aren't going extinct. Please back your arguments up with evidence. Otherwise we are both using baseless conjecture. And my baseless conjecture improves human quality of life more than your baseless conjecture.

This is what people have been saying for a hundred years, and we aren't going extinct. Please back your arguments up with evidence. Otherwise we are both using baseless conjecture. And my baseless conjecture improves human quality of life more than your baseless conjecture.

You're baseless conjecture only improves quality of life if you're right. If you're wrong, we all die/suffer. If I'm wrong, we're slightly worse off economically. If you look at it from a game theory perspective, clearly your method is foolish.

Yes. This is why we should DEVELOP new technology, not kill our current economy in the hopes that it might be restored in the future.

No one says we should kill our economies, what I mean is to change to a sensible form of economy, which can also work long-term. Economy does not rely on destroying nature, it just develloped to do so.

Why are people obsessed with economy?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and big butts!
Letilan moths! Yay!
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:TEA1WL6tIGQC:w1.150.telia.com/~u15008589

Why are people obsessed with economy?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and big butts!
Letilan moths! Yay!
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:TEA1WL6tIGQC:w1.150.telia.com/~u15008589

Becuase the most practical way to improve quality of life is by making big piles of money. This is why the USA is so much more bearable than say, Burundi.

Yes. This is why we should DEVELOP new technology, not kill our current economy in the hopes that it might be restored in the future.

No one says we should kill our economies, what I mean is to change to a sensible form of economy, which can also work long-term. Economy does not rely on destroying nature, it just develloped to do so.

So .... you would rather live in a 17th century economy?

So .... you would rather live in a 17th century economy?
Rather than an unlibale wasteland, yes.

No, but we can surely save the environment and keep our economies up (as far up as they are...)Many capitalists think, environment-protection and capitalism will not work together but if there would be a world-wide tax for pollution, and ressource usage, you would see how good it would work together.

No, but we can surely save the environment and keep our economies up (as far up as they are...)Many capitalists think, environment-protection and capitalism will not work together but if there would be a world-wide tax for pollution, and ressource usage, you would see how good it would work together.

And who sets this "tax" pray tell?

THe capitalist way to adjust for pollution is through lawsuits... if you pollute my land, I sue you for violating my right to property.

But there is land, that no one owns (take the ocean) and what about air pollution? Can I sue you for polluting the air I am breathing? We must find a way to make saving the environment short-term profitable, and this tax was an idea. I also know how unrealistic it is.

But there is land, that no one owns (take the ocean) and what about air pollution? Can I sue you for polluting the air I am breathing? We must find a way to make saving the environment short-term profitable, and this tax was an idea. I also know how unrealistic it is.

No you are allowed to pollute land that you own and land that no one owns. This is why we need to privatize more of the "commons".

Capitalism is not the answer to all questions (that does not mean, that it is all evil). To privatize common goods will not mean, that the water or the air becomes more clean. It will just be a problem for normal citizens.

Capitalism is not the answer to all questions (that does not mean, that it is all evil). To privatize common goods will not mean, that the water or the air becomes more clean. It will just be a problem for normal citizens.

Normal citizens tend to be able to solve their problems nonviolently. Government often has trouble with this concept.

I did not speak of violence, but of the fact, that complete privatization will create more problems than it will solve. You can not trust to companies.

I did not speak of violence, but of the fact, that complete privatization will create more problems than it will solve. You can not trust to companies.

Every time we pass another law or regulation, every time we raise taxes, every time we go to war, we are admitting failure of individuals to govern themselves. When we persuade citizens to do the right thing, we can claim victory. But when we force people to do the right thing, we have failed.

I trust companies a lot more than I trust the government.

And privatization also means it goes mostly to individuals.... I trust individuals more than I trust companies OR the government.

Uh, companies benefit the most from capitalism.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and big butts!
Letilan moths! Yay!
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:TEA1WL6tIGQC:w1.150.telia.com/~u15008589

Nice quote, but unfortunatly not that true. In a democracy people have influence on their government and that they decide (indirectly) how it is regulated. Privatization will not mean, that 'it goes mostly to the individuals' but that it will mostly go to faceless companies, run by managers, who are yearning to get the highest profit and don't care about anything else.

Nice quote, but unfortunatly not that true. In a democracy people have influence on their government and that they decide (indirectly) how it is regulated. Privatization will not mean, that 'it goes mostly to the individuals' but that it will mostly go to faceless companies, run by managers, who are yearning to get the highest profit and don't care about anything else.

