I actually don't think the mathematics are complex. Actually, one of the big obstacles I see are the auto manufacturers' objections to it, where they would claim that a competitor slipped in a couple autos that made the top tier, thus knocking the auto maker's models further down, and giving them a very stressful year. The key is to smooth out the process for everyone.
Perhaps newly released models get slipped into the middle tiers regardless of specs, and are given a six to ten months or so to migrate to their respective slot, giving the auto makers some time to adjust to the constantly changing market. If the model is inefficient, at least the auto maker has an opportunity to compete before it gets knocked down. And if it's seriously efficient, at least the other auto makers get a chance to sell their models at a slight advantage for a short period of time.
I know it can work, one way or another, and I know it's necessary too. Auto makers just aren't being forced to compete effectively - it's analogous to an oligopoly, in a sense: "Don't rock the boat too much, fellows - keep our customers believing that heavy and not so efficient is the best we can do - sell them fashion and glamor - don't make the efficient cars too comfortable - we need to get everyone to want to buy into the heavier and bigger!"
I'm glad Volkswagen is daring to be different, and as a result, showing what is really possible.
It makes me want to puke when I see you talking about how you'd like to run other people's businesses and control their lives. Horrible, isn't it? Getting the auto makers to actually compete and deliver what is technologically possible. Perhaps we can regulate them to add a dispenser in the door which provides barf bags. |
|
|
|
I know what you are trying to say: MysteriousMan is a metaphore for the government!
If you say so. Kind of interesting how he functions within the guidelines of MoonShadow's anti-government laws. |
|
|
|
Why didn't the target organizations of these regulations lobby the OSHA/State government to prevent this regulation. If it's that easy to get your way through lobbying I'd wager that your dentist, along with a few colleagues, could have stopped it. They probably had no idea about it. If they did, they probably had fewer resources to throw at a single issue than would a large corporation that's going to make a lot of money from it. HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHHAHA OMFG the irony is too much! Don't you see it? You're pointing out blatant problems WITH YOUR OWN SYSTEM. How so? Is it not obvious? |
|
|
|
The Two Laws of All Civilization
1) Do all that you have agreed to do.
2) Do not encroach upon another's person or property.
This shall be the whole of the law.
Not really clear on the above. Let's say MoonShadow lives in a house that has access via Blueberry Street. Next to him is a large lot owned by MysteriousMan. MysteriousMan brings in earthmoving equipment one day, and commences grading. Up goes a factory, shipping and receiving docks, and machinery for metal stamping, operated by compressed air. The machinery and compressors run all day and night. Trucks come and go all night long. MysteriousMan never signed any contracts with MoonShadow. He never entered into any agreements with MoonShadow. Nonetheless, MoonShadow's life is now miserable. He attempts to retain legal counsel and file a lawsuit through the biggest private court system there is. Along the way, he discovers that his court of choice happens to have MysteriousMan as a big customer - I mean, they do a lot of business with MysteriousMan. Bummer. Anyway, as it turns out, MysteriousMan is one of those semi rare types who just doesn't care about respecting the rights of others. I personally couldn't just do that to a neighbor, but you know how it goes. Some people can and do. Guess what? MysteriousMan, being the big conglomerate he is, naturally saw fit to have one of his companies buy Blueberry Street prior to building his factory. It only makes sense. Fortunately, MoonShadow has a ten year contract on the tolls and rates required to use the road. Unfortunately, the contract expires in six months. Bummer. MoonShadow wants to move. Unfortunately, his home value is sliding like crazy, and he doesn't know exactly what to do. Court seems the only option. As it turns out, MysteriousMan is probably even a bigger asshole than you can imagine. You see, it's just not profitable to pay out to every resident who puts up a fuss - there are just too many of them. He employs a number of strategies: - Don't pay at all. I mean, what's going to happen? Are men in blue suits going to show up and kidnap him? That's not acceptable! How dare he be forced to pay for doing what he wants on his own land! It's as if he's being regulated. - Sometimes a beheaded head shows up in the refrigerator of the most annoying and bothersome individuals. It's just business - don't take it personally. - Sometimes, he'll just buy your property, at 66 percent its former value. Just go away. Let's take a look at what MysteriousMan has done here. He makes a lot of noise. His trucks create potholes, make the street unsafe, and make noise. But that's not aggression. It's not trespassing. And regarding the trucks - it's his street. As for the noise, it doesn't really affect people beyond a certain range, so there isn't much opportunity for a class action lawsuit. What about a boycott? Won't work. MysteriousMan sells his stuff on the other side of the world through a different name and company. As for the beheaded head? Well, as it turns out, it just happened to be an acquaintance of MoonShadow's, whom certain individuals noticed some extremely angry words transpire between the two the day before. Scary stuff. Anyway, MysteriousMan is a fictional character that embodies a lot of elements from real people and organizations out there in the real world. |
|
|
|
Then all you need to do is show that what I'm doing is violating your rights.
