Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rand would be against fracking

Rate this topic


Var
 Share

Recommended Posts

The use of fracking fluids to extract natural gas, which pollutes water supplies of innocent people forever and destroys private land value, is an example of the "looting" that Rand opposed. Fracking is made possible because of corrupt politicians who waive regulations that otherwise maintain environmental justice and private property rights. In short fracking is possible because of what Rand called "collectivism", better called corporatism, namely the collusion between crony capitalists and government. And yet at the end of the first Atlas Shrugged movie, natural gas extracters are hinted at as being an example of the "achievers". In truth they are nothing of the kind.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The evidence indicates that fracking is pretty safe.

No, the evidence shows it is exceedingly damaging to the water supplies, to people's health, and to private property.

You're not allowed to have your own facts, and denial of evidence does not constitute an opinion.

Fracking is the nightmare of collectivism that Rand predicted.

Watch:

Edited by Var
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if the evidence does show that fracking is dangerous (which is quickly reversing direction), Rand would not be against the act in principle. She would be against it if a gas company lied to a local community and then polluted their water, but not if the company set up some sort of safety precautions or compensated the damaged persons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Fracking is made possible because of corrupt politicians who waive regulations that otherwise maintain environmental justice and private property rights.

Perhaps federal regulations were never intended to, or in any case have been inadequate to, protect the environment or private property rights then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tell it to Yoko Ono.

The best piece I've seen on the subject is Kevin Williamson's. He makes the point, among many others, that lots of locales, including the one in Gasland, have naturally flammable water from underground methane, and people have known about them since ancient times. Fracking has nothing to do with it.

What has this to do with collectivism anyway? It's a political or ethical theory, not a gas-extraction technology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even if the evidence does show that fracking is dangerous (which is quickly reversing direction), Rand would not be against the act in principle. She would be against it if a gas company lied to a local community and then polluted their water, but not if the company set up some sort of safety precautions or compensated the damaged persons.

No, the evidence is abundant and growing that fracking is horribly dangerous. It's the crony capitalists who say otherwise. The companies that do fracking lie to their workers about the risks, they lie to the affected public, they lie to the media. They have the moral legitimacy of Charles Manson. Objectivism is not about greed and looting, as fracking advocates might like to claim it is. It's about stopping nightmare scenarios like what happened in Stalin's Russia, or what is happening today in America with fracking, banker bailouts, and lobbyists controlling Congress, which Rand called collectivism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He makes the point, among many others, that lots of locales, including the one in Gasland, have naturally flammable water from underground methane, and people have known about them since ancient times.

So perfectly fine water supplies suddenly become bubbly and polluted with fracking fluids, which includes antifreeze, and your response is to blame the victims -- to blame private citizens who get poisoned because of crony capitalists (frackers) are paying off corrupt politicians. You'd be guilty in Rand's view.

Edited by Var
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, the evidence shows it is exceedingly damaging to the water supplies, to people's health, and to private property.
Environmentalists come up with such claims every few years. Disprove one, and they come up with something new. One time it is DDT, another time acid-rain, then alar, then we're cooling the earth, then we're warming it.

Fracking is not Rand's "nightmare of collectivism". For that, you would have to look to people like Rachel Carson, responsible for thousands of deaths.

I suppose Michael Moore is your notion of a Rand hero?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So perfectly fine water supplies suddenly become bubbly and polluted with fracking fluids, which includes antifreeze, and your response is to blame the victims -- to blame private citizens who get poisoned because of crony capitalists (frackers) are paying off corrupt politicians. You'd be guilty in Rand's view.

That wasn't his point. I think the claim is that fracking wasn't the cause of the polluted water so their is no victimization in the first place. You are welcome to offer a rebuttal supported with evidence. I'm personally on the fence about fracking. I guess I have an "open" mind on the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Var -

Your presumptuous psychological pronouncements about Rand and me suggest that you don't have a lot of confidence in your case.

If you say that Rand would have opposed fracking you put yourself in the position of having why she wrote a hero (Ellis Wyatt) who made the process work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here's a recent Popular Mechanics article about fracking.

Popular Mechanics lost all credibility when they cheerfully lied about 9/11, claiming that small fires caused an entire building (WTC building 7) to collapse at free-fall speed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you say that Rand would have opposed fracking you put yourself in the position of having why she wrote a hero (Ellis Wyatt) who made the process work.

Pumping carcinogens and antifreeze into the water supply, which is what fracking entails, is not the same as oil shale extraction. Anyhow Rand clearly was not a scientist. She insisted smoking was safe, after all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Popular Mechanics lost all credibility when they cheerfully lied about 9/11, claiming that small fires caused an entire building (WTC building 7) to collapse at free-fall speed.

I'm sorry? That's not what the Popular Mechanics article actually says:

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

Also, there is no claim that it fell at free-fall speed.

Edited by Craig24
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Popular Mechanics lost all credibility when they cheerfully lied about 9/11, claiming that small fires caused an entire building (WTC building 7) to collapse at free-fall speed.

I don't think you're going to find many (any?) like minded people on this site.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Popular Mechanics lost all credibility when they cheerfully lied about 9/11, claiming that small fires caused an entire building (WTC building 7) to collapse at free-fall speed.

Aha! Now we know.

If you think DDT is safe, please be my guest and eat some of it. Same with fracking fluids, you'll love the flavor.
Well, there are so many levels on which this is wrong.

Firstly, remember this: the poison is in the dose. Water can kill you.

Secondly, personally, my house has been sprayed with DDT a few times... sprayed so that there was a white fog inside with me in it. The only effect on me has been that I'm not alienated enough from reality to believe conspiracy theories about 9/11.

Thirdly, here is a video of people eating DDT:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, there is no claim that it fell at free-fall speed.

No, just all seven indepedently shot videos of WTC 7 collapsing show it to be a controlled demolition.

9/11 was a perfect example of what Rand warned about, when the looters of society conspire with the jackals to destroy wealth and opportunity. It was the military industrial complex that did 9/11, and the Establishment mass media produced bogus propaganda to blame it on foreigners.

Rand effectively foretold 9/11, but now her enemies like you are happy to misconstrue what she taught to justify new forms of looting such as fracking.

WTC 7:

Edited by Var
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think DDT is safe, please be my guest and eat some of it. Same with fracking fluids, you'll love the flavor.

The DDT issue exposed a particular branch of environmentalist for the Granola Death Cultists that they are.

DDT has been proven safe, more so in proper quantities. The only thing it has ever harmed is some animals (bird eggs for example) and if you’re willing to allow people to die from malaria to save a bird egg then that exposes what you think of human life.

What is really sad is DDT can be used to proper quantities today in third world countries to save people from malaria and not harm the environment, but the environmental cultists still scream about the evils of the stuff in ignorance of scientific fact. Millions have died from malaria thanks to environmental cultists.

Good thing for them Hell is not real because the only real debate here is which level of Dante’s Inferno they would end up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aspartame. HAARP. Bilderberg. Thermite at the WTC. Vaccination causes autism. And now fracking. Anything else scribbled on the walls of the loony bin?

Straw man argument. You're afraid of debating the facts, because you're a greedy, callous know-nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...