A Simple Question

Mr Neutron

Well-Known Member
MILT BORCHERT, Liberty Ink Journal

Who Owns You?

Your real answer to this question is the root of your political philosophy, whether you know it or not. As all political power flows from the muzzle of a gun, all political thought flows from the answer to our question. There are really only two primary answers—either someone else owns you or you own yourself. If someone else owns you, there remains only quibbling over who that master is.

People like regulatory czar Cass Sunstein believe the state is your proper owner. This is the core belief that defines a statist or authoritarian. This does leave another question unanswered, who is the state that claims to be your owner? Louis XIV infamously answered, “L’etat? C’est moi,” which translated means, “The state? It's me.” While no one has yet demonstrated quite that level of audacity, it causes one to wonder if that mentality is not prevalent among many in government today.

But since we cannot currently point to anyone called the state, much less justify their ownership of us, individual self-ownership would seem to be the safer assumption.

But then, we must ask, what is ownership?

If a thing is owned, it can be used at the sole discretion of the owner, provided that use does not violate the rights of another person. Thus, if I own a thing, I can use it as I please, with one exception—I cannot use it to damage the property or person of an innocent sovereign individual against his will. If I do not want to keep it, I can destroy it, sell it, trade it, rent it, loan it, or give it to another person.


If someone else owns you, you are that entity’s slave. As you are the property of that other entity, so are the proceeds of any work you perform. You have no legitimate say in the matter and must do precisely what your master desires. Your master may take as much of the fruits of your labor as he wants. At his sole discretion, your master can kill you, sell you, trade you, rent you, loan you or give you to someone else. And yes, Cass Sunstein and his followers believe that the government can do whatever it wants with you, that you owe your very existence to the state.


If you own yourself, the proceeds of any work you do are exclusively yours. Absent claims generated by your actions that involuntarily injure another, no other person or entity has a legitimate say in the disposition of that work or its proceeds; taxation is simply theft with a nicer name. No one, not even a government, may, of right, kill you (except in cases of self-defense), sell you, trade you, rent you, loan you or give you to someone else.

Conceived in Liberty

Classical liberals of the eighteenth century believed that individually sovereign people could voluntarily delegate to a mutually acceptable entity the power to act on their behalf; this was the origin of legitimate government. Logically, an individual cannot delegate powers that he does not, of right, possess to another entity, even if that entity calls itself a government.


On April, 19, 1775, an ongoing antitax rebellion in the American colonies took violent form in response to the British government’s attempt to confiscate the colonists’ means to resist. On July 4, 1776, that rebellion officially became revolution when the Declaration of Independence was adopted. For the first time in human history, a nation’s founding principles were, at least in part, derived from self-ownership, including the right of revolution as a legitimate political tool.

Eleven years later, a constitution, whose stated purpose was to limit government’s function to the protection of the rights of the sovereign individuals who agreed to form that government, marked another radical departure from the old statist paradigm.

Political power flows from the muzzle of a gun; the Founders tried to insure that such power would remain in the hands of the people, rather than the government. The right of armed resistance to tyranny was reserved to the people in the Bill of Rights.

Statism Triumphant

Since then, through a long series of artful dodges, the statists have taken control of the government. It now serves as a tool to violate the people’s rights and steal their property. Contrary to the letter and spirit of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, your rights mean nothing and the government may do as it pleases, without being impeded in any meaningful way by the Constitution that George W. Bush called a “goddamn scrap of paper.”

Eerily reminiscent of the Declaration’s bill of particulars, numerous alphabet-soup federal agencies “harass our people and eat out their substance.” The banking system transfers what little wealth remains in the hands of the productive classes to a super-rich parasitic class. The welfare system throws a few scraps to an immense underclass that votes for a living, preventing the productive class from voting their way out of bondage.

The Third Time’s the Charm

Our country was founded through revolution. The colonists saw no peaceful way to free themselves from Britain’s tyranny and resorted to shooting agents of that government. Unfortunately, gradual erosion diminished that hard-won legacy of Liberty.

After the North’s repeated abuses of power, unable to achieve redress through peaceful means, the people of the South attempted to secede. This Second American Revolution failed, in part because the Confederacy failed to secure the moral high ground.

