Texas Republicans move to crush local liberty

[dismal]

I had a house where I leased my land to an oil and gas company. Obviously, if someone had banned me or the oil company from doing that I could not have.

I like growing vegetables in my garden, near my house. If someone is running a fracking operation next door, it forces impurities in to my soil, and potentially destabilises my house. I'm not at liberty to enjoy my property.

Are you arguing that your right to use your property is greater than my right to use mine?

I support your right to enjoy you property as you see fit. If they can't drill the well on my property without messing up yours they should not drill the well. If they make some sort of error and mess up your property anyway you should be heavily compensated.

- - - Updated - - -

I had a house where I leased my land to an oil and gas company. Obviously, if someone had banned me or the oil company from doing that I could not have.

Did you live in that house? And how much land are we talking about?

I did at the time. About 1/2 acre.

 

[Togo]

I like growing vegetables in my garden, near my house. If someone is running a fracking operation next door, it forces impurities in to my soil, and potentially destabilises my house. I'm not at liberty to enjoy my property.

Are you arguing that your right to use your property is greater than my right to use mine?

I support your right to enjoy you property as you see fit. If they can't drill the well on my property without messing up yours they should not drill the well.

But that's a restriction of your individual liberty, isn't it? Saying that you can't drill on your own property because I don't want to live next to it? How is that different from Denton voting to ban fracking?

 

[dismal]

I support your right to enjoy you property as you see fit. If they can't drill the well on my property without messing up yours they should not drill the well.

But that's a restriction of your individual liberty, isn't it? Saying that you can't drill on your own property because I don't want to live next to it? How is that different from Denton voting to ban fracking?

You don't live next to fracking. It occurs thousands of feet below the surface.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But that's a restriction of your individual liberty, isn't it? Saying that you can't drill on your own property because I don't want to live next to it? How is that different from Denton voting to ban fracking?

You don't live next to fracking. It occurs thousands of feet below the surface.

That is the right-wing adult equivalent of the "Why are you punching yourself" child argument. "I'm not hitting you, you are hitting you."

 

[dismal]

You don't live next to fracking. It occurs thousands of feet below the surface.

That is the right-wing adult equivalent of the "Why are you punching yourself" child argument. "I'm not hitting you, you are hitting you."

It's actually a true fact.

You could look it up.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That is the right-wing adult equivalent of the "Why are you punching yourself" child argument. "I'm not hitting you, you are hitting you."

It's actually a true fact.

You could look it up.

I know, my point exactly. You are hitting yourself with your own fist, you doofus. Why are you blaming me? I'm not hitting you.

 

[Togo]

But that's a restriction of your individual liberty, isn't it? Saying that you can't drill on your own property because I don't want to live next to it? How is that different from Denton voting to ban fracking?

You don't live next to fracking. It occurs thousands of feet below the surface.

Ok, so you're saying that the issue here is actually nothing to do with personal liberty to drill on your own property, it's just that those against fracking are wrong on the facts? If it were demonstrated that they were harmed by fracking, then you'd support their ban every inch of the way?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You don't live next to fracking. It occurs thousands of feet below the surface.

Ok, so you're saying that the issue here is actually nothing to do with personal liberty to drill on your own property, it's just that those against fracking are wrong on the facts? If it were demonstrated that they were harmed by fracking, then you'd support their ban every inch of the way?

Nope. Demonstrating harm to others would inflict the driller's liberty.

 

[dismal]

It's actually a true fact.

You could look it up.

I know, my point exactly. You are hitting yourself with your own fist, you doofus. Why are you blaming me? I'm not hitting you.

Whatever. Congratulations on making such a brilliant post.

- - - Updated - - -

You don't live next to fracking. It occurs thousands of feet below the surface.

Ok, so you're saying that the issue here is actually nothing to do with personal liberty to drill on your own property, it's just that those against fracking are wrong on the facts? If it were demonstrated that they were harmed by fracking, then you'd support their ban every inch of the way?

What facts are you talking about?

 

[Jarhyn]

Ok, dismal, I guess it's ok that I open a pig farm next to your house. After all, the methane and stink and shit is being produced inside the pigs! It's not being produced by the barn or the corn I feed them!

The problem with fracking is not the oil or the gas, it's the effect it has on the immediate environment of all endpoints of the well, from destabilizing fault lines, to the emission of toxic chemicals into the atmosphere.

