🚀 go-pugleaf

 
 
In ca.politics phil@netcom.com (Phil Ronzone) said: 
 
 
>In article <3p84j5$517@tuna.hooked.net> jimbar@tuna.hooked.net (Jim
Barrett)  
>writes: 
>    >I suggest that we try to look at ways that induce the free 
>    >market system to promote environmental well being while at 
>    >the same time preserve notions of private property. I beleive 
>    >that this suggestion has something for everybody. 
> 
>Since pollution is only a problem because we DON'T have a strong system of
 
>private property, we need to strengthen private property rights. 
> 
>For that which is not feasible to own, such as air and many rivers and
oceans,  
>the riparian concept of leave it as you found it would suffice. Of course,
this  
>means zero-polluting cars, but, hey, I'm in favor of that. 
> 
> 
 
 
Here we go. We now have a point that we can build on. I would prefer
zero-polluting cars also. How do you think we can get to zero-polluting
cars without decreasing private property. Do you think that there are ways
that we can hold those who pollute responsible for the consequences. Are
there any corporate subsidies to oil or car companies that promote this
technology while at the same time decreasing the viability of the
alternatives. How about the proposal to open up the California coast to oil
drilling. How much are we as citizens getting from the oil companies for
these leases. I bet we are getting ripped off.