Its all irrelevent anyways as we know the earth will one day be destroyed by the sun...
We need not simply wait here to die for the next billion years.
Topic: Why libertarians must deny climate change (Read 2598 times)
We need not simply wait here to die for the next billion years.
Of course climate change is real. Whats not real is it being the fault of human beings. The earth is constantly changing. Its all irrelevent anyways as we know the earth will one day be destroyed by the sun, but what better way to control you than to make you feel like all life is in imminent danger. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.
who cares about the climate change...
Quote
In so far as your pollution damages other people's property, you are infringing on their rights. Point out the pollution, point out the polluters, and let the property owners sue. End of story. This no need to deny anything and I won't. If the majority of credible climatologists say there is climate change, fine, I believe it. That changes nothing about my political views
See there are a lot of problems with this idea.
First you have to find the pollutant, which costs us money. Then you have to find the polluter, and since yall dont believe in oversight or regulations, this becomes extremely hard. Then there is also the fact that most of us are not property owners and that the property owners might not care about the pollution. But it doesnt stop there. The entire idea behind a "corporation" is to remove liability from those in charge. A lawsuit might take some money from stock holders, might even close down the corp, but it wont do shit to the actual perps as we see today.
the entire idea that 'letting them fail" somehow fixes things, totally ignores the fact that corps are not alive and when they die they do not scream. CEOS are alive and dont die when a corp does.
Also when it comes to global warming, it would take a class action where you sued the entire planet, separating blame by co2 emissions. Plus how can I sue african nations who still use leaded gas, when that lead is in MY AIR as well? How Can I sue china for pollution that effects us?
Last Yall cant point to a country without regulations that has as clean water or air as we do.
In ANY case we will have to pay to find pollution and polluters. I'm not sure how oversight and regulations make this easier.
I assume that "property" refers to any physical object, not just land. So if I own my body, I can sue you for damaging it.
I really like the idea of abolishing barriers to liability. CEOs and shareholders SHOULD get any remaining fines after their corporation goes under, or they should be forced to insure against 100% liability. No more liability caps, and if they can't afford insurance, they shouldn't pollute.
Your point regarding lawsuits across jurisdictions is valid. I would go so far as to say that shielding aggressors in your country is an act of war - the Bush doctrine. What Americans fail to realize is that their constant pollution is no better than the Taliban offering safe harbor to terrorists.
A country without regulations with clean water and air? Maybe international waters, or Antarctica? I'd imagine that most countries "without regulations" are just owned by a corrupt oligarchy that ENABLES nonstop pollution; their regulation is that you cannot retaliate against those in power.
Quote
In so far as your pollution damages other people's property, you are infringing on their rights. Point out the pollution, point out the polluters, and let the property owners sue. End of story. This no need to deny anything and I won't. If the majority of credible climatologists say there is climate change, fine, I believe it. That changes nothing about my political views
See there are a lot of problems with this idea.
First you have to find the pollutant, which costs us money. Then you have to find the polluter, and since yall dont believe in oversight or regulations, this becomes extremely hard. Then there is also the fact that most of us are not property owners and that the property owners might not care about the pollution. But it doesnt stop there. The entire idea behind a "corporation" is to remove liability from those in charge. A lawsuit might take some money from stock holders, might even close down the corp, but it wont do shit to the actual perps as we see today.
the entire idea that 'letting them fail" somehow fixes things, totally ignores the fact that corps are not alive and when they die they do not scream. CEOS are alive and dont die when a corp does.
Also when it comes to global warming, it would take a class action where you sued the entire planet, separating blame by co2 emissions. Plus how can I sue african nations who still use leaded gas, when that lead is in MY AIR as well? How Can I sue china for pollution that effects us?
Last Yall cant point to a country without regulations that has as clean water or air as we do.
Exactly. This entire thread is just bait for a flame war. Ignore it, please.
Just as with his activity in the other exact clone of this thread, the OP is more concerned about falsely framing the ideas of Libertarians and others he has political disagreements with rather than the subject of global warming itself.
there is nothing in current society which is preventing said lawsuits
It's bad enough that you're obnoxious and insulting but you're wrong on top of it. If you get a permit from whatever state you are in, you can pollute other people's private property and they can't sue you.