Only no democracy, no government can truly be 'free'. Just look at Florida in 2000.

And even if you were right it would descend into a tyranny of the majority with NO protection of individual rights.

That's the first post you made that didn't mention property.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and big butts!
Letilan moths! Yay!
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:TEA1WL6tIGQC:w1.150.telia.com/~u15008589

You mean this voting disaster, which led to Bush's presidency? That is a problem which just shows, how elections should not be. That was one example out of dozens of problem free elections in the last years. It also was a problem of the usanian two-party system, which is IMHO close to not being democratic at all.

You mean this voting disaster, which led to Bush's presidency? That is a problem which just shows, how elections should not be. That was one example out of dozens of problem free elections in the last years. It also was a problem of the usanian two-party system, which is IMHO close to not being democratic at all.

Why is the two-party system undemocratic though? Nobody votes for any of the other parties. A political party is a free association of individuals.

BTW I support a third party.

The US has almost 300 million people. You'd be hard pressed to create a true democracy that isn't rife with corruption and statist tyranny.

The problem is not to have two big parties, the problem is, that they are in office too long and that there never was a real alternative. You have corruption also in the companies.

What happens when Microsoft and Phillip-morris use us as their soldiers in a war for world domination?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and big butts!
Letilan moths! Yay!
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:TEA1WL6tIGQC:w1.150.telia.com/~u15008589

The problem is not to have two big parties, the problem is, that they are in office too long and that there never was a real alternative. You have corruption also in the companies.

You can have corruption in ANYTHING, regardless of whether it's companies or government. It's just that government tends to be more corrupt since, if it wanted to theoretically, it could abolish the laws, take away peoples' land and guns, and shoot them all. I don't know of any companies that can do that.

Political parties have changed drastically. The democratic party today is much different from it was in 1920.

I think that the best thing to do is to put TERM LIMITS on ALL political office. This has worked very well on a state-level, I think it can be effective on a federal level too.

What happens when Microsoft and Phillip-morris use us as their soldiers in a war for world domination?

Uh... right. The government maintains a monopoly on physical force. It's still the most powerful institution.

You are much more likely to be given a gun and sent to some far off place to die by the government than by a corporation.

You can have corruption in ANYTHING, regardless of whether it's companies or government. It's just that government tends to be more corrupt since, if it wanted to theoretically, it could abolish the laws, take away peoples' land and guns, and shoot them all. I don't know of any companies that can do that.


Read up on Shell in Nigeria (I belive it was NIgeria, anyways)

Companies can also be very harmful, but in another way. Just think of child labour or sweatshops. There, people are enslaved, even if they are free by the law.

OOC: I also support termlimits, since 16 years of Helmut Kohl were far too much.

Companies can also be very harmful, but in another way. Just think of child labour or sweatshops. There, people are enslaved, even if they are free by the law.

OOC: I also support termlimits, since 16 years of Helmut Kohl were far too much.

Yet... third-world countries with sweatshops have MUCH lower starvation rates than third-world countries without them.

Yet... people COMPETE for those jobs.

Ah yes, so being tricked into slavery makes it moral.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and big butts!
Letilan moths! Yay!
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:TEA1WL6tIGQC:w1.150.telia.com/~u15008589

You can have corruption in ANYTHING, regardless of whether it's companies or government. It's just that government tends to be more corrupt since, if it wanted to theoretically, it could abolish the laws, take away peoples' land and guns, and shoot them all. I don't know of any companies that can do that.


Read up on Shell in Nigeria (I belive it was NIgeria, anyways)

There can be corporate abuses, but what Shell did in Nigeria doesn't come anywhere NEAR what the SS did in Poland or what the US Marines did in Vietnam.

Lower starvation rates? *ironyon* Because the people die because of their work before they can starve? *ironyoff*
Could you imagine, how low those rates would be, if there would be acceptable conditions? These countries without sweatshops are mostly considered so insecure, that no one invests there, so that is perhaps not a good comparism.

OOC: I'm offline now.

I'm for the party of the thousand beers.

Third world countries with sweatshops: Latin America, China, Vietnam
Characteristics: Slightly better labor conditions, lower starvation rates, much faster economic growth, respectability in the world market, etc.