Today’s extreme abuses of power and nearly total disregard for the rule of law have destroyed any moral authority the government once possessed. It now relies on naked force as the illusion of its legitimacy rapidly evaporates. Given the arrogance of our would-be masters and lacking a realizable political solution, the Third American Revolution seems inevitable. The Soviet Empire was the first to fall to Information Age peaceful revolution. Perhaps we can hope that, for our country, the third time really is the charm.

Liberty or its Death?

Thus, we return to our question: Who owns you?

For those of us who believe in self-ownership, the answer is clear. We must reclaim liberty by any means necessary while holding the moral high ground. It is ultimate treason to allow the flame of liberty to die on our watch and to bequeath to our children, instead of that flame’s bright light, the long darkness of tyranny and slavery.

Milt Borchert is a commercial photographer and graphic designer in Fort
Collins, Colorado, and has been involved in the freedom movement since the
1970s.
 
“L’etat? C’est moi,” which translated means, “The state? It's me.” While no one has yet demonstrated quite that level of audacity, it causes one to wonder if that mentality is not prevalent among many in government today.
Do you honestly not know what this means? Your cute anti-government article tries to paint that quote as the attitude in government today but completely misses the point...

"the State? It's me." is basically saying: For the people, by the people, I am the State, you are the State, we are the State.

The thing about conservatives, exemplified in this article, is that they seem to think that everyone in government is out to get you... Where did these people come from? Are they not US citizens, many of whom driven to run for office to make this country the best it can be? Our government is, in fact, made up of our peers. Articles like this one completely fail to realize that point.

Also, the article takes extremes only and completely leaves out any essence of moderation. They talk of statists and Authoritarians as if there is no such thing as a healthy balance between authority and liberty; While the two terms are absolute, I'm willing to bet if you spent enough time asking around, you would find that a healthy of Americans believe in some form of government intervention/authority while you'll find that same majority will value their liberty as well... Whether it is as minimal as something like roads or water safety or as complex as to whether or not a nation should strive to achieve universal health insurance is merely a matter of to which ideal one leans towards... But it is irresponsible to believe that either extreme should be what we strive for - and that is the Achilles heel of Libertarianism.

The fact is, libertarianism is no more or less legitimate than Communism; Just as a nation cannot and should not be under the full and complete control of authority, no nation has ever survived without some level of authority.
 
L’etat? C’est moi

it means you have no limitations of power, it does not mean " We are all in this together".
 
L’etat? C’est moi

it means you have no limitations of power, it does not mean " We are all in this together".
Looked it up, you're right. The original quote came from a king.. DOH! Does that make the rest of my post any less valid? I dont think so...
 
Looked it up, you're right. The original quote came from a king.. DOH! Does that make the rest of my post any less valid? I dont think so...
You said no nation has ever survived without some kind of Authority. I say no nation has survived WITH any kind of authority either.


BTW The source of the Quote is actually given in the OP. Obviously you did not really read the OP, but did comment on it, ignorantly I might add.
 
Do you honestly not know what this means? Your cute anti-government article tries to paint that quote as the attitude in government today but completely misses the point...

"the State? It's me." is basically saying: For the people, by the people, I am the State, you are the State, we are the State.

The thing about conservatives, exemplified in this article, is that they seem to think that everyone in government is out to get you... Where did these people come from? Are they not US citizens, many of whom driven to run for office to make this country the best it can be? Our government is, in fact, made up of our peers. Articles like this one completely fail to realize that point.

Also, the article takes extremes only and completely leaves out any essence of moderation. They talk of statists and Authoritarians as if there is no such thing as a healthy balance between authority and liberty; While the two terms are absolute, I'm willing to bet if you spent enough time asking around, you would find that a healthy of Americans believe in some form of government intervention/authority while you'll find that same majority will value their liberty as well... Whether it is as minimal as something like roads or water safety or as complex as to whether or not a nation should strive to achieve universal health insurance is merely a matter of to which ideal one leans towards... But it is irresponsible to believe that either extreme should be what we strive for - and that is the Achilles heel of Libertarianism.

The fact is, libertarianism is no more or less legitimate than Communism; Just as a nation cannot and should not be under the full and complete control of authority, no nation has ever survived without some level of authority.

your ignorance of govt will eventually be your downfall. you keep thinkig about this "balance" when the irs SAYS you owe them money.

or when someone calls children and youth for no particular reason other than they hate you. (no its never happend to me personally)

or when you get caught smoking weed.

balance this. they are all cops. the epa, osha, dhs, tsa, et al.
 