Here's one example:
Quote
A new air pollution permit issued by state regulators for the coal-fired power plant near downtown Milwaukee doesn't go far enough to protect public health, environmental groups said Thursday as they filed challenges to the permit.
We Energies' Valley plant doesn't have modern controls to reduce emissions linked to soot, smog and respiratory health problems.
The state Department of Natural Resources recently issued a permit for the plant to keep operating without installing more controls.
We Energies' Valley plant doesn't have modern controls to reduce emissions linked to soot, smog and respiratory health problems.
The state Department of Natural Resources recently issued a permit for the plant to keep operating without installing more controls.
Source: http://www.jsonline.com/business/119034489.html
At least educate yourself if you're going to insult the intelligence of other people.
Bitcoin2cash's rather silly synopsis of how he thinks it all will work is tremendously naive, but that's the whole point a number of individuals around here have been trying to point out to him. He fails to point out that not everyone will sue, nor knows enough to make it work, and he also fails to point out that there is nothing in current society which is preventing said lawsuits, which obviously are not completely solving the problem. Nor does he acknowledge that other regions, territories, states, and whatever need not acknowledge said lawsuits.
If you analyze his proposed solution, you'll see that he in fact doesn't understand (perhaps willfully) the full nature of the problem, and uses his chosen ignorance and starry eyed love affair with libertarianism to try and hammer home the idea that it will all work. It's sad, really, because there are enough dumb people out there to fall for it.
If you analyze his proposed solution, you'll see that he in fact doesn't understand (perhaps willfully) the full nature of the problem, and uses his chosen ignorance and starry eyed love affair with libertarianism to try and hammer home the idea that it will all work. It's sad, really, because there are enough dumb people out there to fall for it.
And you're deluded into believing your "benevolent" government has a better, friendlier, and less deadly solution. Who's more starry eyed and in love? Gag me with a politician.
Your comment, by it's wording, would seem to acknowledge the inadequacy of bitcoin2cash's proposal, and the points I made against it.
Bitcoin2cash's rather silly synopsis of how he thinks it all will work is tremendously naive, but that's the whole point a number of individuals around here have been trying to point out to him. He fails to point out that not everyone will sue, nor knows enough to make it work, and he also fails to point out that there is nothing in current society which is preventing said lawsuits, which obviously are not completely solving the problem. Nor does he acknowledge that other regions, territories, states, and whatever need not acknowledge said lawsuits.
If you analyze his proposed solution, you'll see that he in fact doesn't understand (perhaps willfully) the full nature of the problem, and uses his chosen ignorance and starry eyed love affair with libertarianism to try and hammer home the idea that it will all work. It's sad, really, because there are enough dumb people out there to fall for it.
If you analyze his proposed solution, you'll see that he in fact doesn't understand (perhaps willfully) the full nature of the problem, and uses his chosen ignorance and starry eyed love affair with libertarianism to try and hammer home the idea that it will all work. It's sad, really, because there are enough dumb people out there to fall for it.
And you're deluded into believing your "benevolent" government has a better, friendlier, and less deadly solution. Who's more starry eyed and in love? Gag me with a politician.
Lawsuits won't solve these problems, but it must be convenient to tell everyone that it will so you can promote your ideology. Lawsuits aren't solving the problems now.
Quote
Climate change, industrial pollution, ozone depletion, damage to the physical beauty of the area surrounding people's homes (and therefore their value) – all these, if libertarians did not possess a shocking set of double standards, would be denounced by them as infringements on other people's property.
This guy doesn't understand libertarianism philosophy. In so far as your pollution damages other people's property, you are infringing on their rights. Point out the pollution, point out the polluters, and let the property owners sue. End of story. This no need to deny anything and I won't. If the majority of credible climatologists say there is climate change, fine, I believe it. That changes nothing about my political views.
