Seriously, though, how would a libertarian society address global warming? - page 17.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: AyeYo on July 30, 2011, 09:22:09 PM

Quote from: myrkul on July 30, 2011, 02:53:37 PM

Because it is not the job of politics to address those issues. it is the job of the people to address that. The political structure simply delineates how. Libertarianism, and by extension, AnCap, simply says you cannot initiate the use of force to make someone comply with your wishes. That is the only restraint. You are free to use other, non-violent means to convince someone to stop clear-cutting their forest, and if they try to clear-cut yours, you can shoot 'em. If someone causes you damage through actions entirely on their property, you are entitled to recompensation.

There's a really significant problem here and it's preventing you from thinking logically. You really and truly believe that it's possible for your single acre of land to look like this:

While everything around you for hundreds of miles looks like this:

That makes you delusional.

There's a really significant problem here and it's preventing you from thinking logically. You really and truly believe that that's what I think.

That makes you delusional.

AyeYo

full member

Activity: 154

Merit: 103

Quote from: myrkul on July 30, 2011, 02:53:37 PM

Because it is not the job of politics to address those issues. it is the job of the people to address that. The political structure simply delineates how. Libertarianism, and by extension, AnCap, simply says you cannot initiate the use of force to make someone comply with your wishes. That is the only restraint. You are free to use other, non-violent means to convince someone to stop clear-cutting their forest, and if they try to clear-cut yours, you can shoot 'em. If someone causes you damage through actions entirely on their property, you are entitled to recompensation.

There's a really significant problem here and it's preventing you from thinking logically. You really and truly believe that it's possible for your single acre of land to look like this:

While everything around you for hundreds of miles looks like this:

That makes you delusional.

TheGer

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 500

^^ Lol @ Mr. Obtuse trying to hang onto this thread. ^^

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Quote from: ascent on July 30, 2011, 11:09:11 AM

Quote from: JoelKatz on July 30, 2011, 01:03:15 AM

2) Global warming is a real problem. In this case, those individuals who are really looking out for themselves would give a shit about it because it's going to hurt them.

But those who don't give a shit would really make it worse for everyone, regardless of the fact that there are those who do give a shit.

Sure, in a Democracy that's exactly what happens. Those who don't give a shit simply get the government to set pollution limits that allow them to pollute as much as they want and pre-empt any nuisance lawsuits. But that tool wouldn't be available to them in a Libertarian society.

TheGer

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 500

Myrkul, you just can't argue with people who don't value Liberty. They are to dumb to know any better, or collecting a paycheck to sell out their own race. Collaborators if you will. Collaborators get what's coming to them in the end. When/if the Overlords ever come to complete power the people who got them there are the first ones they get rid of. This has been proven throughout History.

Let the dead bury the dead.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: ascent on July 30, 2011, 02:12:08 PM

The functional purpose is its ability to create money. Twenty years from now, when you need money, the oil won't be there, because I picked your fruit. Your argument falls flat on its face. Remember, you said I can't pick your fruit, and I gave you an example.

OR: I use the money I make from pumping out the oil in competition with you to make MORE money, and 20 years from now, my kids are sitting on a fat inheritance.

Quote from: ascent on July 30, 2011, 02:12:08 PM

My land is large, but the aquifer resides only near the border of our two properties. I may be more than willing to deplete it to satisfy my needs as long as it works until I die. Again, I'm picking your fruit.

You damage me, you pay damages. Be a dick, pay the price.

Quote from: ascent on July 30, 2011, 02:12:08 PM

Actually, just the opposite: your fish, my fish, everyone's fish. Thus, I'm picking your fruit.

Nope, Nobody's fish, until you claim them.

Quote from: ascent on July 30, 2011, 02:12:08 PM

It certainly can. I'm downstream and fishing salmon.

Again, Unless you put a net across the stream, you are going to have a hard time affecting the rest of the river. One man with a pole don't make me no nevermind. And again, you do me harm, you pay damages.

Quote from: ascent on July 30, 2011, 02:12:08 PM

Or you might be of the same mind as me and cut down your forest for the same reasons I did. And the guy next to us, and so forth, until there is less and less rain forest, at which point, it becomes clear we all picked the fruit of our children. It's all fruit picking, and your ideas don't really address it.

Because it is not the job of politics to address those issues. it is the job of the people to address that. The political structure simply delineates how. Libertarianism, and by extension, AnCap, simply says you cannot initiate the use of force to make someone comply with your wishes. That is the only restraint. You are free to use other, non-violent means to convince someone to stop clear-cutting their forest, and if they try to clear-cut yours, you can shoot 'em. If someone causes you damage through actions entirely on their property, you are entitled to recompensation.

Aside from that, libertarianism is neutral on Global Warming, resource depletion, etc.

bittersweet

full member

Activity: 222

Merit: 100

Libertarians don't address global warming. They also don't address cosmic rays and volcano eruptions.

