Socialism - page 5. | Bitcointalksearch.org

cWq34#9tH-3

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

Quote from: FirstAscent on August 07, 2013, 11:43:46 AM

Quote from: cWq34#9tH-3 on August 07, 2013, 11:40:39 AM

Quote from: FirstAscent on August 07, 2013, 11:32:53 AM

Quote from: cWq34#9tH-3 on August 07, 2013, 11:28:31 AM

I am am somewhat surprised that with the advanced level of knowledge in here - that some in here still have no clue about the tragedy that's happened to our environment. And to those of you like this - do you not realize how much the temperature is expected to change by just 2050? Do you not realize the ramifications of this? How the hell can you not get this? And are you effin crazy? We should all be extremely concerned about the environment and knowing-understanding that if we are to err - that it must be on the side of the environment. JFC, come on, quit rattling off crazy foxnews & teaparty talking points.

Maybe we're on the same page, for the most part. I'm not entirely familiar with your views, as expressed on this site, long term.

You might want to read this fairly long post I made some time ago: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1073879

Really, I think that the majority of us in here are on the same page for the vast majority of the issues - disagreeing mostly to small degrees. And I've been enjoying the read, so thanks I'll check out your post.

Check out my post now, if you would, please. And I'd say that I'm definitely not on the same page with many, if not the vocal majority here.

Definitely, not on this issue. But...FWIW, you are speaking knowledge, logic and truth to misguided ignorance & feelings.

cWq34#9tH-3

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

Quote from: FirstAscent on August 07, 2013, 11:32:53 AM

Quote from: cWq34#9tH-3 on August 07, 2013, 11:28:31 AM

I am am somewhat surprised that with the advanced level of knowledge in here - that some in here still have no clue about the tragedy that's happened to our environment. And to those of you like this - do you not realize how much the temperature is expected to change by just 2050? Do you not realize the ramifications of this? How the hell can you not get this? And are you effin crazy? We should all be extremely concerned about the environment and knowing-understanding that if we are to err - that it must be on the side of the environment. JFC, come on, quit rattling off crazy foxnews & teaparty talking points.

Maybe we're on the same page, for the most part. I'm not entirely familiar with your views, as expressed on this site, long term.

You might want to read this fairly long post I made some time ago: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1073879

Excellent post! You took it to a level of thought that those who get their info from the boob tube almost never venture into.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: crumbs on August 07, 2013, 11:43:37 AM

Quote from: bitlancr on August 07, 2013, 11:37:28 AM

...Obviously scale is relevant, but we're not talking orders of magnitude here. 12.5% is impressive considering the powers that governments have!
...

This is the first time i'm hearing these stats, what do they mean, exactly?

bitlancr claims that private property owners account for 12.5 percent of nature conservation. That begs the question where the other 87.5 percent comes from. Funny that he gloats over the idea that apparently the 12.5 percent is all that is necessary.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: cWq34#9tH-3 on August 07, 2013, 11:40:39 AM

Quote from: FirstAscent on August 07, 2013, 11:32:53 AM

Quote from: cWq34#9tH-3 on August 07, 2013, 11:28:31 AM

I am am somewhat surprised that with the advanced level of knowledge in here - that some in here still have no clue about the tragedy that's happened to our environment. And to those of you like this - do you not realize how much the temperature is expected to change by just 2050? Do you not realize the ramifications of this? How the hell can you not get this? And are you effin crazy? We should all be extremely concerned about the environment and knowing-understanding that if we are to err - that it must be on the side of the environment. JFC, come on, quit rattling off crazy foxnews & teaparty talking points.

Maybe we're on the same page, for the most part. I'm not entirely familiar with your views, as expressed on this site, long term.

You might want to read this fairly long post I made some time ago: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1073879

Really, I think that the majority of us in here are on the same page for the vast majority of the issues - disagreeing mostly to small degrees. And I've been enjoying the read, so thanks I'll check out your post.