You said no nation has ever survived without some kind of Authority. I say no nation has survived WITH any kind of authority either.
And which has been more successful? You may argue that every nation fails eventually, but I'd argue that not every solution is perfect. Government may be flawed but it's a hell of a lot better than living in Somolia... Are you arguing otherwise?

I seem to remember you admitting at some point on these boards a while back that you believe in some government intervention/regulation, however minimal - right? So I could take that a step further and argue that you have already conceded my point that some government is better than no government; We only differ on how MUCH government, which is understandable... but based on what you've said in the past it seems that is the only real disagreement. Am I way off here? If not, than why even say " I say no nation has survived WITH any kind of authority either"? It seems like kind of a moot point. Playing a little devil's advocate?

BTW The source of the Quote is actually given in the OP. Obviously you did not really read the OP, but did comment on it, ignorantly I might add.
I read it. I wasn't familiar with the quote, or the circumstances under which it was said... Sue me? Again, does that make anything else I wrote any less valid?
your ignorance of govt will eventually be your downfall. you keep thinkig about this "balance" when the irs SAYS you owe them money.
You wouldn't be getting calls from the IRS if you payed your fair share of taxes; We all pay them. We all benefit from the services provided by taxes in some form or another... What's the problem?

Yes, I prefer a balanced approach... wait... Is that a bad thing? Jesus man, I never knew looking at things in a fair and balanced way was such a liability to my judgement! Shit I better abandon all news outlets other than Fox News and I better throw out my Textbooks because Jeff says I should be reading Austrian economics to satisfy an archiac need to adhere to idealogy! Either I'm a freedom fighter or I'm a damn commie! That's right!
balance this. they are all cops. the epa, osha, dhs, tsa, et al.
What is so unbalanced about the EPA? They dont let the oil companies drill all over our national parks? OSHA? DHS? TSA(TBH I dont think anyone likes the TSA lol)? Cmon, give me real, concrete arguments against the existence of these agencies... Can you? I ask for this sort of coherence from you righties all the time but usually ND answers or no one at all (or whatever answer that's given is strangely void of any facts, or leaves out other important variables). Why do you hate these agencies so much? Is it that you just hate everything related to Government(idealogical reasons)? Or is it because you have a legitimate concern that these agencies aren't working in the taxpayers best interest? If the ladder, how so? And I mean overall, dont just state a few negatives and ignore any positives(in typical rightie fashion)... What is the net effect of these agencies? Sure economic activity, jobs, etc may be missed out on if, say, we dont drill in a national park(being vague, this is just a general example) - but is that lost activity worth it in the eyes of the people?
 
And which has been more successful? You may argue that every nation fails eventually, but I'd argue that not every solution is perfect. Government may be flawed but it's a hell of a lot better than living in Somolia... Are you arguing otherwise?

I seem to remember you admitting at some point on these boards a while back that you believe in some government intervention/regulation, however minimal - right? So I could take that a step further and argue that you have already conceded my point that some government is better than no government; We only differ on how MUCH government, which is understandable... but based on what you've said in the past it seems that is the only real disagreement. Am I way off here? If not, than why even say " I say no nation has survived WITH any kind of authority either"? It seems like kind of a moot point. Playing a little devil's advocate?


I read it. I wasn't familiar with the quote, or the circumstances under which it was said... Sue me? Again, does that make anything else I wrote any less valid?

You wouldn't be getting calls from the IRS if you payed your fair share of taxes; We all pay them. We all benefit from the services provided by taxes in some form or another... What's the problem?

Yes, I prefer a balanced approach... wait... Is that a bad thing? Jesus man, I never knew looking at things in a fair and balanced way was such a liability to my judgement! Shit I better abandon all news outlets other than Fox News and I better throw out my Textbooks because Jeff says I should be reading Austrian economics to satisfy an archiac need to adhere to idealogy! Either I'm a freedom fighter or I'm a damn commie! That's right!