As soon as you expect others to be affected by the fallout of your bad decisions, you can expect regulation to limit and oversee your ability to take those actions.

 

[dismal]

Ok, dismal, I guess it's ok that I open a pig farm next to your house. After all, the methane and stink and shit is being produced inside the pigs! It's not being produced by the barn or the corn I feed them!

The problem with fracking is not the oil or the gas, it's the effect it has on the immediate environment of all endpoints of the well, from destabilizing fault lines, to the emission of toxic chemicals into the atmosphere.

As soon as you expect others to be affected by the fallout of your bad decisions, you can expect regulation to limit and oversee your ability to take those actions.

You must have missed the post where I said you have no right to interfere with your neighbors enjoyment of his property.

Do you want to read it and try again with a post that is relevant to the discussion?

 

[doubtingt]

Denton’s ban won’t stop fracking permits, Railroad Commission chairwoman says



Nothing says "Liberty" like a State bureaucrat saying she is going to just ignore local ordinances.

Hint: when you're invoking liberty to support a ban on an individual voluntarily doing something you're probably doing it wrong.

No. Like most pseudo-libertarian corporatists, you have a very misguided notion of what liberty is. You equate "liberty" with the rich and powerful being able to harm people in any way that is profitable. By definition, any act that impacts another person's body or property against their will is anti-liberty. Violations of liberty can and most often do come from other citizens and the private sector and not from government. Fracking impacts other people's property (which includes public natural resources) against their will. Thus, preventing fracking that is not supported by the public is to prevent violations of liberty.

 

[dismal]

Hint: when you're invoking liberty to support a ban on an individual voluntarily doing something you're probably doing it wrong.

No. Like most pseudo-libertarian corporatists, you have a very misguided notion of what liberty is. You equate "liberty" with the rich and powerful being able to harm people in any way that is profitable. By definition, any act that impacts another person's body or property against their will is anti-liberty. Violations of liberty can and most often do come from other citizens and the private sector and not from government. Fracking impacts other people's property (which includes public natural resources) against their will. Thus, preventing fracking that is not supported by the public is to prevent violations of liberty.

Ah. Perhaps you should also read what I wrote. In between grappling with your strawmen.

 

[Malintent]

The well doesn't need to be anywhere near a particular plot of land to cause problems there. Once an oil rich layer is penetrated the drilling continues horizontally.
Property ownership doesn't necessarily include mineral rights. You don't own or control the land under your property.

Point of clarity... Mineral rights are a state regulation.. your state gives you the right to the minerals on your land or they don't. In Texas, I beleive, they don't.

You own and have responsibility for the land beneith your home, but you may or may not have ownership rights to the minerals... incidently, you also own and have responsibility for the airspace above your home.. however you automatically "lease" all of the airspace above 500' from the ground to the FAA. Your local ordinaces dictate how much of the 500' you are allowed to build on (up to).

 

[Togo]

Ok, so you're saying that the issue here is actually nothing to do with personal liberty to drill on your own property, it's just that those against fracking are wrong on the facts? If it were demonstrated that they were harmed by fracking, then you'd support their ban every inch of the way?

What facts are you talking about?

Your position appeared to be one of principle - that it was not right to vote to ban fracking in a locality because that was an infringement of freedom (to drill on your own land, or allow others to do so).

However, when I suggested that my right to enjoy my neighbouring property might be infringed by your drill, you agreed that if my property was threatened with damage or disadvantage in some way, I would be within my rights to stop you drilling.

So when I then applied this same principle to the original issue, whether the local people should indeed have the right to ban fracking in their area because of possible damage or disruption to the enjoyment of their own properties, your reply was that fracking was relatively harmless. Which is fine, but now your earlier statement about liberty doesn't make any sense, because the issue doesn't appear to be about any higher principle of liberty at all, it appears to be about a factual question of whether the fracking permits granted have the potential to damage other people's property.

So, in an effort to clarify your position, I'm asking whether, if it could be demonstrated that the fracking for which permits are being granted did in fact have the potential to cause harm to other people's property, whether or not the good citizens should indeed be entitled to vote to ban the practice, and whether or not you would support them in this as defender of the rights of each individual to enjoy their own private property.

 

[dismal]

What facts are you talking about?