TheGer

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 500

No problem. I'll be sure to get that list of emails from the Climategate "scientists" lol.

Your Ideological Agenda is...

"I suggest you write some emails to all the scientists out in the field and in the labs doing research on Global Warming"

ascent

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: myrkul on July 30, 2011, 01:54:41 PM

What functional purpose does oil in the ground provide? Is it like the earth's hydraulic fluid? If I really wanted to preserve that resource, I'd put up wells on my land, and suck the reserve dry before you could, then store the oil.

The functional purpose is its ability to create money. Twenty years from now, when you need money, the oil won't be there, because I picked your fruit. Your argument falls flat on its face. Remember, you said I can't pick your fruit, and I gave you an example.

Quote

So, what are you planning on doing with that water? Going to be irrigating crops? Back into the aquifer. Drinking it? Eventually, back into the aquifer. Washing your house? Back into the aquifer. Honestly, the only thing you could be doing which will actually deplete the aquifer is pump/truck it elsewhere, and it's usually more efficient to get water where you are. So, a very rare case.

My land is large, but the aquifer resides only near the border of our two properties. I may be more than willing to deplete it to satisfy my needs as long as it works until I die. Again, I'm picking your fruit.

Quote

Not my fish. Not your fish. Nobody's fish.

Actually, just the opposite: your fish, my fist, everyone's fish. Thus, I'm picking your fruit.

Quote

Unless you're putting a net across the river, your fishing would have a hard time affecting me.

It certainly can. I'm downstream and fishing salmon.

Quote

Ah! A reasonably plausible scenario! At last! The solution for this, and indeed any negative effects from the other scenarios, is Arbitration or Mediation. You have caused me damage. I can (and will) sue for damages. The cost of damages should out-weigh the benefit of harvesting irresponsibly (versus responsibly), causing you a net loss from your dickish behavior.

Or you might be of the same mind as me and cut down your forest for the same reasons I did. And the guy next to us, and so forth, until there is less and less rain forest, at which point, it becomes clear we all picked the fruit of our children. It's all fruit picking, and your ideas don't really address it.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: ascent on July 30, 2011, 01:25:21 PM

I live next to you and drill 2,000 feet down and start pulling up oil. What is the extent of that oil reserve relative to my land?

What functional purpose does oil in the ground provide? Is it like the earth's hydraulic fluid? If I really wanted to preserve that resource, I'd put up wells on my land, and suck the reserve dry before you could, then store the oil.

Quote from: ascent on July 30, 2011, 01:25:21 PM

I pull water from an aquifer accessed from my land, which is next to yours.

So, what are you planning on doing with that water? Going to be irrigating crops? Back into the aquifer. Drinking it? Eventually, back into the aquifer. Washing your house? Back into the aquifer. Honestly, the only thing you could be doing which will actually deplete the aquifer is pump/truck it elsewhere, and it's usually more efficient to get water where you are. So, a very rare case.

Quote from: ascent on July 30, 2011, 01:25:21 PM

I go out onto the deep blue sea and fish.

Not my fish. Not your fish. Nobody's fish.

Quote from: ascent on July 30, 2011, 01:25:21 PM

A river runs through my backyard and yours, and I fish that river.

Unless you're putting a net across the river, your fishing would have a hard time affecting me.

Quote from: ascent on July 30, 2011, 01:25:21 PM

The short term profit derived from cutting down the rain forest on my property which is next to yours allows me to live a great life, since I have nobody to pass on my inheritance to. However, the act of cutting down that rain forest has created edge effects at our common property line, which has a deleterious effect on the ecosystem of your property.

Ah! A reasonably plausible scenario! At last! The solution for this, and indeed any negative effects from the other scenarios, is Arbitration or Mediation. You have caused me damage. I can (and will) sue for damages. The cost of damages should out-weigh the benefit of harvesting irresponsibly (versus responsibly), causing you a net loss from your dickish behavior.

ascent

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: myrkul on July 30, 2011, 01:15:20 PM

You can't pick my fruit.

Oh yeah?

I live next to you and drill 2,000 feet down and start pulling up oil. What is the extent of that oil reserve relative to my land?

I pull water from an aquifer accessed from my land, which is next to yours.

I go out onto the deep blue sea and fish.

A river runs through my backyard and yours, and I fish that river.

The short term profit derived from cutting down the rain forest on my property which is next to yours allows me to live a great life, since I have nobody to pass on my inheritance to. However, the act of cutting down that rain forest has created edge effects at our common property line, which has a deleterious effect on the ecosystem of your property.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: ascent on July 30, 2011, 11:00:29 AM

4) Global warming is a real problem, with a solid consensus that it is a real problem. Behavior would be as it is today, minus any regulatory actions to curb it, with the exception that some fraction of the population voluntarily tries to decrease pollutants, while others take advantage of the decrease in harvested resources to harvest those resources themselves at a lower cost, thus accelerating global warming anyway.