Bitcoin2cash's rather silly synopsis of how he thinks it all will work is tremendously naive, but that's the whole point a number of individuals around here have been trying to point out to him. He fails to point out that not everyone will sue, nor knows enough to make it work, and he also fails to point out that there is nothing in current society which is preventing said lawsuits, which obviously are not completely solving the problem. Nor does he acknowledge that other regions, territories, states, and whatever need not acknowledge said lawsuits.
If you analyze his proposed solution, you'll see that he in fact doesn't understand (perhaps willfully) the full nature of the problem, and uses his chosen ignorance and starry eyed love affair with libertarianism to try and hammer home the idea that it will all work. It's sad, really, because there are enough dumb people out there to fall for it.
Is this new? It was obvious from the start that so much as breathing is sucking oxygen out of the land of people around you.
A libertarian has "no choice but to to deny climate change". Maybe if they are simpletons like the guy who wrote this.
This stuff is so dumb. Random people on forums know more than this guy. Imagine what he thinks of a libertarian: "Man, I've been coughing ever since that coal plant popped up next door. Oh well, there is nothing to be done about it. Free Markets, YEA!"
Quote
So here we have a simple and coherent explanation of why libertarianism is so often associated with climate change denial, and the playing down or dismissal of other environmental issues. It would be impossible for the owner of a power station, steel plant, quarry, farm or any large enterprise to obtain consent for all the trespasses he commits against other people's property – including their bodies.
This stuff is so dumb. Random people on forums know more than this guy. Imagine what he thinks of a libertarian: "Man, I've been coughing ever since that coal plant popped up next door. Oh well, there is nothing to be done about it. Free Markets, YEA!"
I don't think Libertarians ever denied people don't have the right to retaliate in the face of property damage. Are we talking about the Libertarian Party or something?
Yes.
The argument appears to be this:
1. Pollution is aggression.
2. You can't obtain consent from all pollution victims.
3. Therefore, anyone who claims to follow the NAP should not pollute.
I don't disagree with that. I consider myself a geolibertarian and I pollute very little. I realize that I still pollute in some ways, but I don't object to pollution taxes, since they don't violate the NAP - they defend against aggressors. I don't have the right to poison everyone's air for free. Is the author referring exclusively to right-libertarians and anarchists?
1. Pollution is aggression.
2. You can't obtain consent from all pollution victims.
3. Therefore, anyone who claims to follow the NAP should not pollute.
I don't disagree with that. I consider myself a geolibertarian and I pollute very little. I realize that I still pollute in some ways, but I don't object to pollution taxes, since they don't violate the NAP - they defend against aggressors. I don't have the right to poison everyone's air for free. Is the author referring exclusively to right-libertarians and anarchists?
Then you are one of the good guys. But do you accept that people have a right to prevent the damage they suffer from pollution?
The argument appears to be this:
1. Pollution is aggression.
2. You can't obtain consent from all pollution victims.
3. Therefore, anyone who claims to follow the NAP should not pollute.
I don't disagree with that. I consider myself a geolibertarian and I pollute very little. I realize that I still pollute in some ways, but I don't object to pollution taxes, since they don't violate the NAP - they defend against aggressors. I don't have the right to poison everyone's air for free. Is the author referring exclusively to right-libertarians and anarchists?
1. Pollution is aggression.
2. You can't obtain consent from all pollution victims.
3. Therefore, anyone who claims to follow the NAP should not pollute.
I don't disagree with that. I consider myself a geolibertarian and I pollute very little. I realize that I still pollute in some ways, but I don't object to pollution taxes, since they don't violate the NAP - they defend against aggressors. I don't have the right to poison everyone's air for free. Is the author referring exclusively to right-libertarians and anarchists?
Quote
Climate change, industrial pollution, ozone depletion, damage to the physical beauty of the area surrounding people's homes (and therefore their value) – all these, if libertarians did not possess a shocking set of double standards, would be denounced by them as infringements on other people's property.
This guy doesn't understand libertarianism philosophy. In so far as your pollution damages other people's property, you are infringing on their rights. Point out the pollution, point out the polluters, and let the property owners sue. End of story. This no need to deny anything and I won't. If the majority of credible climatologists say there is climate change, fine, I believe it. That changes nothing about my political views.
Jump to: