And what do you have in your trash that your so worried that people will find ;) No I kid. I can see your point, but I can also see how important it is for us and the following generations to recycle. The earth isn't a infinate resource, we need to use it wisely.

Tony-man:

I applaud your splendid missive against the intrusive dumpster-diving, garbage-can sniffing bureaucrats. But I wonder if the rhetoric here needs to be bolstered with the empirical data you, I, and many others know about: recycling wastes resources.

I think talk of liberty is often missing the point. (Yes, a philosopher like me can minimize the value of liberty-talk.) What is first important is to show that this is an issue of liberty.

We don't think it's an undue restriction of liberty for there to be prohibitions on dumping our waste into streams that flow through our property. This is because we don't have the liberty to restrict other folks' liberty to enjoy the stream downstream (without making the appropriate contractual arrangements in advance, with all interested parties....).

So, maybe recycling is justified because it better internalizes the costs of trash disposal. But we think it isn't, so we've got to show that trash isn't as big a deal as some make it out to be, and/or recycling is not the way to deal with the costs trash imposes. It turns out (and neither of us are surprised) that (1) we're not running out of landfill space, and (2) most recycling programs (especially of the curbside variety) are incredibly inefficient ways of dealing with trash. They do not pay for themselves. (This is perhaps why New York City, after years of tinkering with curbside recycling, is abandoning the program.) Since recycling costs more than it brings in, then it's wasting resources that could be better used elsewhere, such as, say, in preserving the endangered red-cockaded woodpecker, or in restoring certain areas damaged by toxic chemicals, or to better educate folks about how to be good human beings, and so forth.

The idea here is purely an issue of rhetorical strategy: talk of liberty falls on deaf ears when the listeners think the earth is turning into a big toxic landfill and that we're running out of resources. It isn't; we're not. (If anyone doubts, go check the nicely documented study of these and related issues in Bjorn Lomborg, *The Skeptical Environmentalist*, recently out from Cambridge University Press. Lomborg attempted to debunk doom-saying environmentalism but discovered, to his surprise, that, really, we're not running out of water, oil, coal, forests, landfill space, and that we're not becoming more polluted, dangerously overpopulated, and dangerously less biodiverse. Lomborg argues that it's increased wealth that promises to cure whatever may seem to ail us.)

So... once we can show that recycling is unnecessary, only then does it become an issue of liberty. Here, the normative must follow the empirical. Imagine that.

Andrew Cohen

I live on the east coast and recycle faithfully. I have done so for years...

Of course, it is into the infamous "file 13" that I recycle, but nonetheless, I recycle :-)

To the first commenter (name apparently withheld):

The earth is doing just fine. In fact, there are almost no resources which are not MORE plentiful now than 50 years ago. Will we enventually use everything up? Yes... EVENTUALLY. We've got hundreds of years to go (at least). By then, we'll be quite capable of "recycling" all the old stuff - landfills from this century will be the new mines, since most of the non-valuable stuff will have decayed by then anyway. Think of landfills as resource savings accounts for the future. And must cheaper than recycling, too.

This is very similar to a scheme that was tried at my old university. The response was to place all the "illegal" rubbish in, on and next to, the bins of the local environmentalists.

The rules were quietly dropped.

Once I was confronted by my well-meaning boyfriend with this exact quote, "You're Pagan and you don't recycle!" after he had polished off several cans of Pepsi. Oh, the horror! I thought. A lot of people make recycling into some sort of religion or incorporate it into an already existing religious framework. I have no time for such nonsense, nor do I believe we are running out of resources. Fortunately, I live in a big city and there are a couple of folks that sweep thru my dumpster every few days or so. I know, it doesn't sound very savory, but if they want my empty beer and Pepsi cans, they are welcome to them. So, I guess you could say I recycle, albeit indirectly.

A friendly reminder ;

The forefathers intended for only (1)White (2)Male (3)Landowners to vote. - Some people make excuses for the whole white/male thing, being that those were the values of that era, but thats what they intended. And while most people think of the white/male thing, no one remembers the land owner criteria for voting. That leaves less than 25% of the current population in this country eligible.

And while we are discussing race, let us not forget the 3/5 rule, where slaves were counted as 3/5 of a human, and yet had no vote. Het, that's what the forefathers intended, at that time anyway.

