Topic: How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists - page 14. (Read 23958 times)

I'll pass. I have better things to occupy my time with, and you do a fine job of making a fool of yourself, without my help.

Sorry, but no. Feel free to mine my posts for quotes.

See, that's the funny thing. That's actually your stated goal. Well, not the entire race, just a whole bunch of us. That's why we laugh at you. You advocate killing millions to save "the earth," when what you're really trying to do is preserve the status quo, which is what keeps humans thriving.

"We must slaughter humanity to save it!"

Ok, then I'll just link to this post when your fellow libertarians accuse me of wanting to wipe out the human race in favor of the environment.

What were the flaws in the cited article? Please do not provide generalities. Provide specifics related to the content of the article.

While this may be true we need to acknowledge that the future is uncertain and should seek out robust solutions to problems, often this means mimicking nature. For example I would think solar will still be better than fusion in the case if only because it is more decentralized.


Please go do this, and think about what the consequences really are of the last 50 years of science using a logical fallacy as its means of assessing itself. Think about what kind of social structure allows this to persist for over half a century:

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/someone-needed-to-search-old-academic-papers-and-textbooks-127448

Heavily studied and documented actually doesn't mean that much. It means something... it means that prevailing expert opinion is strong in that area. That isn't worthless, but it isn't anywhere near the objective "truth" that the romanticized scientist strives towards.

You make some pretty huge assumptions here:

1, You assume that global warming is anthropogenic (I contend that it is not - we're actually cooler than most of Earth's history), and 2, you assume that libertarianism will be damaging to the environment (I contend that it would not - States, such as China, are the worst polluters).

So, yes, feel free to link back to my post. It won't back up any argument you're making, though.

I don't imply that the well being of humans is unimportant, but that humanity is what you're looking to save, not "the earth." I just want you to be honest about it.

Oh really? If you say so.

In other words, I see nothing in your above statement other than your speculation and hope that what you're saying is close to the truth. In actuality, everything I mentioned has been heavily studied and documented. Want an example?

http://www.sciencenews.org/view/feature/id/341435/title/Animals_on_the_Move

That's just a summary of one item on my list. There are citations, as well as a huge body of research that goes back a long time.

Not what we said. We said or implied constraints and/or regulations.

Thank you for this hilarious post. First you apparently need to invoke singular events such as cataclysmic asteroid impacts or events so far back in geological time in environments so different from ours to imply the extinction event occurring now is not unprecedented. However, the extinction event happening right now is unprecedented. Context matters. And I doubt you're as educated on the matter as much as you dare think you are.

But the really funny part about your post:


You imply that the well being of humanity is not so important. Does not libertarianism support the lot of humans? I will forever link back to this post when you claim one of the following:

1. When you say I think humans don't matter as compared to the environment.

2. When you claim AnCap or libertarianism is all about helping people have better lives.

Some of these are predicated on warming to a degree which I claim hasn't been proven to exist. The other assumption is that such warming is all caused by human action and not simply natural cycles, some are wild speculation, some are not even caused by supposed warming. Some of these are not yet known to be long term trends (weather is not climate as we are frequently told). And of course, any possible benefits from warming are totally discounted (not that I am a flag waver for that but it should be noted). And exactly what proportion of new discoveries in the sciences are made from rooting out and analyzing obscure species and not from some goober in a white coat sitting in front of a computer anyway? We used to get aspirin from willow trees you know.

Again, proposed solutions will cripple first and second world economies (and enrich certain well connected people *cough*AlGore*cough* of course). If it's so abundantly clear this is an issue, why are we seeing comments in computer code about fudge factors? If I claim all swans are white, why is there a sack of black feathers stuffed in my closet?

Central planning is the way forward, comrades. It only failed before because it wasn't done right. This time we shall surely prevail!

This is false. Global extinctions have happened numerous times throughout Earth's history. You're not concerned about "all life on earth," you're focused on maintaining the status quo. "Mother Earth" will be just fine. Humans, maybe not so much. Of course, we're an adaptable bunch. I bet we pull through.

Advocate this stuff if you want, but please be honest about what you want from it.

Very concise and well articulated. There's also a lot of evidence that capitalism unchecked results in picking the lowest hanging fruit until its exhausted. It goes like this:

1. The resource might have many uses. It also may have many beneficial effects to the environment.

2. The resource might also have many future as of yet undiscovered uses.

3. However, it's only harvested for one particular use, wasting other possible uses.

4. As it diminishes in supply, its price rises, and more harvesters enter the market to capitalize on the higher market price. More technology and effort is applied to harvest it.

5. To use the resource, it undergoes an irreversible transformation. It's not like metal or water.

6. Unchecked capitalism harvests it until its gone or nearly gone. Collateral damage occurs throughout these processes.

7. Capitalism finally seeks alternative solutions, but the world is poorer, due to the benefits or future benefits the original resource provided or could have provided.

Read all about the Oregon Petition. It's all you need to know. Pay attention to the mimicry employed on the cover sheet. Then find the list of signers on the petition (purported to be experts on climate science), and then google their names to try and find published papers they've authored. Instead, you'll find what they really are. Of course, we could then proceed to Environment and Climate News, a rag published by the Heartland Institute, where the editor of the rag is a libertarian and analyst for property rights. Yes, property rights, not an expert on climate science, or any science, for that matter. Then there's the George C. Marshall Institute. And Frederick Seitz. Richard Lindzen. The Cato Institute. Look into what they publish, what their credentials are, who funds them, etc.

You can't pick the libertarians or it is obviously an unfair comparison. I'm only familiar with the bottom of the barrel. (At least that is my charitable assumption)

I failed to mention a couple other effects:

- Changing precipitation patterns which vastly render existing agriculture unusable
- This increases costs
- Increased storm violence

I added the new post because I saw you were online, and you might not have seen it otherwise.

- Glacier melt creates ice albedo feedback loops, This creates an accelerating warming.
- Glacier calving creates rising sea levels. It also changes ocean currents.
- Warming causes an ocean density decrease. This also creates rising sea levels.
- Warming causes species habitat relocation northwards in the northern hemisphere
- Warming causes species habitat relocation southwards in the southern hemisphere
- Habitat relocation causes annual movement equal to miles per year
- Annual movement in miles per year causes species to hit barriers
- Barriers are suburbs, bodies of water, uninhabitable terrain, etc.
- Barriers cause species extinction
- We are actually undergoing a species extinction rate at an unprecedented rate
- Extinctions destroy ecosystem services and trophic cascades
- All of life (including humanity) require ecosystem services to live
- Extinctions also result in information loss
- The information in question is genetic material, social systems, biological processes, biological structures, etc.
- This information drives technology in the form of research and development
- Potentials are: material science, computer science, medicine, engineering

A burgeoning human population of 7 billion plus people is ever more dependent on technology and future technology to properly survive, and have quality of life. If we destroy our ecosystem services, and continue with high extinction rates, it is analogous to bleeding like crazy.

If we destroy all the information that resides within biodiversity, the ultimate end is a vastly simplified planet, like a desert of sand. There's so much less information to tap in such a world. Our real wealth currently exists untapped in the rich complex state of life.

And I haven't even discussed all the other ecosystem services.

Now, regarding GDP. It's a poor measure of much of anything, and economists are beginning to realize that. GDP includes cleanup services, maintenance services, etc. These are not improvements in well being. An economy that spends increasingly large amounts of money on cleanup, correction, maintenance, etc. is not improving, but its GDP is increasing.

So, I'd encourage you to study modern economics, steady state economics, ecology, island biogeography, climate science, trophic cascades, EPA successes, etc., etc., etc.

Of course, you're free to continue to pontificate, and one day while doing so, perhaps not within the comfort of a forum like this where all your peers generally don't educate themselves on such matters, you might find yourself looking like a fool.

Good day, sir.

If everyone was using the output of those libertarian thinkers as the basis for libertarianism, surely. Please show where Popper lied, falsified his data and hid his original results and methodology. Or pick another popular Libertarian source if you would. Claiming that Rand is a shitty writer doesn't count.

The damage that is caused by global warming because global warming is causing the damage. 

Good day, sir.