What is so unbalanced about the EPA? They dont let the oil companies drill all over our national parks? OSHA? DHS? TSA(TBH I dont think anyone likes the TSA lol)? Cmon, give me real, concrete arguments against the existence of these agencies... Can you? I ask for this sort of coherence from you righties all the time but usually ND answers or no one at all (or whatever answer that's given is strangely void of any facts, or leaves out other important variables). Why do you hate these agencies so much? Is it that you just hate everything related to Government(idealogical reasons)? Or is it because you have a legitimate concern that these agencies aren't working in the taxpayers best interest? If the ladder, how so? And I mean overall, dont just state a few negatives and ignore any positives(in typical rightie fashion)... What is the net effect of these agencies? Sure economic activity, jobs, etc may be missed out on if, say, we dont drill in a national park(being vague, this is just a general example) - but is that lost activity worth it in the eyes of the people?

You really are clue less

th irs threatening me because they fucked up. Threatening my property, my business, and my families well being.

The epa? Wait until you are old enough to buy your dream property and someone finds a Lizard that wondered out of its natural environment. The epa come in and renders your property useless.

Oh mame, those fancy charts in class don't tell half the picture my friend
 
I wouldn't mind them drilling for oil in a national park. oil wells are EXCEPTIONALLY clean and use up very LITTLE land. 2 acres is all you need. Environmental impact? Virtually none.


So Somalia has no official Government, does that mean everyone will soon die?
 
I wouldn't mind them drilling for oil in a national park. oil wells are EXCEPTIONALLY clean and use up very LITTLE land. 2 acres is all you need. Environmental impact? Virtually none.
Okay, I can agree with that - sure, drill where it is safe and clean... Seems the debate with drilling centers around Fracking though, which isn't clean at all. Where would you draw the line?

So Somalia has no official Government, does that mean everyone will soon die?
No, but things in Somalia are worse than most countries with an active government are they not? I mean, you can point to some Africian and Middle eastern countries that are shitholes but is that the general trend? In general, do regions with a traditional government presence offer higher standards of living, etc when compared to countries like Somalia? It seems so, and that alone seems like a strong enough case against Anarchy or anything resembling it.
You really are clue less

th irs threatening me because they fucked up. Threatening my property, my business, and my families well being.
What like they fucked up on your taxes and called threatening you until you payed it? Well, I'm sorry to hear that. TBH I've never been called by the IRS but they sound a lot like a bill collector that you'd find in the private sector. If they messed up your taxes then aren't there actions you can take? If you have any experience with the IRS, than it's more experience than I have so I'm not going to act like I know what you're going through.

The epa? Wait until you are old enough to buy your dream property and someone finds a Lizard that wondered out of its natural environment. The epa come in and renders your property useless.

Oh mame, those fancy charts in class don't tell half the picture my friend
Hm... You live out in the sticks or something? You're right, I dont own any land but I understand how a random endangered species lizard being found on your property could cause a commotion... But really how likely is this? Not likely I'm sure, it seems like having both A) a suitable property for an endangered species and B) actually have an endangered species that lives in the region, and has invaded your space... It just seems like something so few people have to deal with. In an article found here, there was a solution for this scenario... Sure, there was a couple months worth of red tape and delay but as I said, these cases can't possibly be commonplace - effecting maybe a few percent of homeowners overall(?). Besides, even if you dislike this one function of the EPA that doesn't mean that the entire agency should be wiped out because of it; I'm sure even you could appreciate some of the stuff they do.
 
Everyone gets property rights, some just more than others. i think that is the gist of what Mame is saying. Since it affects so few it doesn't really matter that those people do not get to enjoy those same property rights. i.e. you have no rights. Things are only important when they affect all of us, they are not important if just a few percent of the population has their rights trampled on, as long as the majority is not inconvenienced in any way. They call this Democracy and Mame is convinced Democracy is wonderful. Too bad the republic is gone.

Somalia isn't anarchist, the regional war lords are the authority and have been for over 20 years now. That is why things are so bad, warlords care nothing for the majority of people, only themselves. If you drop off a ton of food to help the starving people the warlords take the food and let the people starve. It really is that simple.

The IRS has been known to seize homes, freeze bank accounts and cause bankruptcy for as little as 32 cents of back taxes due, which after all the fees and penalties can be as much as $60,000 on that 32 cents. Google IRS horror stories. Usually most tactics employed by them are Deceit, Misinformation, Fear, Threats and Harassment.
 