I'm not here to bash the forefathers, just to highlight that they had faults and were less than perfect, whatever their intensions were. No one fully knows exactly what each forefather had intended for this nation, even if you are conducting seances in your basement on the weekend to help guide you in your public policy decision making. While were at it here's a reminder of where our forefathers had more wisdom than much of the current crop of lawmakers, especially the ones that lean to the right:

I have a hard time believing our forefather would have supported the actions taken by the likes of Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan in their actions to overthrow democratically elected leaders in countries like Guatamala, Chile, Iran etc. The forefather were very much in favor of sovreignty and self determination, at least on paper. Yet very few of those who love the "Its Not What Our Forefathers had Intended" argument feel there is any conflict between our highly questionable (if not flat out wrong) actions we led, helped, or funded in South America, South Asia and the Middle East versus that our forefathers were proponents of democracy and self determination for all.

My favorite hypocrisy is about hemp. Washington, Jefferson and B. Franklin all smoked marijuana - if you asked me they would not have intended it to be illegal. I can't imagine they would be in favor of the drug war which soaks billions of tax dollars in an effort to fight a naturally occuring weed with slight mind altering properties, and incarceration of people who buy, sell and use it. Hell, if that were the case back then our First and Third Presidents would have gone to jail!

As far as Deoxy's note - In fact, there are almost no resources which are not MORE plentiful now than 50 years ago - you have got to be kidding.

Mystery post person:

Speaking of hemp, I certainly hope you were stoned out of your mind in your last post. It's not the rambling, incoherent structure of the post that concerns me, it's the reference to the democratically elected leader of Iran that made me concerned for your state of mind.

Good luck, buddy, and don't drink the bong water.

To Mr./Ms. NoName:

Well let's see ... we were supposed to be out of oil, food, timber, and many essential metals by now (or well on our way out), but instead, we have more oil, more food, more timber, and the price of many metals and minerals has dropped, indicating that they are in greater supply or less demand. What evidence do you have to the contrary besides "you have got to be kidding"?

As a Texan, I highly agree with your defense of non-recycling (and your proposed solution **g**). The idea of some penny-ante bureaucrat digging through my trash like a modern-day Mrs. Grundy makes me furious! If someone wants to recycle religiously, fine; be my guest. I put my newspapers out on the curb separately because they take up less space that way, but that's about as far as I'm willing to go.

I was booed, hissed and booted off a San Francisco jury after admitting to not recycling. The judge was confused:

Judge: There is no recycling in your building?

Me: No, I do not recylcle.

Judge: Do you mean that you don't use anything that can be recycled?

Me: No. I do not recycle. Recycling actually wastes natural resources and is costly to taxpayers.

I didn't change any minds in the courtroom that day, but it sure was fun!

To the previous post (name withheld) -- Deoxy is correct that we have more resources than we did 50 years ago. Www.perc.org has some great info from economists and scientists on resource scarcity issues and the effectiveness of recycling.

What I would like to know is how much in savings, either direct cost or assumed savings in some vague, resource plenty future we realize from coerced recycling versus the amount of tax money spent paying the recycling goons? How much does the dept of renew/reuse or whatever they call it cost us by measure of salaries, benefits, equipment, land, etc.?

Who told you your garbage was private? There is your first mistake.

Garbage isn't yours anymore. You gave up your rights to it when you stuck it on the curb to be taken away. The police, the feds, the neighbors, even private investigators can dig through it or haul it away.

I'm a little fuzzy on the particulars of private investigators (aren't they just private citizens? They seem to be accorded extra rights...), but of course the police, etc, can haul your garbage away - they can take your regular stuff away, too, if warranted.

But it was my understanding (it's been a few years) that digging through someone else's garbage was illegal. You know, identity theft as all.

Once you place the garbage on the curb, you've placed it in "common space". It isn't anymore private than if you'd chucked in into a pile in the park.

Here are some references: http://www.fightidentitytheft.com/shred_supreme_court.html http://www.jus.state.nc.us/NCJA/sep96.htm http://www.eco-shred.com/usvredmon.html

Actually, it isn't the digging through my garbage that I mind (if someone wants to go through what I scoop out of my cat's litterbox, they're welcome **g**), so much as the reason why some recycling enforcement official-type would be doing it.

There's been a debate going on over in Dallas because the mayor wants to cut out or eliminate the recycling program because it loses money. In retaliation, some council members have recommended cutting garbage collection back to one pickup per week, under the assumption that people will produce less garbage if there are fewer pickups (which I tend to doubt).

