Plastic, paper, cloth or fines?
Roanoke would like shoppers to bring their own bags. A lawmaker prefers instead to punish litterbugs.
One of our favorite quotes in the war against plastic bags came a few years back from former Roanoke City Attorney Bill Hackworth: “Our trees are festooned with plastic bags all along the river.”
It is a lasting image and one Roanoke does not wish to project. But no matter how often crews are dispatched to snatch the flimsy, slippery bags from their perch, they accumulate anew.
December 6, 2012 - 7:59 AM
We will eventually have the nation wired for cameras on every possible place. And some will wonder why. People prove daily that we as a species, do not deserve the manna of the earth or the bounty of being an American.
Litter and vandalism are two very large peeves for me. Only trash litters and yes I am talking to all of you who toss the butts out your windows and throw your lunch detritus along the side of the road.
The bags are merely the symptom of our disease.
#1 Mrs. Saunders, in all seriousness….there it is. The “progressive” rational for Big Brother (it’s our fault).
And over what? Murder? Looting? Terrorism? No…..litterbugs. (But after-all, it is smoking & fast-food joints.
You are right about one thing…..goodness save us from ourselves.
It would be nice if we could get a State sponsored public education campaign but that would cost money and provide a public service so you know how likely that’s to happen…..
Still, I have two problems with the Sen. Smith’s argument. 1) Litterers are hard to catch. 2) I don’t know of any statistics justifying this but I imagine most people do care about not littering. I suspect the majority of the bags you find along the road are probably there because they get away from people. Maybe blow out of the back of a pick up truck bed, etc.
Still, Dan Arielly of the book PREDICTABLY IRRATIONAL cautions against introducing market norms into social situations. When people have paid for something, such as a tax on the bags, they are more likely to feel they can either have as many as they can afford and/or they feel they can do what they want with the product since they’ve paid for it.
That is, a tax on the bags MAY lead to more littering. A public education campaign is probably the most cost effective way to reduce this type of litter.
I cannot help it if some people grasp that you lose your freedom and rights one degree at a time as opposed to some massive “progressive” plot. Bad behavior, from the most mundane level (litterbugs) to the outright assault of physical attacks, takes a toll on a society and yes, it will eventually lead to the control many so fear, and it will not be from Progressives. The litter that is cleaned up clearly means it is more than just a few careless people.
Actually, the gradual loss of freedom is perfectly progressive. It’s what the Fabian socialists were all about.
Let them eat manna.
So now Progressives are Socialists? Why can’t people just be what they say they are? I do not want a Socialist nation, or a Communist nation. I am not a Socialist or a Communist. Is progress the road to socialism in your mind? Can’t a Progressive just be a Progressive?
It’s called the tragedy of the commons. A form of market failure. It is the most rational justification for government intervention.
7 – I’m sorry, Sandi, I was ascribing the adjective to many others who claim it. Apologies if the broad brush picked you up; perhaps you could elaborate on how your progressivism translates politically?
8 – WP…which market failed, and how is the government intervention supposed to correct the situation?
The market in which a shared resource is depleted or destroyed as a result of individuals acting rationally on self-interest. The depletion, of course, is not in the interest of the individual agents. Consequently, it is a market failure.
I DID “elaborate”, I offered the definition, which I ascribe to, for Progressive. “1 a: of, relating to, or characterized by progress
b: making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities”
Notice it is the very first definition too, since that matters to some folks.
Progress is not socialism or communism, as neither are progress IMO.
When I speak of losing freedoms it is always from the perspective of what I see, that our abuses lead to it. Few laws have resulted from an agenda not driven by collective activity as opposed to one person’s abuse or misuse. Over time that abuse evolves into a law against something people used to be “trusted” not to do. I realize the need to disagree with me can often be visceral, but do you seriously not find that to be true?
Is that a kind of, or taste of socialism? I cannot argue either way, but I do maintain it is certainly self inflicted. One of the definitions of Socialism (as the transition from Capitalism to Communism) is “distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done“. Maybe the root of a lot of problems is that big ole broad brush?
10 – that didn’t answer the question. The issue, from what I read in the editorial, it’s not about depleting plastic bag resources. It’s about the proliferation of plastic bags littering up the highways. So what market needs to be corrected?
It’s a crime to litter. Punish the litterers, soundly, and don’t punish those who do NOT litter.
11 – okay, Sandi, my confusion rose out of the tendency of socialists (I won’t include you) to calling themselves progressive, and of disguising socialism as progress.
But again…citing the dictionary does not answer the question. I assume progressives favor progress, and a progressive mindset favors progress. I’ll stipulate that. And I would wager most – a large majority – would view themselves as forward thinking and progressive (the alternative being backward and regressive).
But how do you define progress, which, you have to admit, can be seen differently and often diametrically by different people, even as all consider themselves favoring progress? How does it translate in political philosophy and action?
No, it’s about depleting shared resources–like highways, public parks, and natural amenities. The market failure is that the market for the shared good (e.g., demand for use of it to dispose of trash, for recreation, for transportation, etc.) destroys/weakens/depletes the resource, even though it is against the rational self-interest of the individuals using the resource.
That is why rational, self-interested individuals–recognizing the consequences of a lack of collaboration to maintain the resource–often form a committee or group that is allocated the power to regulate the uses of the resource so that it is not destroyed. Some might call that a local “government”.
This explains the tragedy of the commons much more eloquently than my posts.
Oh come now, is it really “punishment” to ban plastic bags we all hate to see in trees and on road sides? I think it is a “sacrifice” we can all live with.
#13 & 14 One might also call it an excuse for such government to interfere to an extent greater than the need to protect from activity that “desroys/weakens/depletes” said resource.
Too jump from littering to justifying omnipresent government surveillance (#1) while rationalizing such as due to our inherent original/social/aggregate sin.
Sandi, it is punishment if it causes prices to rise (as such measures inevitably do, due to required enforcement at the least). Punish those that commit the crime, not those who do not.
There is punishment and there is “punishment”. I am sorry, I do not see the down side of getting rid of this litter, even if it costs a few pennies more per store visit.
Jim Lucas might have a point, it could be just an “excuse for such government to interfere to an extent greater than the need”, it has been known to happen in Democratic Republics, but the bottom line is still that it will be self-inflicted interference.
No one is arguing I’m favor of litterers our littering, Sandi – you no doubt read where I called for stiff punishment for those who commit the crime. But imposing a tax punishes those who do not litter, as does making the plastic bags illegal.
And I am still curious as to how your view of Progress translates politically (not three dictionary definition). Please extend the courtesy of a response.
Ughh…apologies for the above fractured text. I’m in the airport on my smart phone, and I haven’t quite mastered the touch keyboard.
I do not believe there is anyone who does not know how “Progress translates politically”, though many try to make it seem sinister, unnatural and wrong. It is literally the definition: I am interested in new ideas, new findings, and new opportunities for whatever problem we face or whatever solution has failed. I am all for making use of those new ideas, findings, and opportunities to make life, health, and society better. I am willing to “think outside the box” to some degree and I believe the Constitution is not a straitjacket. To believe the government is us and we can solve any problem.
That’s a nice non-answer but I’ll let it go.