Your position appeared to be one of principle - that it was not right to vote to ban fracking in a locality because that was an infringement of freedom (to drill on your own land, or allow others to do so).

I suggested that was the libertarian position. Bans are not particularly libertarian.

However, when I suggested that my right to enjoy my neighbouring property might be infringed by your drill, you agreed that if my property was threatened with damage or disadvantage in some way, I would be within my rights to stop you drilling.

Yes, within reason.

So when I then applied this same principle to the original issue, whether the local people should indeed have the right to ban fracking in their area because of possible damage or disruption to the enjoyment of their own properties, your reply was that fracking was relatively harmless. Which is fine, but now your earlier statement about liberty doesn't make any sense, because the issue doesn't appear to be about any higher principle of liberty at all, it appears to be about a factual question of whether the fracking permits granted have the potential to damage other people's property.

Yes, you would need to show there is some rational basis to believe the parade of horribles.

So, in an effort to clarify your position, I'm asking whether, if it could be demonstrated that the fracking for which permits are being granted did in fact have the potential to cause harm to other people's property, whether or not the good citizens should indeed be entitled to vote to ban the practice, and whether or not you would support them in this as defender of the rights of each individual to enjoy their own private property.

That's what the Railroad Commission (aka the much beloved government) does. It sets out the rules so that landowners are protected from harm and issues permits on that basis.

 

[Mageth]

Point of clarity... Mineral rights are a state regulation.. your state gives you the right to the minerals on your land or they don't. In Texas, I beleive, they don't.

In Texas, you can (but don't necessarily) own mineral rights for your property. You can also sell or lease said rights. You can buy land with or without the mineral rights, or you can buy mineral rights without the land. You can also sell the land while retaining ownership of the mineral rights.

 

[dismal]

The well doesn't need to be anywhere near a particular plot of land to cause problems there. Once an oil rich layer is penetrated the drilling continues horizontally.
Property ownership doesn't necessarily include mineral rights. You don't own or control the land under your property.

Point of clarity... Mineral rights are a state regulation.. your state gives you the right to the minerals on your land or they don't. In Texas, I beleive, they don't.

You own and have responsibility for the land beneith your home, but you may or may not have ownership rights to the minerals... incidently, you also own and have responsibility for the airspace above your home.. however you automatically "lease" all of the airspace above 500' from the ground to the FAA. Your local ordinaces dictate how much of the 500' you are allowed to build on (up to).

In Texas you may or may not own the mineral rights beneath your home. In one house I did because they had not been severed from the surface ownership. In my next house the developer kept the minerals.

 

[Togo]

That's what the Railroad Commission (aka the much beloved government) does. It sets out the rules so that landowners are protected from harm and issues permits on that basis.

Ok, so you're supporting the government's right to determine what is and isn't harmful to local landowners, displacing any rights the local landowners might have to protect their own land and own interests?

 

[Sabine Grant]

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/amall/new_inspector_general_report_f.html

That to bring everyone's attention to the position held by the IG. It is interesting that the EPA had dropped their case against fracking and the IG is in fact insisting that they should not have.

Detailed report from the IG :

http://www.epa.gov/oig/reports/2014/20131220-14-P-0044.pdf ( the part concerning Texas addresses "Region 6" and resulting conclusions by the EPA investigation)

And the details of that report for those who seem to not see any harm with fracking while focusing on their right to lease their land to gas/oil companies relying on fracking.

As far as "Liberty" is concerned, I favor the definition of Liberty cited in the 1789 Declaration of Human Rights and Rights of the Citizen (article 4) :

"La liberté consiste à pouvoir faire tout ce qui ne nuit pas à autrui "

"Freedom is being able to do whatever does not harm others"

Needless to say that anyone promoting the belief that they have the right to lease their land for fracking while focusing solely on that right is bound to dismiss the important part of whether their own exercise of such liberty may cause harm to others. In the case of fracking, the potential for the contamination of water resources which of course becomes a harm causing factor to close by neighborhoods.

Sure, anyone can adopt a mentality so individualistic that they will dismiss the causing harm potential resulting from the exercise of their own right or Liberty. However when it comes to adults, the exercise of liberty comes with the expectation to assume it responsibly and with the resulting accountability.

I do not expect Christi Craddick to give that much reflection to whether her resolution to hand out permits dismisses the right of other citizens to NOT be harmed.