The IRS has been known to seize homes, freeze bank accounts and cause bankruptcy for as little as 32 cents of back taxes due, which after all the fees and penalties can be as much as $60,000 on that 32 cents. Google IRS horror stories. Usually most tactics employed by them are Deceit, Misinformation, Fear, Threats and Harassment.

If the truth about the IRS was ever discovered by the masses, there would be another revolution.
 
Okay, I can agree with that - sure, drill where it is safe and clean... Seems the debate with drilling centers around Fracking though, which isn't clean at all. Where would you draw the line?


No, but things in Somalia are worse than most countries with an active government are they not? I mean, you can point to some Africian and Middle eastern countries that are shitholes but is that the general trend? In general, do regions with a traditional government presence offer higher standards of living, etc when compared to countries like Somalia? It seems so, and that alone seems like a strong enough case against Anarchy or anything resembling it.

What like they fucked up on your taxes and called threatening you until you payed it? Well, I'm sorry to hear that. TBH I've never been called by the IRS but they sound a lot like a bill collector that you'd find in the private sector. If they messed up your taxes then aren't there actions you can take? If you have any experience with the IRS, than it's more experience than I have so I'm not going to act like I know what you're going through.


Hm... You live out in the sticks or something? You're right, I dont own any land but I understand how a random endangered species lizard being found on your property could cause a commotion... But really how likely is this? Not likely I'm sure, it seems like having both A) a suitable property for an endangered species and B) actually have an endangered species that lives in the region, and has invaded your space... It just seems like something so few people have to deal with. In an article found here, there was a solution for this scenario... Sure, there was a couple months worth of red tape and delay but as I said, these cases can't possibly be commonplace - effecting maybe a few percent of homeowners overall(?). Besides, even if you dislike this one function of the EPA that doesn't mean that the entire agency should be wiped out because of it; I'm sure even you could appreciate some of the stuff they do.

oh boy mame, you really must put down the keynsian stuff for five minutes and read something real.

the irs literally kicks your door down, changes the locks and puts you in the street WITHOUT ANY DUE PROCESS.

no debt collector can do this.

and guess what else? it happens to thousands of people every year. and yes, according to my experience, innocent ones. fortunately my situation never got to that point but it was headed that way.

a buddy of mine just started an auto repair business. about a month ago, the irs called, on a tip, and threatened to shut him down if he didnt comply with sending them some documents. documents that he never needed to send but none the less, they didnt care.

lets take osha, and epa. according to epa when stripping paint off a house, the ground must be covered in plastic or tarps. if epa shows up and you are not in compliance you will be hsut down and fined.

if the osha comes in and sees you on a ladder with tarps underneatht the legs, you will be shut down and fined.

my state recently put into affect that all new housing must have sprinkelr systems installed, average cost per residence 20K.

even though almost all building materials are fire proof. guess what happens when they sense fire (or smoke or a short in the wiring of the system) THEY COMPLETELY RUIN YOUR WHOLE HOUSE AND ALL ITS CONTENTS.

so i have a little stove fire, which i have had about 3 times in my life, i now have to replace my entire bedroom set, living room furniture, etc.
not to mention remoldel every single room in the house.

now take all these stupid regulations, and you have to hire COPS to enforce them. little dweebs sitting in cubicles/offices that know nothing about construction. its insane.

and my list doesnt even brush the surface of this nonsense.

your govt mame is completely out of control. and when you get into buying houses, property, go into business, you will find this stuff out. no offense but you are completely niave right now.
 
If the truth about the IRS was ever discovered by the masses, there would be another revolution.
You mean that it is a corporation in Puerto Rico or the fact that it only has jurisdiction over Federal employees or the fact that there is no law anywhere that says you have to pay taxes?

Income is money you are taxed on. If you make no income they cannot tax it. Not all sources of money are considered income.
 
Everyone gets property rights, some just more than others. i think that is the gist of what Mame is saying. Since it affects so few it doesn't really matter that those people do not get to enjoy those same property rights. i.e. you have no rights. Things are only important when they affect all of us, they are not important if just a few percent of the population has their rights trampled on, as long as the majority is not inconvenienced in any way. They call this Democracy and Mame is convinced Democracy is wonderful. Too bad the republic is gone.
Well, not quite. First of all, Democracy is not perfect but it is superior to Oligarchy... As for the Republic, we most surely are still a "Representative Democracy" as James Madison wrote in the Federalist papers (10? Can't remember TBH... somewhere in there I guess I could source it but you're likely familiar with it). It seems we are a Republic at the Federal level at least, where representatives of the people make choices and we dont vote directly... At the local levels though, we often get to vote directly which is a more pure form of Democracy. Is there a problem with this?