You just don't get it, do you? It may be the case that your pollution output is not violating my rights significantly. After all, the pollutants you emit into the atmosphere are over another continent within a week. Collectively, though, you and your ilk are polluting. By what metric should your output be factored? Please tell me, how much damage and exploitation must I do to claim the ocean as mine. As I understand your viewpoint, the more I use, abuse and exploit, the more I can establish my claim on something if I was there first. You don't have to damage it. In fact, pollution is usually a result of people that don't have a long term interest in the property. Confusing pollution with other types of local ecosystem damage, again, are you? In all honesty, more people than you know depend on the ecosystems of the river or creek than you know, even if they have not personally left their mark there. There must be some witnesses. Something that can provide evidence to their claims or do you think these people are doing it secretly, in the middle of the night without ever leaving any kind trace? Not even close to what I said. Reread what I said. Because the future exists. And? Why don't you present a complete argument with some kind of thesis, some backing claims and perhaps draw some sort of logical conclusion? This piecemeal business smacks of intellectual laziness. And nothing. I thought I was having a discussion with someone who could grasp concepts. Tell me, when did you decide the future was of no consequence? Was that about the time you decided consequences aren't relevant? Try to wrap your head around this: consequences are everything, as they lie in the future, and that's where you'll be spending the rest of your life. |
|
|
|
Oh really? And did you do a soil test of the land underneath my property? To whom did you go to to get a report on the existing network of tunnels and underground infrastructure underneath my property? The market will sort that out. The market will just sort it out? Perhaps there would be some private agency to register those kinds of structures. Call before you dig.
Voluntary, no doubt? In your world, I am under no obligations to disclose what I've done. Gosh, in your world, maybe I have vast infrastructure already underneath your property. What happens when you start tunneling underneath your property and your house caves in? Then according to what you propose, 5 billion people were using the Earth's atmosphere prior to you, and since they established rights to it prior to you, you must forfeit any use of it yourself. Usage rights are not total. You were using it to breathe, therefore I can't make it unbreathable. If you spit in the ocean, the ocean doesn't become yours. Again, your lack of thinking things through becomes evident. I wasn't just using the atmosphere to breathe. It regulates climate, sea level, weather systems, biology, the production of food, water supplies, and other things. Agreed that if I spit in the ocean, it does not become mine. Please tell me, how much damage and exploitation must I do to claim the ocean as mine. As I understand your viewpoint, the more I use, abuse and exploit, the more I can establish my claim on something if I was there first. So tell me, how do you know someone's been fishing there before you? That's yet another issue for the market to sort out. The market will just sort it out? They might not be fishing in the spot you investigated the moment you checked, but that doesn't mean they don't fish there. Prior usage can mean a lot of things. There would need to be some kind of evidence, otherwise, anyone could say they had been fishing there when they hadn't really. Some sort of witnesses, etc. There will still be courts to settle things that aren't perfectly obvious. So you're an expert on forensics now? In all honesty, more people than you know depend on the ecosystems of the river or creek than you know, even if they have not personally left their mark there. If you wish to discuss this from the perspective of morality (which I'm all for), then you're going to have to factor in future usage as well. Why? Because the future exists. |
|
|
|
I can dig under you as long as I don't cave you in.
Oh really? And did you do a soil test of the land underneath my property? To whom did you go to to get a report on the existing network of tunnels and underground infrastructure underneath my property? As for moving air particles, water molecules, etc. That's where things get a little more subtle. I'm sure FirstAscent will love that since he's always raving about how complex reality is. Let him try this out for size. You homestead usage rights based on who was there first.
Then according to what you propose, 5 billion people were using the Earth's atmosphere prior to you, and since they established rights to it prior to you, you must forfeit any use of it yourself. Clearly, you're stating that you can't engage in activity that will modify that which others have already established use of, and since emission of carbon dioxide generally travels as far as another continent within a week, and can be anywhere in the world within a few months, you therefore cannot engage in any polluting activity due to not establishing first use. If nobody else is using the river, you can damn it up. If someone else has been fishing there and suddenly you cut off river, that's interfering on with his rights.
I despise dams. They destroy ecosystems above and below where they are sited. So tell me, how do you know someone's been fishing there before you? They might not be fishing in the spot you investigated the moment you checked, but that doesn't mean they don't fish there. Prior usage can mean a lot of things. You sure are big about prior usage. And I know you're big about morality. If you wish to discuss this from the perspective of morality (which I'm all for), then you're going to have to factor in future usage as well. Understand? Prior and future usage. I'll be happy to discuss with you at anytime the moral basis of your arguments. |
|
|
|
Basicly i'm trying to understand how much your influence, or lack of, into the environment affects your rights in your land.
More than the libertard crew here wants to believe. They'll all give ultra-simplistic lines like "well obviously you can't dump toxic waste because that's damaging to the water table and people will sue." But as firstascent pointed out, environmental effects can be infinitely more subtle than that. In fact, there can be things you're doing that you and I don't even realize are having a negative effect on me and the world around you. Let's go back to the box idea and the ground. When you own a piece of land, do you own just the surface of the ground? Do you own the airspace above your land? If you do, are planes going to have to pay tolls to the owner of each and every parcel of land they fly over? Do you own the subsurface under your land? How far down? Is your land ownership a cone shape that extends from the earth's core into space? How about things moving through your land... do you own the air particles floating around your cone of ownership? We'd assume you do if your land is in a sealed, self-sufficient box, but what if it's not? If part of a lake is on your land, do you own a portion of the water itself or is it just the general surface area? Can you rightfully drain your portion of the water out of the lake, even if it'll do damage to the remainder of the lake? If you own 1/4 of the lake's area, does that mean you can rightfully only fish out 1/4 of the lake's fish? How will you keep track of that? What about a moving body of water like a river that passes through your land... how much water can you drink out of the river before you start stealing someone else's water? That's just the simple stuff. Then we can into complex environmental interactions that come with owning land. If you own 2/3 of a forest, which is a total, connected ecosystem, can you level 2/3 of that forest, thus altering the ecosystem of the 1/3 that your neighbor owns? Can you hunt and kill 2/3 of the rabbits in the forest, thus leaving no food for the foxes and wolves, something that negatively affects the entire forest, including the 1/3 that your neighbor owns? Maybe you own the entire forest. Can you level the entire thing, thus effecting the air quality and infinite other environmental variables for everyone within hundreds or more miles? If own part of a river that just happens to be the section that salmon spawn in, can you harvest all the salmon eggs because they're on your property, thus leaving no new salmon for everyone else that owns other sections of the river? How about even more subtle issues... can you paint your house neon orange and put neon green plastic spikes all over the roof? I live nextdoor and it'll kill my property value because I'm right next to that eyesore... but you should be able to do whatever you want with your property, right? Can you manufacture fireworkers in your basement? You don't mean any harm by it, it's your family business and how you put food on the table, but my house is twenty feet away and if you have an accident we'll all get blown up. So should you be allowed to do it? That's just the tip of the tip of the iceberg. Those are a miniscule sampling of some of the simpest issues we have to deal with in the real world in relation to land ownership and property rights. As was pointed out, owning a piece of land is NOT at all like owning an object such as TV or couch, even as much as these libtard guys would like it to be. Thank you for posting what I would've posted. |
|
|
|
I actually don't think the mathematics are complex. Actually, one of the big obstacles I see are the auto manufacturers' objections to it, where they would claim that a competitor slipped in a couple autos that made the top tier, thus knocking the auto maker's models further down, and giving them a very stressful year. The key is to smooth out the process for everyone.
Perhaps newly released models get slipped into the middle tiers regardless of specs, and are given a six to ten months or so to migrate to their respective slot, giving the auto makers some time to adjust to the constantly changing market. If the model is inefficient, at least the auto maker has an opportunity to compete before it gets knocked down. And if it's seriously efficient, at least the other auto makers get a chance to sell their models at a slight advantage for a short period of time.
I know it can work, one way or another, and I know it's necessary too. Auto makers just aren't being forced to compete effectively - it's analogous to an oligopoly, in a sense: "Don't rock the boat too much, fellows - keep our customers believing that heavy and not so efficient is the best we can do - sell them fashion and glamor - don't make the efficient cars too comfortable - we need to get everyone to want to buy into the heavier and bigger!"
I'm glad Volkswagen is daring to be different, and as a result, showing what is really possible.
It makes me want to puke when I see you talking about how you'd like to run other people's businesses and control their lives. Horrible, isn't it? Getting the auto makers to actually compete and deliver what is technologically possible. Perhaps we can regulate them to add a dispenser in the door which provides barf bags. |
|
|
|
The government forms some regulations over the past century or so and by coincidence or some act of misfortune, the corporations--the same ones to be impeded by these regulations--use them to their advantage and fuck everybody else over.
So you're in favor of regulations if they do the right thing, then? |
|
|
|
Now we get to experience it first hand in the American Soviet Socialist Republic.
The sooner you disabuse yourself of this view, the sooner you'll be able to more effectively defend the solutions and ideas you put forth. Just some friendly advice. |
|
|
|
I totally understand what you're saying. It's the most difficult part of implementation, I believe.
Ah cool k, I suppose given time and experience, the tax setters would get better at predicting. If you have any ideas on how this could be smoothed out, then share. it might be a lot simpler to just tax t10 at $0, and increase the tax in each tier as they become more inefficient...and
No, I really think it's better to go with the negative tax/subsidy. It is in fact paid for by the positive tax, and has the appeal of the government not really taking the money. The positive tax is supposed to exactly balance the negative tax. The beauty of it, though, is it constantly ups the bar on efficiency through pure competition, as opposed to specific MPG targets mandated by the government. I see, yeah I hadn't considered that appeal...certainly makes it sellable if the govt doesn't get a cut. Need to find an actuary or something to do the maths in that case. I actually don't think the mathematics are complex. Actually, one of the big obstacles I see are the auto manufacturers' objections to it, where they would claim that a competitor slipped in a couple autos that made the top tier, thus knocking the auto maker's models further down, and giving them a very stressful year. The key is to smooth out the process for everyone. Perhaps newly released models get slipped into the middle tiers regardless of specs, and are given a six to ten months or so to migrate to their respective slot, giving the auto makers some time to adjust to the constantly changing market. If the model is inefficient, at least the auto maker has an opportunity to compete before it gets knocked down. And if it's seriously efficient, at least the other auto makers get a chance to sell their models at a slight advantage for a short period of time. I know it can work, one way or another, and I know it's necessary too. Auto makers just aren't being forced to compete effectively - it's analogous to an oligopoly, in a sense: "Don't rock the boat too much, fellows - keep our customers believing that heavy and not so efficient is the best we can do - sell them fashion and glamor - don't make the efficient cars too comfortable - we need to get everyone to want to buy into the heavier and bigger!" I'm glad Volkswagen is daring to be different, and as a result, showing what is really possible. |
|
|
|
Basicly i'm trying to understand how much your influence, or lack of, into the environment affects your rights in your land.
Can you reword this, or add more to what you're asking/developing here? |
|
|
|
If you could, and did, build a sealed box surrounding/within your land, with the contents making you selfsuficient and without producing anything sent to the outside; would that give you any more rights on what you can do inside "your" land?
Are you boxing off right to the center of the earth? Good question...when you "own" land, how deep does your ownership goes? Not very deep. Zoning laws will often prohibit you from doing the box thing, but let's say there are no such zoning laws, or we can assume that within the context of some zoning laws, you could build a smaller box somewhere on your property. Now, let's establish why: - What you do on your soil won't contaminate everyone else's soil - What you do to your atmosphere won't contaminate everyone else's atmosphere However, your box is fragmenting the ecosystem. We can admit that a house, building or road does as well, so we can't use that as an argument if you're allowed to construct a building or driveway. Does your box have an airlock? Does it measure the components of the atmosphere outside before venting, and then run a filtration process to match the outside before venting? The point is, the box idea is kind of absurd. What's important is to realize what ecosystems are in all their complexity, and then address those issues. |
|
|
|
The idea of a balanced budget amendment is absurd. The Tea Party wants America to endure a long lasting deflation. This clearly shows that the Tea Party has no idea of how the American economy works. The balanced budget amendment will result in the savings of private citizens being taken unnecessarily. In fact any politician that argues America or any other nation with a Sovereign currency, needs to reduce its debt, wants private citizens to have less savings.
Wait, the Tea Party has a coherent specific goal? When did that happen!? I just thought it was just a bunch of old white christian republican rednecks being just angry in general? Pretty much. Not just old, though. Old, middle aged, and young. |
|
|
|
Yeah, businesses and corps aren't waiting for one world government to form, or have UN declare laws. Yet, somehow, they're managing on...
So you admit the world is basically a libertarian model then? Then you admit that the only time a nuke was ever detonated against others was in a libertarian model. |
|
|
|
Isn't our debt issue a matter of inefficiency and wasteful spending rather than not enough revenue? Couldn't a balanced budget feasibly just include spending cuts?
Without jumping on your libertarian high horse, what are your suggestions for reducing wasteful spending and spending cuts? |
|
|
|
Oh, never mind. Ignore whatever I said then. I certainly will.
You will ignore whatever you say? Anyway, how long until your ideas are implemented, do you think? What are the roadblocks? |
|
|
|
|
Mr. forum moderator, your thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Let me say it again: Your philosophy is inadequate to discussing this topic and will not be taken seriously.
Taking the time to reply, in a thread about libertarianism, on a forum about a very libertarian currency, kinda suggests you're taking it seriously. The sub forum is entitled "Politics and Society". I did not see anywhere that specified it was discussion of libertarian policies. The thread is currently about nuclear arms, and in large part, the failings of libertarians to provide a method to address their management. The arguments put forth by the libertarians are amusing, and many people spend quite a bit of time each day in engaging in amusing activity. Don't delude yourself into thinking that my time spent here is because I take the ideas in this thread seriously. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