Third world countries without sweatshops: Much of Sub-Saharan Africa
Characteristics: Ethnic strife, civil war, stagnant economic growth, very high death rates due to starvation and AIDS, etc.


There isn't a man in his right state of mind who would chose to work in a farm in Burundi as opposed to work in a Chinese sweatshop.

you are proving my view: it is the conditions, which make sweatshops appear and not the other way around.

How else are you going to improve your country?

You aren't going to start with an IT industry...

How else are you going to improve your country?

You aren't going to start with an IT industry...

HIstorically speaking, the best way to devlope seems to be predicated on the exitence of a hegemonic power willing to provide an open market to contries usuing ISI programs to devlope. South Korea is an excellent example.\, as is post-WW2 Europe.

you are proving my view: it is the conditions, which make sweatshops appear and not the other way around.

Wrong.

Sweatshops mean people have more money than if they were just subsistence farmers...and a generally wealthier populace means more stability all around.

Will you stop justifying slavery? You are starting to sound creepy. Sweatshops are the result of exploitation.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and big butts!
Letilan moths! Yay!
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:TEA1WL6tIGQC:w1.150.telia.com/~u15008589

Will you stop justifying slavery? You are starting to sound creepy. Sweatshops are the result of exploitation.

You couldn't be more wrong. Sweatshops are the result of people voluntarily choosing to work somewhere because they find what they get out of that more desirable than the alternative.

A sweatshop is hardly "slavery" or "exploitation"...they're there of their own free will.

How else are you going to improve your country?

You aren't going to start with an IT industry...

HIstorically speaking, the best way to devlope seems to be predicated on the exitence of a hegemonic power willing to provide an open market to contries usuing ISI programs to devlope. South Korea is an excellent example.\, as is post-WW2 Europe.

Until that hegemonic power decides to absorb the smaller nation into its fold, but yes I agree free access to first-world markets is important for third-world development.

Global Market, since you ignored this the first time I posted it, I'll post it again and see if you

The costs of pollution can't be tied directly to the benefits of polluting by market forces, which is precisely the problem. Market forces not only don't punish polluters, they require pollution; businesses act to minimize costs, and if it's cheaper to dump waste in the ocean than to deal with it in a less damaging way, guess where it goes.

Civil suits aren't an adequate remedy for coping with pollution. For one thing, the threat of lawsuits may not prevent the damage; firms may be inclined to gamble on that account. For another, legal remedies may be difficult for victims to pursue against large corporations with legal staffs. For another, corporations may not have enough assets to cover their liability; in fact, it is a common practice in business to "compartmentalize" corporations through ownership heirarchies, so that no unit actually exposed to liability has any assets to cover damages.

Also, the damage of pollution is often diffused over large areas and long periods of time. How practical is it for millions of people who've suffered cumulative degradation of their environment over centuries to sue hundreds of corporations, some of which no longer exist? And the nature of the damage may make it difficult to sue anyone. How does one prove that one's health is .02% worse because of this pollutant, .01% worse because of that pollutant - or how does one decide which victims of cancer get compensated by which polluters, and which are simply shit out of luck because they would have got cancer anyway?

The claim that the oceans are free for anyone to defecate in as they choose, merely because their nature and the course of history has preserved them from private ownership, is fatuous, on a par with the claims of conquistadors on tracts of land whose inhabitants had neglected to procure title to the land from European potentates. Should some terrorist group be inclined to poison all the oceans, would we allow them to do so, merely on account of the fact that we ourselves do not claim to own them?

The concept of ownership can't very well be applied to oceans in any case. We may speak of ownership of navigational rights in a particular area, or mineral rights to the sea floor, but beyond that, what is it that is owned? The fish? Will we fence them in? The water? Shall we put it in tanks? If the ocean were divided up among owners, and each was allowed to pollute its own territory at will, would some form of magical force prevent the waste dumped in one place from circulating to all places? Private ownership cannot protect the oceans.

How else are you going to improve your country?

You aren't going to start with an IT industry...

The sweatshops have an IT department...

Global Market, since you ignored this the first time I posted it, I'll post it again and see if you

The costs of pollution can't be tied directly to the benefits of polluting by market forces, which is precisely the problem. Market forces not only don't punish polluters, they require pollution; businesses act to minimize costs, and if it's cheaper to dump waste in the ocean than to deal with it in a less damaging way, guess where it goes.