Check out my post now, if you would, please. And I'd say that I'm definitely not on the same page with many, if not the vocal majority here.

crumbs

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Quote from: bitlancr on August 07, 2013, 11:37:28 AM

...Obviously scale is relevant, but we're not talking orders of magnitude here. 12.5% is impressive considering the powers that governments have!
...

This is the first time i'm hearing these stats, what do they mean, exactly?

cWq34#9tH-3

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

Quote from: FirstAscent on August 07, 2013, 11:32:53 AM

Quote from: cWq34#9tH-3 on August 07, 2013, 11:28:31 AM

I am am somewhat surprised that with the advanced level of knowledge in here - that some in here still have no clue about the tragedy that's happened to our environment. And to those of you like this - do you not realize how much the temperature is expected to change by just 2050? Do you not realize the ramifications of this? How the hell can you not get this? And are you effin crazy? We should all be extremely concerned about the environment and knowing-understanding that if we are to err - that it must be on the side of the environment. JFC, come on, quit rattling off crazy foxnews & teaparty talking points.

Maybe we're on the same page, for the most part. I'm not entirely familiar with your views, as expressed on this site, long term.

You might want to read this fairly long post I made some time ago: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1073879

Really, I think that the majority of us in here are on the same page for the vast majority of the issues - disagreeing mostly to small degrees. And I've been enjoying the read, so thanks I'll check out your post.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: bitlancr on August 07, 2013, 11:37:28 AM

Quote from: FirstAscent on August 07, 2013, 11:09:15 AM

What good is your point without factoring the relevance of scale?

See below...

Quote from: bitlancr on August 07, 2013, 10:49:57 AM

But individuals won't. And that's the whole point. Thus regulations. Thank you for pointing out the ineffectiveness of your views.

Individuals already have - that was my point! Cheesy

Obviously scale is relevant, but we're not talking orders of magnitude here. 12.5% is impressive considering the powers that governments have!

I'm sorry that you think so low of your fellow man that you think coercion is the only means of protecting ecosystems... We humans are a better lot than you make us out to be. Wink

12.5 percent isn't enough. Scale matters.

bitlancr

hero member

Activity: 616

Merit: 500

Quote from: FirstAscent on August 07, 2013, 11:09:15 AM

What good is your point without factoring the relevance of scale?

See below...

Quote from: bitlancr on August 07, 2013, 10:49:57 AM

But individuals won't. And that's the whole point. Thus regulations. Thank you for pointing out the ineffectiveness of your views.

Individuals already have - that was my point! Cheesy

Obviously scale is relevant, but we're not talking orders of magnitude here. 12.5% is impressive considering the powers that governments have!

I'm sorry that you think so low of your fellow man that you think coercion is the only means of protecting ecosystems... We humans are a better lot than you make us out to be. Wink

crumbs

full member

Activity: 210

Merit: 100

Quote from: bitlancr on August 07, 2013, 10:57:08 AM

...
Laws should be based on principles of fairness, and natural rights (in oneself and one's property). No subjective "morals" should be involved.

"Principles of fairness"?
"Natural rights"? You mean something like "Lebensraum ("living space") as being a law of nature for all healthy and vigorous peoples of superior races to displace people of inferior races"? (-wikip)

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: cWq34#9tH-3 on August 07, 2013, 11:28:31 AM

I am am somewhat surprised that with the advanced level of knowledge in here - that some in here still have no clue about the tragedy that's happened to our environment. And to those of you like this - do you not realize how much the temperature is expected to change by just 2050? Do you not realize the ramifications of this? How the hell can you not get this? And are you effin crazy? We should all be extremely concerned about the environment and knowing-understanding that if we are to err - that it must be on the side of the environment. JFC, come on, quit rattling off crazy foxnews & teaparty talking points.

Maybe we're on the same page, for the most part. I'm not entirely familiar with your views, as expressed on this site, long term.

