I could provide you with a wealth of reading material that would make things more clear to you, and likely change your opinion on the matter. Before getting too excited about your rocket scientist's presentation of the sun's activity, start with getting a solid understanding of the Maunder Minimum, Milankovitch cycles, and the ice albedo feedback loop. Plenty more to come, if you're interested.

Really?

You lost me. Please elaborate.

Please demonstrate to me, by referencing any post I have ever made here, where I advocate the killing of any person.

I suggest you do question those in government. For example, a good set of the Republicans in office are quite ridiculous and worth questioning. Same goes for quite a few Democrats. And others.

Yes I do. But my point is to demonstrate that you aren't aware of them. It seems that every time I bring up some real issue worth paying attention to, you, in hindsight, make some statement like "Of course I'm aware of such and such..."

So, demonstrate to me that you are aware of a set of real world issues that you haven't yet mentioned. I'll even let you mine my prior posts if you want.

How's that workin' out for you?

Explain in detail, please.

Actually, they have four choices: The two you've indicated above, or move to a country like Somalia, or continue their kiddie politics here in their own little playground. I'm guessing they'll opt for the fourth.

Sadly, no. Insurance is sold on the premise that most insured will not collect a payout, for numerous reasons. Furthermore, many will not purchase full coverage, and certain types of coverage may not be offered. Also, regardless of whether a payout occurs or not, that will still leave the damage which has occurred on the insured's property when they sell. From your point of view, that is only a point of debate between the property owner and the new property owner. From my point of view, it's damage that the Earth is forced to absorb, which has further ramifications down the line.

Insurance and lawsuits are not a comprehensive solution - your unawareness of A, B, and C and their ramifications actually lead you to draw the erroneous conclusion that insurance and lawsuits are adequate. I suggest you readjust the level of knowledge you're trying to apply to the field in question.

Thank you for making my point. Where did I say A, B, and C refer to ground water contamination or lung cancer? The point is, A, B, and C refer to things you are not aware of.

How come you don't understand that there are things that you do on your land that you aren't aware of their full ramifications? You do X, Y and Z. These in turn cause A, B and C elsewhere. However, you don't know even know what A, B, and C are, let alone where A, B, and C are occurring. Nor are you aware of testing for A, B, and C on your own land, because you know nothing about A, B, and C, but you will, in the future, when it's too late.

I don't see how Big brother is affecting you unless you're the guy running the complex manufacturing processes. In that case, consider the regulations to be guidelines which help educate you to better manage the complex processes. If you're not the guy running the complex manufacturing processes, why are you so bent out of shape over it?

Well, they claim you'll get all these extra rights to do strange things without intervention that you didn't even want to do.

There is no point in applying politics to anything at all unless you've educated yourself about what you're applying politics too. We don't apply hammers to hammers. We apply hammers to construction and fabrication. Construction and fabrication involves wood, metals, etc. Hammers were invented (and refined) to address the need of working with those materials.

Your favorite political ideology needs to be justified within the context of the world and society it is applied to. You simply cannot do that without understanding the world and society you're applying it to. Rather than read books on Libertarianism, you should read (and recommend that others read) books on the problems you're trying to address. You need to be comprehensive as well.

Tell me, do your books on Libertarianism effectively address the annual global fish haul, and the factors which limit it today, as opposed to the factors which limited it in the past?

You should consider the transportation issues I have listed. Let's take a tiny subset of the domain of transportation: trucking. Here in the U.S., we have the DOT and the state highway patrol. What are some of the things they regulate with regard to trucking?