Civil suits aren't an adequate remedy for coping with pollution. For one thing, the threat of lawsuits may not prevent the damage; firms may be inclined to gamble on that account. For another, legal remedies may be difficult for victims to pursue against large corporations with legal staffs. For another, corporations may not have enough assets to cover their liability; in fact, it is a common practice in business to "compartmentalize" corporations through ownership heirarchies, so that no unit actually exposed to liability has any assets to cover damages.

Also, the damage of pollution is often diffused over large areas and long periods of time. How practical is it for millions of people who've suffered cumulative degradation of their environment over centuries to sue hundreds of corporations, some of which no longer exist? And the nature of the damage may make it difficult to sue anyone. How does one prove that one's health is .02% worse because of this pollutant, .01% worse because of that pollutant - or how does one decide which victims of cancer get compensated by which polluters, and which are simply shit out of luck because they would have got cancer anyway?

The claim that the oceans are free for anyone to defecate in as they choose, merely because their nature and the course of history has preserved them from private ownership, is fatuous, on a par with the claims of conquistadors on tracts of land whose inhabitants had neglected to procure title to the land from European potentates. Should some terrorist group be inclined to poison all the oceans, would we allow them to do so, merely on account of the fact that we ourselves do not claim to own them?

The concept of ownership can't very well be applied to oceans in any case. We may speak of ownership of navigational rights in a particular area, or mineral rights to the sea floor, but beyond that, what is it that is owned? The fish? Will we fence them in? The water? Shall we put it in tanks? If the ocean were divided up among owners, and each was allowed to pollute its own territory at will, would some form of magical force prevent the waste dumped in one place from circulating to all places? Private ownership cannot protect the oceans.

Most of that is true, but if a nation lays claim to an ocean as public territory then IT can sue the polluter that violates its territory. Or we could set up an international organization (preferably not the UN) that would "own" all the oceans until somebody buys them and IT could sue polluters. This is the most feasible way at stopping pollution. Of course it's far from perfect, but government is by far the biggest polluter.

Will you stop justifying slavery? You are starting to sound creepy. Sweatshops are the result of exploitation.

You couldn't be more wrong. Sweatshops are the result of people voluntarily choosing to work somewhere because they find what they get out of that more desirable than the alternative.

A sweatshop is hardly "slavery" or "exploitation"...they're there of their own free will.


Many sweatshop workers are CHILDREN who have been sent there by their parents to earn a few extra cents for the family. I would hardly call that "free will".

Will you stop justifying slavery? You are starting to sound creepy. Sweatshops are the result of exploitation.

You couldn't be more wrong. Sweatshops are the result of people voluntarily choosing to work somewhere because they find what they get out of that more desirable than the alternative.

A sweatshop is hardly "slavery" or "exploitation"...they're there of their own free will.


Many sweatshop workers are CHILDREN who have been sent there by their parents to earn a few extra cents for the family. I would hardly call that "free will".

It's the parents' fault, not the sweatshops'.

There are now two environmental resolutions in the queue AS WELL AS the one currently up for vote.

:twisted:

@UWS: It is not that immoral to accept such a thing out of pure despair, than to make such terrible offers.

@UWS: It is not that immoral to accept such a thing out of pure despair, than to make such terrible offers.

So it is immoral to bring growth out of stagnation?
It is immoral to give people the means of survival where only a desolate wilderness would have existed?
It is immoral to fuse money into an impoverished region?
It is immoral to let people work?
It is immoral to bring in new ideas to destroy the old establishments?
It is immoral to bring a healthy order instead of chaos or oppression?
It is immoral to perfer the Dollar as the medium of exchange as opposed to the AK-47 and .3x150 bullet?

If that is immoral, then your version of 'morality' is clearly one of death, desolation, and despotism.

It is immoral to do this in sch a way. It is immoral to let children work. If you want to see a moral development plan, think about the wway, they did it in Niger (I think it was there), by educating the children and creating a local industry.

It is immoral to do this in sch a way. It is immoral to let children work. If you want to see a moral development plan, think about the wway, they did it in Niger (I think it was there), by educating the children and creating a local industry.

Of course you need money and responsible government to do that. According to the CIA world factbook, "Niger is a poor, landlocked Sub-Saharan nation, whose economy centers on subsistence agriculture, animal husbandry, and reexport trade, and increasingly less on uranium, because of declining world demand." In addition, Niger has a 3% GDP growth rate... which is good for a first-world country but really crappy for a developing country (China has 8%, even Chad has 11%). 63% of their people live below their OWN poverty line. Only 70,000 people recieve regular wagse in a country of almost 11 million. It looks like a failure.

Why are you always taking the economy as a rating? I said, I'm not quite sure, where the plan was carried out, but it led to a much lower rate of starvation and to less poverty.

Until you tell me what specific third-world nation this happened in, I'm going to have to reject your argument.

The fastest-developing third-world countries TODAY mostly all have responsible government, relatively free markets, and sweatshops.

The question remains to what they are developing.

The question remains to what they are developing.

??

A better economy, higher quality of life, etc.

I doubt it. They just develop to a country which has all the third-world-country characteristics, except the fact that the economy is higher.

I doubt it. They just develop to a country which has all the third-world-country characteristics, except the fact that the economy is higher.

Can you actually name a country like that or are you just using baseless conjecture?

Saudi Arabia is the ONLY country with a per capita income above $6,000 that isn't really part of the free world.

There is NO country with a per capita income above $10,000 that isn't democratic.

Take south africa as an example of a high economy and low equality. It is not the question about democracy or dictatorship, it is the question about starvation, iliteracy and the life expectancy.

Usually when your per capita income goes up, starvation, illiteracy, etc. go down. The US has very high income inequality by International standards... but we have very close to zero starvation and illiteracy. The people who do starve and refuse to learn do so of their own volition or have severe health problems.

South Africa has been coping with problems of racism, that's caused its economy to stagnate. Right now its per capita income PPP is only about $3,000, which isn't that high. It's lower than China's.

Democracies have also generally been able to reduce starvation and illiteracy better than dictatorships, so this IS a question of democracy vs. dictatorship.

Illiteracy is alarmingly high in the USA compared to other indutrialized nations. 44 Mio usanian citizens were not able to read and write texts on 4th grade level.

I doubt it. They just develop to a country which has all the third-world-country characteristics, except the fact that the economy is higher.

Can you actually name a country like that or are you just using baseless conjecture?

Saudi Arabia is the ONLY country with a per capita income above $6,000 that isn't really part of the free world.

There is NO country with a per capita income above $10,000 that isn't democratic.

To play devils' advocate for a moment here, just how 'democratic' are these places anyway? Most electoral systems were designed to keep real power in the hands of a select elite anyway, to provide the illusion of democratic process in order to appease the mob.

All two-party states that call themselves democratic are bloody jokers - the United States of America for one.

I doubt it. They just develop to a country which has all the third-world-country characteristics, except the fact that the economy is higher.

Can you actually name a country like that or are you just using baseless conjecture?

Saudi Arabia is the ONLY country with a per capita income above $6,000 that isn't really part of the free world.

There is NO country with a per capita income above $10,000 that isn't democratic.

To play devils' advocate for a moment here, just how 'democratic' are these places anyway? Most electoral systems were designed to keep real power in the hands of a select elite anyway, to provide the illusion of democratic process in order to appease the mob.

All two-party states that call themselves democratic are bloody jokers - the United States of America for one.

I can't believe what TGM is defending.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and big butts!
Letilan moths! Yay!
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:TEA1WL6tIGQC:w1.150.telia.com/~u15008589

Most of that is true, but if a nation lays claim to an ocean as public territory then IT can sue the polluter that violates its territory. Or we could set up an international organization (preferably not the UN) that would "own" all the oceans until somebody buys them and IT could sue polluters.Most of the world's oceans aren't territorial waters, but even if they were, so what? Any nation that owned a few square miles of ocean somewhere could allow anyone at all to dump there for a nominal fee. The whole point is that the damage is NOT limited to the nominal owner of any particular stretch of water, nor even particularly concentrated there.

This is the most feasible way at stopping pollution. Of course it's far from perfect, but government is by far the biggest polluter.There's nothing feasible about it, and I doubt very much that government is the biggest polluter. Even if so, isn't government regulation all the more appropriate as a solution?

I suppose TGM blames the government for his stubbed toes.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mliêstôlkakûmek(Love all as you love yourself)
Racism-the other stupid ideology
Peace, love, and girls with small waists and big butts!
Letilan moths! Yay!
http://images.google.com/images?q=tbn:TEA1WL6tIGQC:w1.150.telia.com/~u15008589