You might want to read this fairly long post I made some time ago: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.1073879

cWq34#9tH-3

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

I am am somewhat surprised that with the advanced level of knowledge in here - that some in here still have no clue about the tragedy that's happened to our environment. And to those of you like this - do you not realize how much the temperature is expected to change by just 2050? Red Alert: Do you not realize the ramifications of this? This is far more dangerous that any so-called T threat or just about anything else. How the hell can you not get this? And are you effin crazy? We should all be extremely concerned about the environment and knowing-understanding that if we are to err - that it must be on the side of the environment. JFC, come on, quit rattling off crazy foxnews & teaparty talking points.

cWq34#9tH-3

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

Quote from: FirstAscent on August 07, 2013, 10:15:11 AM

Quote from: cWq34#9tH-3 on August 07, 2013, 08:45:44 AM

Your damn "values" should stop at the point where they fuck with me AND vice-versa.

No, they should fuck with you if necessary. As an example, did you know that in many cities in California, you are forbidden to cut down oak trees of certain sizes? That's fucking with you. And I'm so glad for it.

I don't consider a law to be fucking with "ME" if it's necessary. And these types of laws are necessary because while an individual tree might not matter - as a national or global policy they certainly do: So I too am glad that they have this law.

However, your nonchalant and happy/wanting to fuck with me attitude (or in other words your taking pleasure in fucking with other people) now that bothers me. All I am going to say about this is go ahead fuck with people on purpose. See what that get's ya....

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: bitlancr on August 07, 2013, 10:49:57 AM

Quote from: FirstAscent on August 07, 2013, 10:09:32 AM

Which implies that the other 7/8 of the world's protected nature preserves are publicly owned. It sounds like the methods you advocate are about 1/7 as effective as government methods. I advocate both, to even larger degrees.

That's a gross oversimplification. When you consider that private entities don't have the power of compulsory purchase, (directly) enacting legislation in their favour, taxing for revenue, I think that 1/8th figure should be considered impressive.

Besides, the point wasn't about scale, it was to demonstrate that private property can be conducive to environmental protection.

What good is your point without factoring the relevance of scale? Is it due to you not understanding the issue?

Quote from: bitlancr on August 07, 2013, 10:49:57 AM

Quote from: FirstAscent on August 07, 2013, 10:09:32 AM

No, they should fuck with you if necessary. As an example, did you know that in many cities in California, you are forbidden to cut down oak trees of certain sizes? That's fucking with you. And I'm so glad for it.

Here's a perfect example of an unjust law - being coerced into preserving a species on behalf of those who want it preserved. I'm all for conservation, but it's something that individuals who support it should do themselves.

But individuals won't. And that's the whole point. Thus regulations. Thank you for pointing out the ineffectiveness of your views.

bitlancr

hero member

Activity: 616

Merit: 500

Quote from: J603 on August 07, 2013, 10:39:55 AM

The thing is, morals are subjective. You and I might be "moral" enough to know that slavery is wrong, and that homosexuals deserve equal rights, but that is our opinion.

Precisely. This is why laws shouldn't be based on morals.

Quote from: J603 on August 07, 2013, 10:39:55 AM

If 51% of the people believe something, it makes sense that that should be the law, whether or not you and I agree with it.

I couldn't disagree more. You're either contradicting yourself here, or you think the law should be subjective. The latter is worrying, in my opinion.

Quote from: J603 on August 07, 2013, 10:39:55 AM

You contradicted yourself. You supported the minority in the one case and the majority in the other. So how should laws reflect values of society? Why does it make sense that your morals should dictate laws, as opposed to the majority's views?

They are both hypothetical questions, I don't see the contradiction.

Laws should be based on principles of fairness, and natural rights (in oneself and one's property). No subjective "morals" should be involved.

bitlancr

hero member

Activity: 616

Merit: 500

Quote from: FirstAscent on August 07, 2013, 10:09:32 AM

Which implies that the other 7/8 of the world's protected nature preserves are publicly owned. It sounds like the methods you advocate are about 1/7 as effective as government methods. I advocate both, to even larger degrees.

That's a gross oversimplification. When you consider that private entities don't have the power of compulsory purchase, (directly) enacting legislation in their favour, taxing for revenue, I think that 1/8th figure should be considered impressive.