Iran currently has a faux democracy, but previous to the Shah of Iran 1979 and before there was no democratically elected leader in Iran - but that doesn't change the fact that the US gov basically installed the Shah, usurping the right to self determination of the Iranian people, something the forefathers would have supported... I would tend to agree anyway.

And despite the Cheech and Chong joke there still isn't an answer as to why a conservative would champion the right to not recycle and yet the personal freedom to smoke a bowl is out of the question. There is no logic in that.

As for Bjorn Lomborg I find it hysterical that so many conservatives are practically giddy to overlook the National Academy of Sciences and just about every other noteworthy independent institution that says things are getting worse environmentally. Instead they want to defer to this one guy from Norway (or Sweden? I forget), some statitician with no extensive environmental credentials (he used to be in Greenpeace) as the only real reliable source for information on the environment. Just brilliant!

While were at it http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/flatearth.html "> click here immediately! The totally biased Clinton loving liberal media has duped you into believing the Earth is round!!!! It's flat I tell you! Flat flat flat!

Any dumbass (or corporation with lots of money) can create a website, put a bunch of bs info up, call it "research", and then claim to be a grass roots organization acting the best interest of the "people". Even the flat earth society has a website! www.perc.org...ha ha ha...my favorite is still http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/ - Trees like fossil fuels, and carbon monoxide is good for your lungs! No really!

The fact that the greening society is funded by oil companies had NO INFLUENCE WHATSOEVER on their "research".

Recycling makes perfect sense to me because it's obviously a religion. So I try to treat it as one, by not making a fuss if its proponents refuse to consider costs and evidence. I don't change anyone's mind this way, but at least I avoid bitter, intractable arguments.

You are correct about one thing, Mr. Haas. Any dumbass can erect a website and call it research.

And while reasonable can disagree on issues, you fail to realize that some Nobel laureate economists and scientists share the free-market environment view. Furthermore, much, if not most, of the evidence supporting these views is based on the government's own data. If you were to really investigate, you will even find government studies -- published under Democrat administrations -- supporting some of these views.

Anyone can find bad research on both sides of this debate. How about arguing merits?

Mr. haas:

The right to not recycle has to do with what I do with my own things. The "right" to "smoke a bowl" has been shown to often infinge on the rights of others - robbery, muggings, even murder. Also, people currently "smoked" have been known to do Bad Things - such as leaping from very very high places, slitting their wrists, starving themselves to death, drowning, hurting other people, and generally doing STUPID things.

You could argue that those aren't enough to restrict its use - some people do so quite eloquently and logically - but simply claiming that there is no logic in the position is either willfully ignorant or dishonest.

I live near your old scholarly haunts (Raleigh, NC), and have grown ill of the recycling police state that I live in. We are required to pay a monthly fee for this recycling service which is conveniently added to our utility. The irony of it all, is that the corporation that is contracted to perform the curbside collection, sorting, and sale of these recyclables recently admitted that have covertly trucked these sorted recyclables to the landfill. They claim lack of a market. A disgruntled driver ratted them out. I am still waiting to see the refund on my utility bill for recycling services that were not performed. Little chance of that, as the locality just renewed their contract.

That's what happens in Florida. Everyone knows that the recycled cans and bottles go to the same landfill that the rest of the garbage goes to.

The right to not recycle has to do with what I do with my own things. The "right" to "smoke a bowl" has been shown to often infinge on the rights of others - robbery, muggings, even murder. Also, people currently "smoked" have been known to do Bad Things - such as leaping from very very high places, slitting their wrists, starving themselves to death, drowning, hurting other people, and generally doing STUPID things.

You could argue that those aren't enough to restrict its use - some people do so quite eloquently and logically - but simply claiming that there is no logic in the position is either willfully ignorant or dishonest.

Newt and Rohrbacher didn't rob">http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.asp?ref=/murdock/murdock041602.asp">rob or kill anybody. Sounds like you saw Reefer Madness one too many times.

Just about everything you said was said about alcohol, in support of Prohibition. Drunks continue to make unwise decision to drive home and sometimes they kill or maime someone. People continue to ruin their lives by getting drunk all the time. No one is calling for the reinstatement of Prohibition.

Robbery, muggings, and even murder? Crack, cocaine, heroin absolutely. Marajuana? The worst offense I've seen commited by a pot head was the stiffing of the pizza delivery guy when they got the munchies.