You fail so fucking hard.

You still don't understand it, do you? You can't pick my fruit. If someone decides that a particular resource is important enough to protect, then their ownership of it will protect it. If there is a solid consensus that global warming (BTW, get with the program, the shills are calling it climate change now) is in fact a problem, then most people would protect what they own, and McEvil Co. couldn't get their hands on it. So, please, think before you post, it will prevent that nasty taste of toe-jam you're experiencing right now.

Also, could you please stop replying to the same post twice? That's just retarded. If you want to add something edit your first fucking post.

ascent

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: TheGer on July 30, 2011, 12:19:31 PM

The only ones left are Agenda Pushers...

What exactly would my motivation be for pushing this so called 'agenda' you seem to think I'm pushing. Look in the mirror and you'll really see an agenda.

ascent

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: TheGer on July 30, 2011, 12:19:31 PM

The only ones left are Agenda Pushers and those who don't have a clue what Libertarian means or that Global Warming is a scam. I pity both because with your heads buried so deep in the sand, you'll already be on your knees when they finally come for you.

I suggest you write some emails to all the scientists out in the field and in the labs doing research on Global Warming. Otherwise, how are they to know that their work is pointless?

Attention everyone: TheGer is going to set all the scientists straight! He has information gleaned from right leaning commentary written by bloggers and such that clearly is based on solid information that the scientists do not have access to.

Note to TheGer: get to it, man! Until the scientists hear from you, they won't know to stop doing their research!

TheGer

hero member

Activity: 602

Merit: 500

Lol I have no choice but to dub this thread

The only ones left are Agenda Pushers and those who don't have a clue what Libertarian means or that Global Warming is a scam. I pity both because with your heads buried so deep in the sand, you'll already be on your knees when they finally come for you.

ascent

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: JoelKatz on July 30, 2011, 01:03:15 AM

2) Global warming is a real problem. In this case, those individuals who are really looking out for themselves would give a shit about it because it's going to hurt them.

But those who don't give a shit would really make it worse for everyone, regardless of the fact that there are those who do give a shit.

ascent

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: TECSHARE on July 30, 2011, 03:10:13 AM

Finally some intelligent deconstruction of this FUD.

I'm more than willing to continue our discussion, but I'm trying to get the details of your position first. I asked you a question. Please answer it and we can continue. The question is about your position on sea levels rising. Basically, will global warming cause sea levels to rise?

ascent

newbie

Activity: 56

Merit: 0

Quote from: JoelKatz on July 30, 2011, 01:03:15 AM

There are two possible cases:

1) Global warming is not a real problem. In this case, as you say, nobody would give a shit about it because it's not going to hurt them. But there's no reason they should care.

2) Global warming is a real problem. In this case, those individuals who are really looking out for themselves would give a shit about it because it's going to hurt them.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say the problem is real but that still there's no incentive for anyone to find ways to reduce other people's impact on it.

1) Global warming is not a real problem. In this case, some would believe it is a real problem and others would not. Behavior would be as it is today, minus any regulatory actions to curb it.

2) Global warming is a real problem. In this case, some would believe it is a real problem and others would not. Behavior would be as it is today, minus any regulatory actions to curb it.

3) Global warming is not a real problem, with a solid consensus that it is not a real problem. Behavior would be as it is today, minus any regulatory actions to curb it, plus even less incentive to decrease pollutants, which would inevitably have unsatisfying results.

4) Global warming is a real problem, with a solid consensus that it is a real problem. Behavior would be as it is today, minus any regulatory actions to curb it, with the exception that some fraction of the population voluntarily tries to decrease pollutants, while others take advantage of the decrease in harvested resources to harvest those resources themselves at a lower cost, thus accelerating global warming anyway.

TECSHARE

legendary

Activity: 3318

Merit: 2008

First Exclusion Ever

Finally some intelligent deconstruction of this FUD.

JoelKatz

legendary

Activity: 1596

Merit: 1012

Democracy is vulnerable to a 51% attack.

Quote from: onesalt on July 29, 2011, 07:03:11 PM

Actually, in a truely libertarian society, no one would give a shit about global warming, since the only person you should be looking out for is yourself, which includes saving money by purchasing the cheapest energy possible.

This type of confusion is the reason you have to separate the issue in two. There are two possible cases:

1) Global warming is not a real problem. In this case, as you say, nobody would give a shit about it because it's not going to hurt them. But there's no reason they should care.

2) Global warming is a real problem. In this case, those individuals who are really looking out for themselves would give a shit about it because it's going to hurt them.

You can't have it both ways. You can't say the problem is real but that still there's no incentive for anyone to find ways to reduce other people's impact on it.

Topic: Seriously, though, how would a libertarian society address global warming? - page 17. (Read 30176 times)