Second, you said "Everyone gets property rights, some just more than others. i think that is the gist of what Mame is saying. Since it affects so few it doesn't really matter that those people do not get to enjoy those same property rights. i.e. you have no rights." And that's just not true. I believe that when society(majority) decides that no can murder or whatever it is, than that is fair to a point... Obviously you want to protect the minority from unfair treatment and that's what the constitution and existing laws are for; If the majority votes in a law and it is unconstitutional* does that law not get thrown out?

*as interpreted by the SCOTUS (whether that's the way it should be or not is another thread, but it is the way it is... take it as a given here)

Somalia isn't anarchist, the regional war lords are the authority and have been for over 20 years now. That is why things are so bad, warlords care nothing for the majority of people, only themselves. If you drop off a ton of food to help the starving people the warlords take the food and let the people starve. It really is that simple.
Would a more traditional government likely result in people being better off? It's like you keep coming just shy of agreeing with me that government is better for the people(although we obviously vary in how much) than no government, or in the case of Somalia, whoever-has-the-most-guns-gets-food-fuck-the-rest type leadership. I'm not arguing in favor of unlimited government or anything, I'm not suggesting some crazy fringe idea... Basically I'm just arguing for the Rahn curve, which just suggests that government can help economic growth to a point - but at some point, government becomes too large and then becomes a burden on growth. It is, in fact, a quite moderate approach. Is it a pipe dream? Are you a firm beleiver in the "slippery slope" argument?

The IRS has been known to seize homes, freeze bank accounts and cause bankruptcy for as little as 32 cents of back taxes due, which after all the fees and penalties can be as much as $60,000 on that 32 cents. Google IRS horror stories. Usually most tactics employed by them are Deceit, Misinformation, Fear, Threats and Harassment.
Sounds terrible TBH. But when I hear about stories like this or like Jeff's with the paint chips or whatever, I dont think that's reason to abolish the agencies entirely. I mean, we dont need or want the IRS locking people out of their homes but there has to be somebody enforcing tax laws or people will just stop paying...

With the EPA, we want them to protect specific forms of wildlife and we want them to keep our water clean or whatever it is they do, right? If they slow your building project down unfairly then there are avenues for appeal and after the fact there is reform, you dont have to destroy other functions that the agency serves to get one problem with the way the agency runs solved, do you?
 

yes, i thought the same thing.

mame, do you think that states dont have epa? do you think if someone in your town was pouring raw sewage in your wells that there isnt state avenues to stop them? you do know that nixon created the epa right?

all this federal bullshit is a powergrab and has no business or need in our society. my local politicians, regulations protect us just fine. there is no need to duplicate this shit federally.

another thing, they (the feds) know/care nothing about local intricacy.

for instance, a local miner was shut down here about 2 months ago because he didnt have the right safety equiptment in his mine. problem is, the safety equipment he was supposed to have was for mining soft coal and has no useful purpose in hard coal mining. the equipment will cost him in excess of $15K.

so this miner whose family has been mining for over a hundred years is now closed. he directly employed 4 people, indirectly probably another 5, truck drivers, excavators etc.

when the inspectors were done shutting them down, they got back in their car (govt owned) and drove back to DC to sit i their cubicle. meanwhile coal prices have gone through the roof here and elsewhere simply because of govt bullshit regulations.
 
mame, do you think that states dont have epa? do you think if someone in your town was pouring raw sewage in your wells that there isnt state avenues to stop them? you do know that nixon created the epa right?
Yes, Nixon created the EPA with near unanimous support.

Putting environmental law in the hands of the states creates a race to the bottom where states with more loose regulation end up siphoning jobs from states that are more heavily regulated; IMO, this is an unwanted consequence of state level laws. Americans in NY shouldn't lose their jobs because Americans in Kuntucky allow companies to cut corners...
all this federal bullshit is a powergrab and has no business or need in our society. my local politicians, regulations protect us just fine. there is no need to duplicate this shit federally.

another thing, they (the feds) know/care nothing about local intricacy.
The agents working for the EPA work for specific divisions of the EPA, devided into 10 different ones. For example, my home state Oregon is one of four states( Alaska, Idaho, Oregon, and Washington) the Northwest division of the EPA watches over... You're telling me they know nothing about local intricacy but it seems to me that they are largely a semi-local entity, at least in terms of enforcement... It's not as if they fly over from Washington to shut down a mine, that's the local office of the EPA's job... They do have headquarters in D.C. but doesn't pretty much every government agency?

Aside from that, they do work with local and state governments and they also work with the indian reservations... So it's not as if they are duplicating state enforcement as much as enhancing it, and making it more consistent and flexible.

for instance, a local miner was shut down here about 2 months ago because he didnt have the right safety equiptment in his mine. problem is, the safety equipment he was supposed to have was for mining soft coal and has no useful purpose in hard coal mining. the equipment will cost him in excess of $15K.

so this miner whose family has been mining for over a hundred years is now closed. he directly employed 4 people, indirectly probably another 5, truck drivers, excavators etc.

when the inspectors were done shutting them down, they got back in their car (govt owned) and drove back to DC to sit i their cubicle. meanwhile coal prices have gone through the roof here and elsewhere simply because of govt bullshit regulations.
You say prices have gone up because of regulation, but all you offer is a single anecdotal; One case does not make a trend.

Also, you say get rid of the EPA? I say even if you dont like laws and enforcement at the Federal level that's STILL no reason to get rid of the EPA entirely... According to Wiki:
The EPA employs 17,000 people in headquarters program offices, 10 regional offices, and 27 laboratories across the country. More than half of its staff are engineers, scientists, and environmental protection specialists; other groups include legal, public affairs, financial, and computer specialists.

The agency conducts environmental assessment, research, and education. It has the responsibility of maintaining and enforcing national standards under a variety of environmental laws, in consultation with state, tribal, and local governments. It delegates some permitting, monitoring, and enforcement responsibility to U.S. states and Native American tribes. EPA enforcement powers include fines, sanctions, and other measures.

The agency also works with industries and all levels of government in a wide variety of voluntary pollution prevention programs and energy conservation efforts.
So my point here is that even if you toss out law enforcement, there are several alternative functions of the EPA(research, voluntary programs, etc). The State's rights argument is about the only reason the federal government arguably shouldn't be enforcing environmental laws - but even if the States won that battle the EPA should continue to exist, because enforcement isn't all they do.
 
Yeah, enforcement isn't all they do, they fine and sanction too. Do they have the authority to Imprison someone? Do EPA agents carry firearms?


PR-DC-09-02080 - (40) Glock Model G-19 Firearms

Posted Date : September 14, 2009

Procurement Office : U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Headquarters Procurement Operations Division, (3803R)

Response Date: September 23, 2009, 4:00 PM EDT

NAICS code 332994 – The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Criminal Investigations Division intends to award a sole source firm-fixed-price Purchase Order to Glock, Inc. under the authority of FAR Part 13, Simplified Acquisition Procedures for 40 Model G-19, 9mm frame handguns with finger grove and rail frames, Tijico night sights, extended magazine catches and 3.5lb/NY1 Trigger magazines. The Glock model G-19 is the Agency standard firearm and is the only pistol that fits our training, certified repair technician contracts, and equipment capabilities without a major change to Agency operations. Our agents are trained with the Glock pistol, and changing to another manufacturer would require transition training for each agent that could range from 1 to 3 days depending on the manufacturer. Additionally, our Agents are outfitted with holsters and magazine clips that are fitted to the Glock model firearm. Furthermore, EPA-CID has a large amount of spare parts for the Glock weapons and to retool these parts would require substantial expenditure for the Government.

NO SOLICITATION OR REQUEST FOR QUOTE WILL BE MADE FOR THIS PROCUREMENT. No contract will be awarded on the basis of offers received in response to this notice. All comments and questions regarding this procurement shall be addressed in writing to the Contracting Officer, Cara Lynch by COB on Wednesday, September 23, 2009. Telephone inquiries will not be accepted. The decision not to compete this requirement is within the discretion of the Government. Any response to this notice shall show clear and convincing evidence that competition would be advantageous to the Government in future procurements

Guess they have the Authority to end your life also. Does it seem odd that a agency devoted to life is now armed and trained and willing to now take life?
 
Back
Top