Hint: they live in the oceans which no-one owns.
Part of the problem. Share your solution for the ocean - not someone's backyard. I'm not in the mood to point out the extreme differences. |
|
|
|
Is gravity the best way to keep me from floating off into space? I don't know. I can't know. I haven't been given any other option to find out.
Why haven't you been given a better option? |
|
|
|
Those prices are inflated due to the horrible inefficiency of our fire departments with the guaranteed wages and excess benefits. They aren't accurate of what market prices with profit-incentive would be.
Or so you conveniently speculate because it fits your paradigm. Do you know how trucks are built? Let's take something much simpler, such as a tow truck. These are sold to private companies. How does the business model of truck building work? Do you know? I do. |
|
|
|
And what exactly does a dog in someone's backyard have to do with anything?
I will type slowly so that you understand. Your dog is your property. If someone shoots your dog, they will be held legally liable. With no public land then all animals in the world are someone's property. Any harm to someone else's property will be held legally liable. Do I need to type slower? I refer you to the second paragraph of my last post. |
|
|
|
Sure, you would wear it but the camera would probably break after 3 months and remain that way since the company failed due to the government's poor investment strategy.
But nobody is proposing that, so it doesn't matter. However, it's kind of moot, because a free market will allow everybody in the future to buy insect sized flying robotic spy probes, and they will be everywhere. For all you know, your neighbor will deploy them into your house, and you won't even know. Just like anti-virus software, you'll constantly be having to buy robotic hunter insects to seek out and destroy all these spying micro robots swarming around in your house. There will be zero privacy in the future. |
|
|
|
Lets test again  If I can demonstrate that regulating fertiliser sales saves lives compared to any other solution, are you happy to allow regulation of fertiliser sales? If I can make a surveilance camera small enough to fit in a collar, wirelessly transmit the images to a government enforcement facility, electrify it if necessary so as to mollify aggression, and that would reduce crime, would you wear it? How is that relevant? It's like one person is saying do X to save people, and you're saying, "No, because look how unacceptable Y is to reduce crime." Address X, not Y. |
|
|
|
If you're trying to redirect a discussion about environmental issues to what is happening with regard to swimming pools, backyards, pet dogs and chickens on farms, then it becomes clear that you're out of your depth.
Surely "out of your depth" is the wrong phrase for someone who thinks whales live in backyards? "Fish out of water" would be better, even if whales are mammals  These guys are definitely fish out of water. I mean, how difficult is it to grasp that a swimming pool at Seaworld is not representative of the ocean and its ecosystems. And what exactly does a dog in someone's backyard have to do with anything? You have no idea how many times I have mentioned on these forums that being an enthusiast for property rights does not make you qualified to address environmental issues. |
|
|
|
|
If you're trying to redirect a discussion about environmental issues to what is happening with regard to swimming pools, backyards, pet dogs and chickens on farms, then it becomes clear that you're out of your depth.
|
|
|
|
"Well, see how civil we all are now, after drowning Joe in the lake. He just didn't agree with our ways." If you want to troll then you'd better grow some gills. Whatever. Why don't you go moderate somebody who has your own political ideology. I can point you to the trolls in question, if you're interested. |
|
|
|
I noticed how much more civil, and quiet, these political threads seem to have become since AyeYo has been absent. A single troll can turn an otherwise civil discourse between peers into a caustic argument among many former friends.
Actually, the thread pretty much died after AyeYo was banned. I left the thread around the same time. Most discussion pretty much ceased. Maybe you're confusing perceived civility with what occurs after a group drowns the one they are in disagreement with? I think the banning of AyeYo exemplifies what he was pointing out about a libertarian society that none of you could see. "Well, see how civil we all are now, after drowning Joe in the lake. He just didn't agree with our ways." |
|
|
|
None are particularly compatible with each other. Libetarians respect the personal liberties of the individual above that of any ruling elite (all other governing). Democracies erode some personal liberties to pander to the masses.
And libertarians don't offer up unified and consistent protection of systems which will break down when divided, all so arbitrary rights can be awarded to each individual. |
|
|
|
Now, tell me, how would your system deal with the near decimation of the blue whale population that occurred in the mid twentieth century?
What would happen if someone came into your back yard and killed your dog? Would you have legal ramifications? Blue whales will never be in my backyard, nor will they ever be on my property. However, since you the bring the dog up, explain to me what cattle ranchers do to address riparian growth, or more correctly, why they don't care, since that's closer to your dog scenario. What if someone came into your waterway and killed one of your whales?
Study the causes of the near extinction of the blue whale species. Get familiar with the history. Understand what the situation is with the blue whales today. Address how property rights fits into all of that. If you want, you can start also thinking about what the limiting factors are on the annual global fish haul today, as opposed to 150 years ago. |
|
|
|
For example, demonstrate how your method addresses trophic cascades.
Depends on how the property owner wants to treat the species on his land/waterway. No, it doesn't depend on what the property owner wants. It depends on an area that deals with many property owners, many of which don't care, nor even know the ramifications. If you don't know, and your neighbor doesn't know, then nothing gets properly dealt with. Every property owner can't sue every other property owner. And besides, they won't, because half of them don't know they should sue, or don't care, resulting in an inconsistent application of what needs to be done - and that doesn't effectively deal with the problem consistently. Now, tell me, how would your system deal with the near decimation of the blue whale population that occurred in the mid twentieth century? |
|
|
|
Why do all you guys think that we have a social agenda?
Because you do. Whatever. Actually, what I want is protection for the environment. That requires understanding the environment. Now, how does your system address trophic cascades? |
|
|
|
So, when you say you do not want to hear about property rights and you want solutions...you are basically saying that you only want to hear the solution that best fits your social agenda.
Why do all you guys think that we have a social agenda? Very strange. I am so limited on time right now, but I'd like to say that you need to first understand what environmental problems exist before you can even begin to qualify your cute method as being effective. For example, demonstrate how your method addresses trophic cascades. |
|
|
|
It's a CERN experiment they're talking about. Which confirms the cosmic ray theory of a guy named Henrik Svensmark. At least direct your Ad Hominem to the appropriate target.
No, you don't understand. There are thousands of experiments, studies, etc. out there. In general, a publication like Forbes will only publish the results of a study which may cast doubt on Global Warming. If 25 out of a 1,000 studies cast doubt, then before the study has undergone a healthy peer review, publications like Forbes will happily publish an article on such a study, but will, in general, not publish articles on the other 975 studies which lend strength to anthropogenic global warming. The first question you want to ask yourself, is how do you search out your information on climate change? |
|
|
|
Nobody has commented on the CLOUD experiment so far? http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2011/08/25/did-cloud-just-rain-on-the-global-warming-parade/Scientists in CERN have confirmed that cosmic rays can seed clouds. The more cosmic rays hitting the Earth, the more clouds, the colder the planet gets. And vice-versa. And, yes, the main driver on the amount of cosmic rays that hit the Earth is the Sun's magnetic field. The stronger it gets, the more cosmic rays it repeals. So, yeah, who would guess, it seems the sun is probably more important to the climate than our car's exhausts...  Did you know that Forbes has demonstrated itself to be one of the brownlashers based on the selective reporting they do on the subject of climate change. It all stands to reason, when you stop and take a look at their readership. They're not exactly science people, you know. |
|
|
|
the sun is heating up.
its causing the solar system and other planets to heat up on the same scale the earth is heating up.
i am no scientist, but i know if i make a fire in the fireplace, anything in that room heats up as the fireplace heats up.
the solar system is a room and the sun is a fireplace, and the earth is in that room, as are all the other planets that are being heated up.
everything in it will heat up if the sun heats up.
i dont need to debate it. Its irrefutable fact as far as I am concerned, which is alot more evidence than the man-made global warming proponents have when they say the earth is heating up + there is more Co2 = man must be heating up the earth.
case closed as far as I am concerned.
it is "settled science".
but hey if you have anything more than supposition and conjecture, feel free to post it. I am sure some progressive pantywaste will listen.
It's hard to hear the clarity and strength of your arguments when your head is in the sand. Take a hard look at this graph which you provided: http://www.biocab.org/GWMA-002_op_987x740.jpgPlease try and explain it to me as best you understand it. I'm not asking you because I don't understand it. I want your interpretation of it. |
|
|
|
Call me when the solution to the environment is NOT socialism.
Thank you for pointing out the deficiencies of your approach: i.e. you offer no solution. The solution lies in property rights. But that does not fit into the game plan of "what can we use to get people to accept socialism..." Stop talking about socialism. Seriously. And I don't really give a rat's ass about your pet theory of property rights. What I do care about is discussing environmental issues, the science behind it, who here actually understands it in detail, and what the solutions are. If you want to share how property rights are a solution, the first thing you need to do is demonstrate an understanding of the problems. Can you do that? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