Ya know Tony you took the time to write what I thought was an excellent take on the real cost of terrorism a little while back. And yet to
completely miss the residual affects of our missappropriating our natural resources, be it land or bottles, cans and newspapers, has wide spread results that you're not calculating when you use Bjorn's data. But that's not my real point here.

Not recyling has negative affects, albeit much harder to quantify, versus someone lighting up a bong. We could go on for 50 posts and neither of us would budge.

But I find it laughable when people try to use the "It's not what the Forefathers had intended" argument when it's convenient and then toss it away when it's an obstacle to their own goals. Not to mention for anyone to position themselves to know what the forefathers would want in the year 2002, that's totally ridiculous. They've been dead and buried for the past 200 give or take a few, and made plenty of mistakes that we should live in the here and now.

I have my doubts about those who love to beat the personal freedom drum - they usually chant the liberty mantra hysterically, until something the don't approve of comes along, and then the personal freedom argument goes out the window in favor of "family values" or some other bs. It's totally disingenous, and makes me believe you don't actually believe in the personal freedom argument very much unless it serves your purposes. I may not like Libertarians al that much, but at least there philosphy is clean and their consistent from issue to issue.

Anyway no one bothered to answer some of the questions posed earlier;

Why is it that those who love the "Its Not What Our Forefathers had Intended" argument feel there is any conflict between our highly questionable (if not flat out wrong) actions we led, helped, or funded in South America, South Asia and the Middle East versus that our forefathers were proponents of democracy and self determination for all?

How can use the whole "Its not what the Forefathers had intended" when it's convienent, and then use another standard for other issue?

Mr. Haas,

First, I was refering to drugs in general, as it seemed you were doing. Some people make a strong case for the legalization of marijuana - I think it's not a good idea, but I think the strongest reason for its restriction is the slippery slope argument (which really only applies when there are people with an agenda - there are groups whose agenda is the legalization of essentially all drugs). Also, the only reason I can think of that alcohol should be legal is because it's so culturally ingrained (weddings, New Year's, etc). The reason for this is that it impairs the mind, which strikes at the very roots of democracy: rational participants and responsibility for one's actions (yes, people still make the "the drugs made me do it" argument).

As to recycling, what "residual effects"? You can say they exist all you want, but I'd like to hear WHAT they are.

What are the "negative effects" of not recycling?

Throwing arguments away when they aren't convenient... Yeah, every politician of every stripe seems to do that. It bugs me, too. Ys, non-politicians do it, too - there are certain groups that do it worse than others. Yes, that bugs me, too.

As time goes on, I'm finding out that I am quite a libertarian. I don't care what you do in the privacy of your own home (OK, I care - I don't really want you performing ritual torture on yourself or other terrible things, and I think certain things are inherently wrong, but I'm not going to invade your home on anything but the most extreme), but leave me and my kids alone (and preferably everyone else).

As to your questions:

The "what they intended" argument (which I think is a useful tool, but not a good argument) and our actions to influence other countries: easy - "self-interest". We are self-ruled, and when other countries threaten us, we defend ourselves. If we threaten someone else, they will defend themselves - probably better if they are self-goverend, which is preferable, but allowing "self-rule" to mean that other self-ruled countries get a gree pass to run over us is STUPID.

As to the second question, I think I answered it (from my opinion) above, but I do have a comment to make. What standard are Democrats held to? (Can you say Clinton?) What standard are Republicans held to? (Can you say Bork?) Notice any difference? Yeah, different standards when convenient. Yeah, that bugs me, too.

Anonymous: "Washington, Jefferson and B. Franklin all smoked marijuana"...
I am aware that Washington and Jefferson grew hemp. Hemp was and is an excellent fiber for making rope, high-quality paper, and sturdy, long-wearing cloth (I personally own and wear a hemp hat, a hemp shirt, and a genuine "hemp necktie"). However, I know of no evidence that any of the above-mentioned F.F.s smoked their cash crop.
As for recycling, it was good enough for my mother and grandmother during WWII, and it's good enough for me. I am about 7/8 Scots, and I hate waste! ;-) It is disappointing to read about so much corruption among recycling contractors, though...
Mary

While my husband often refers to me as more conservative than he, I am about to blow his socks off. I'm not sure I mind the mandatory recycling, I'm just thankful I don't have to pay a seperate fee for it. (Yes, I do know that somehow, somewhere I am paying for this "service".) However, I do wish to dig a little deeper into the ills of our society and point out the proverbial "turd in the punchbowl." We are disgustingly wasteful creatures. Let me explain...