Besides, the point wasn't about scale, it was to demonstrate that private property can be conducive to environmental protection.

Quote from: FirstAscent on August 07, 2013, 10:09:32 AM

No, they should fuck with you if necessary. As an example, did you know that in many cities in California, you are forbidden to cut down oak trees of certain sizes? That's fucking with you. And I'm so glad for it.

Here's a perfect example of an unjust law - being coerced into preserving a species on behalf of those who want it preserved. I'm all for conservation, but it's something that individuals who support it should do themselves.

J603

full member

Activity: 196

Merit: 100

Quote from: bitlancr on August 07, 2013, 06:07:46 AM

Quote from: smscotten on August 07, 2013, 05:50:05 AM

I fully agree that law should be and to a large degree is a reflection of a society's values.

I completely disagree with this. It's dangerous to think that law should be a reflection of the transient 'values' of 'society'.

If 51% of people agree with slavery, does that make it OK?
If 51% of people think homosexuality is wrong, should it be illegal?

The thing is, morals are subjective. You and I might be "moral" enough to know that slavery is wrong, and that homosexuals deserve equal rights, but that is our opinion.

If 51% of the people believe something, it makes sense that that should be the law, whether or not you and I agree with it.

Interestingly enough, you brought up two different examples which are opposites in terms of morality vs. majority. Arguably, slavery is wrong. The majority of people in the US believe this to be true. Yet you do not argue for hardliners that would legalize slavery. You're going against the minority.

The majority of people are against gays. Bigotry is immoral (by my standards), but the majority of people think that anti-gay laws are ok. I'm guessing based on the post, that you support homosexuals. You're going against the majority in this case.

You contradicted yourself. You supported the minority in the one case and the majority in the other. So how should laws reflect values of society? Why does it make sense that your morals should dictate laws, as opposed to the majority's views?

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: cWq34#9tH-3 on August 07, 2013, 08:45:44 AM

Your damn "values" should stop at the point where they fuck with me AND vice-versa.

No, they should fuck with you if necessary. As an example, did you know that in many cities in California, you are forbidden to cut down oak trees of certain sizes? That's fucking with you. And I'm so glad for it.

FirstAscent

hero member

Activity: 812

Merit: 1000

Quote from: bitlancr on August 07, 2013, 06:00:34 AM

To give a broader perspective, an eighth of the world's protected nature reserves are privately owned (http://www.economist.com/node/748602). This is in spite of government interventions.

Which implies that the other 7/8 of the world's protected nature preserves are publicly owned. It sounds like the methods you advocate are about 1/7 as effective as government methods. I advocate both, to even larger degrees.

In fact, it's absolutely necessary. How often do you see urban and suburban areas becoming nature preserves vs natural areas becoming urban and suburban areas? As time passes, we end up with less and less natural areas. Once you learn about ecosystem services, this will scare you. See the long post I made to which I linked to earlier to understand better.

Also, please consider the ratio of the area of a nature preserve's land to its perimeter. This is a very important number. Again, read the long post I made to which I linked to earlier to understand it.

People don't need to be coerced into doing good things.
[/quote]

Not even worth replying to, given my above statements.

Rassah

legendary

Activity: 1680

Merit: 1035

Quote from: smscotten on August 04, 2013, 09:59:25 PM

As long as there are other states, we will need a national defense because those other states will send people with tanks and bombs to annex us. ... So at the very least we need nationalized (==socialized) defense.

Sorry to interject a random thought, but, I wonder if, in our world of global trade, where it's cheaper and more productive to compete in business than with tanks, if the concept of "standing armies for defense" is quickly becoming as obsolete as "building castles for defense?"

cWq34#9tH-3

member

Activity: 98

Merit: 10

Your damn "values" should stop at the point where they fuck with me AND vice-versa.

...And with incredibly rare-exception, criminal laws should not be applied to people who haven't done anything that didn't "directly" affect another.

BTW, You guys are making some great arguments here and it's been a very refreshing read from most of the tripe that's in other forums. Thanks!

Topic: Socialism - page 5. (Read 8028 times)