Topic: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights - page 6. (Read 8086 times)

Go find your favorite libertarian think tank websites. Then check their stance on climate change, among other things. You'll find that they are almost always skeptical of climate change. Now, without even getting into whether climate change is real or not, ask yourself why you wouldn't find about half of the libertarian think tanks to be pro climate change, and about half to be anti climate change.

My analysis is that libertarians value freedom from any type of regulation with regard to their property over in depth studies of civilization's ever increasing impact on the biosphere. Consider the following statement:


In other words, where do you see libertarians unifying themselves to address the point made by Ehrlich? I'm not seeing it at all, but instead seeing a near blanket wide denial of the problem, or a claim that the untested theory of property rights will solve it.

More to the point, I'm seeing in libertarians a naivete that is hardly aware of the complexities of the biosphere. As an example, are you aware of any of the following terms and their significance?

• Edge effects
• Umbrella species
• Trophic cascades

You may or may not be, but regardless, in a libertarian society, your knowledge of such topics does you little good if your neighbors don't care to know their significance.

Everyone both is and isn't a troll on these forums at any one time. Trust no one

You should be careful about making claims you cannot clearly prove.  Perhaps you are actually bitcoin2cash?  Or maybe I am AyeYo? 

Also, I am fairly new to internet forums, but I've learned that the word "troll" is subjective and almost meaningless.

I haven't had a discussion with bitcoin2cash so I can't speak to all his positions.  I can say I agree with at least some of his points based on reading his discussions with other people.  I tend to disagree with his presentation, but I'm not him.  To each their own.

What I don't understand is people who attack libertarianism on the basis that it ignores reality and analyzes man outside of society.  The libertarian authors I read analyze man in the context of society.  As it should be done.  The significance of libertarianism is that it starts with the individual as the basic component of society and then analyzes the individual in the context of the broader society.  

Its not posible to prove. I dont have access to the IP register and even in that case it proves nothing, since its very easy to access from different IP's.

But both nicks appear always during the same period and dont post during the same periods (Im sure it will change from now on). Also they have the same way of being disrespectful and troll style.

Do you have evidence indicating that they are the same person? 

I'm sorry, but I missed the proclamation where it said that bitcointalk is a libertarian club and anyone who attempts to point out the glaring omissions in the typical libertarian's knowledge with regard to the complexity of the biosphere, the environment, and ecosystems (among other things) gets labeled a troll. If you want a specific example (among many), search for lobster on this site.

And if you wish to simultaneously accuse me and AyeYo of being trolls, here is the correct grammar:


Your speculation regarding our sameness is amusing, but considering you're a moderator, I think your speculation needs to be held to a higher standard. As for the claim that we are trolls, perhaps you should consider that we have different opinions from you, and find some posts to be ironic, based on their accusations and choice of words. As an example, if you wish, you're welcome to do a search on AyeYo's posts, looking for a post which contains an image of the globe in black and white, and see where AyeYo has used it in reference to how bitcoin2cash views the world.

Don't think of it as being forced to provide a standard of living, think of it as being forced to give a fraction back to the society that has given you so much.

Love the insinuation that asking to provide health care, food, water, and housing means that beer and HBO are required too.

Funny that you can post this and still think a goddamn thing bitcoin2cash says makes any sense

He does not think that. FirstAscent/AyeYo is just a troll.

Oh, the irony!

It's adorable that you think life is that simple, AyeYo.  Some day you'll learn that things aren't as black and white as you seem to think they are.  No man is an island, we have to live and function in a society because we are inherently social beings.  When someone points out immoral stances in society you simply tell them to leave.  Where to?  The moon?  An island? 

For the umpteenth time, you're not forced to be a part of this society.  You can freely leave whenever you choose.

You can organize how ever you want. Just don't force me to be part of it. Why don't I have the right not to be forced into some organization?


Fighting for my freedom to do everything except injure other people or their property is proposing an authoritarian society? How do you go from "maximizing personal freedom" to the exact opposite?

I actually half-agree with the implications of your post. I think that in the modern age the FDA's most important role is not punishing fraud and dangerous practices (the fines they issue, when they issue them, are usually trivial compared to the company's profits) but in revealing such practices so that they can be confronted with civil suits, bad publicity, and marketplace shunning. The information is disseminated rapidly and widely through private channels, and people pay attention to it, after the initial disclosure. I don't think that this information would be efficiently disclosed in the absence of government action, though.

For a modern example look at the nutritional supplements market, where the FDA has very limited regulatory authority. Independent academic testing has revealed wide quality variance between brands and even different batches of the same brand's product in the case of (e.g.) probiotic supplements. Nutritional supplements are also often promoted with scientifically dubious claims of pharmaceutical-like action that would not pass muster if they were regulated as pharmaceuticals. Private for-profit agencies are not providing the transparency and verification that the government has eschewed in this largely unregulated area. Quackery also doesn't seem to be effectively punished by marketplace discrimination. I am all for consenting and informed adults taking any sort of risk they like, but I won't defend the right of sellers to peddle nonsense and the right of buyers to be fooled by it.

You don't have the right to stop people organising society, even if its only to make sure they have access to Coca-Cola.  And I'm not sorry - you are imposing too bleak and pointlessly austere a regime.

At root what you are proposing is an authoritarian society where people can't regulate for the improvement of their lives.  You're perfectly welcome to that fantasy but there is no democratic way you will get your way.  Even if there were a dictatorship, I don't see how something as extreme as you propose could be imposed.  There is only so far you can push people before they'd revolt.

Interesting ideas but sadly for you, totally impractical.  It will never happen.

Everything "affects" everyone else. If I buy BTC for a really high price, it raises the price for other people that want to buy BTC. Do we outlaw that too? No, of course not. All that matters is that your rights aren't violated. You have the right not to have you or your property touched without permission unless in self-defense. You don't have the right to brand names. Sorry.

Actually if their behaviour affects other people, its perfectly OK to interfere.

People already die. Your ideal system is broken and has no mechanism to punish people for these deaths. It's business as usual so why would you expect it to get better?


Competition, not charity.


No, it won't. You should bother because it's immoral to interfere between two consent adults, no matter what they want to do.

"Then they are unfit to be parents and their remaining kids should be taken away from them."

Hmmm.  At least you are not kidding yourself about food risks :p

You force me to choose.  A system that saves lives but does not allow you to sell contaminated food.  Or a system that allows you the freedom to sell bad food, causes people to die and forces the rest of the community to take their kids into care.

Its not a hard choice really.  I'll stick with the safe system - you can talk all you want but the loss of the freedom to sell contaminated food doesn't bother me in the least.  I know you will never accept that huge loss but that doesn't bother me. 

Now we have food safety done, we are still left with patents and trademarks.  Your proposal is that instead of relying on the free market supported by patent law to produce Blackberries, Ford, Intel, medical research and other such good things, we should rely on charity. I can't see it - we have a working system that gives us all we want and more.  If anything, the present system spoils us with its abundance of nice things you can buy.  You may think it a restriction of your freedom that you can't make your own car parts and call them "Ford Car Parts" or you can't make your own fizzy drink and call it "Coca-Cola."  But I like being able to buy reliable car parts and wherever I go in the world, I liek being able to buy a Heineken beer and know exactly what I am getting.  The loss of my freedom to have these things exceeds the value of the loss of your freedom to make knock-off copies.

In short, you are not offering an improvement.  If you have your way, my standard of living will fall. Why bother?