Imagine my shock to discover that in our new town garbage is collected twice a week. Yes, in Kansas we put our garbage out once a week. Am I to assume that families of three here in the greater D.C. area require more garbage service than the families of five, seven, and ten (all friends)in Kansas. Perhaps there is something to the idea that fewer pickups will encourage less waste. (See earlier post) After all the inverse appears to be at work here.

And I am not done. I have been weekly mortified at what qualifies as "trash". In the one month we have been here, our neighbors have thrown away two sets of double mattresses, a vaccuum cleaner, a brass floor lamp, kitchen chairs, and many other apparently donatable items. What happened to the DAV, the Salvation Army, the local thrift shop, and the Junior League? From the looks of things these folks have the bigger, better, faster disease in dynamic proportions. If we did not have a wasteful mentality we might notice that many of the things we toss out are repairable. In fact most things are now manufactured so that any dummy can take it apart and put it back together again. Hence the Lowe's and Home Depot around every other corner. Wait, I'm on to something.

Maybe these exist because we can no longer afford to pay someone to fix what is broken because we keep buying more things. Hence there is no longer a plethora of repair shops. And alas, things are made cheaply so we can "afford" them, therefore they break more easily, and since after all a new one is only $29.99, "put that on the credit card please", why not throw away the "old" one and by that shiny new one instead. Whew!

Back to the forefathers: this is just a guess but I think we can safely say narry a wagon was placed on the curb for pickup after the axle broke and the wheel sprung a spoke :). Do you get it yet. Ahh, but I have no time to fix these things you say. Hmph! Because we are to busy dropping our children off for someone else to raise so we can earn more money to buy more things perhaps.

Wait, I have an exception, a dear friend with a handful of homeschooled children and a large property to maintain did not have the time to fix her broken iron. She, is definitely an exception. However, she liked her iron and wanted it fixed. After a trip to the one repairman available she discovered that it would cost more to fix this perfectly good, well almost, iron than to replace it. Why? Because the parts are cheap and this man's time is not, being he's the only small parts repairman around.

But, but, but, all of this spending and trashing keeps the economy going you say. Couldn't we keep the economy going by paying more people to make well made items, and paying more people to repair well made items, and pay less money in "recycling" programs that cost more than they save?

But doesn't cheaper mean more people can afford to buy things they otherwise wouldn't have been able to? I'm going out on a limb here but are "these people" really buying items they previously could not have afforded that are necessary to daily care, nutrition, safety, ... ?

Let's face it being more cheaply made and therefore easier on the wallet makes it easeier to just throw it away and get on with buying a new one. I was coveting the latest model anyway. Yes, I admit to being a little guilty. As I sit and "write" this I am thinking shamefully of the two perfectly good cell phones sitting in a drawer downstairs, chucked for the new model, oh yeah and by the way you can't use the new service contract on these phones ma'am.

Lest you think I am rambling with no hope of settling down to my point let me say these phones like their counterparts before them will go on to charity, not cell phone heaven. (Cabwatch.org) My own version of being a good steward as well as stimulating the economy. As I understand it the cabbies use them to call in emergencies thus saving lives and property. Yay me. You'll not find anything in my trash that I or someone else can't make a buck off of or that someone else in need can use. Sooo... perhaps we deserve this little example of garbage socialism, after all we let ourselves fall for the "I need a new one" marketing campaign, I mean racket.

Let the little buggers search through my trash for an errant Coke can. I sleep better at night knowing it takes up far less space than that perfectly good brass floor lamp. In case you're wondering, I did go back out to get it, much to my husband's horror, but it was gone:(.

Wife

hey every one! i would like to ask u a question. do u know of a bad thing sbout recycling programs? also i agree with your articcles and comments thank please email me!!!!!! A.S.A.P

Actually, legally, anyone can go through trash when it's on the street curb. It is legally deemed abandoned property. You have clearly expressed, as far as the law is concerned, a disintrest in retaining ownership of the contents of the can. So your neighbor could go through it and would be well within their rights. The only way I can see that someone might be able to pass a law that overrides this is if a township passed, in the interest of public health, a ban on going through garbage because it could spread disease.

Shooting someone for going through your trash is also unacceptable. I hope the bastard got life.