• A truck's GVW must not exceed it's designated GVW
• A truck's total GVW must be registered to the DMV
• A driver many not drive more than a certain number of hours in a 24 hour period
• A driver must maintain an up to date logbook
• A truck's tires must be able to support the truck's published GVW
• A truck may not exceed 102 inches in width, otherwise it needs an oversize load permit
• There are height and length restrictions as well
• Any vehicle over a certain width must have 3 central red lights in the rear and 3 central amber lights in the front
• A truck may not run recapped tires on the front axle
• Oversize permits require display of a placard front and back
• Oversize permits must designate a route
• Trucks must stop at truck scales
• A class A license is required if a tractor trailer is driven
• A class B license is required if the truck has 3 axles
• A class B license is required if passengers will be transported
• An air brakes endorsement is required if the vehicle has air brakes
• A hazmat license is required if hazardous materials will be transported which exceed a certain amount
• Hazardous placards must be displayed if hazardous materials will be transported which exceed a certain amount
• A truck must submit to random inspections, which include any of the following:
  
  • U bolts which affix the body to the chassis
  • Tires, specs, conditions, etc.
  • Air compressor (for air brakes)
  • Brakes
  • Payload
  • Licenses and registration
  • Logbook
  • Bill of lading
  • Lights
  • Any and all mechanical components

Have you ever seen what trucking looks like in the third world? Consider the trucks which, due to the fact that they just barely avoid falling into the category of needing to be regulated (dually pickup trucks), which come from Mexico into the U.S. empty and return to Mexico fully loaded. They are loaded to twelve feet high with refrigerators, ovens, washers, dryers, tires and furniture. Their tires are questionable, the trucks are wobbly, and invariably slow on the freeway. They are just skating under the radar. Thankfully, they are not the norm in the U.S. - but they are the norm in Mexico, and this translates to larger rigs in that country as well, and it's even worse in other third world nations.

Now, do you want to discuss airframe inspections? Crankshaft certification for small aircraft engine rebuilds? Road development?


You own 5,000 acres in lala land. So does your neighbor. Nearby are several towns and a nearby city. You never venture into the rear right quarter of your acreage because it has many crumbly cliffs to be traversed to get to the corner, is mostly inaccessible, has thick vegetation, etc. You consider it largely unusable, and simply ignore it. If this isn't you, then it's somebody else.

Your neighbor also owns 5,000 acres. On the far side of his parcel, opposite your adjoining border, is a manufacturing plant. You can't see it, hear it, and can't smell it. All is good. They have built a small network of dirt roads which lead here and there on their property. Out of sight, out of mind.

Well, guess what? We find out that the water of all the nearby towns is contaminated. People have been drinking it for years. There have been deaths. As it turns out, the manufacturing plant has been dumping toxic waste on your property in the back corner. You never knew it. That toxic waste has been seeping into the ground for years, affecting the underground water which ultimately supplies water to all the nearby towns and the mid sized city.

"Hands off!" you've cried. Let others do what they will on their own property. Do not interfere in other people's business on their own property.

In my world: a business decides they are going to manufacture widgets. They need a license. They are classified as a manufacturer. They must disclose to a governing body what they do. They must subject themselves to onsite inspections on a regular basis. They must explain their manufacturing processes and show manifests which show what incoming chemicals they buy, notably chemicals which are regulated. They must disclose, on a regular basis, because of the manufacturing process they employ, manifests which document where those waste chemicals go. Is there a record that x quantity of waste products have been hauled out via a qualified (meaning regulated) waste disposal service (let's call them ACME Waste Disposal Company). ACME Waste Disposal Company gets regulated too. Their income is documented. Their trucks are inspected. They must use an approved process of waste disposal.

Regarding breaking into the cabin because you're starving: it's not interesting at all because regardless of the political climate, situation, laws, etc., human instinct takes over and you do what you've got to do. These situations usually work themselves out. It's just not really worth exploring in this debate with regard to how it is handled.

However, there is a vast difference in how the big issues are addressed and dealt with depending on the politics. Thus, these issues are worth debating. Pick any one of those topics. They are deep, broad, and complicated.

Consider transportation, and just transportation. We have urban planning, road development and maintenance, rail, aircraft airframe structural integrity, airplane safety, helicopter safety, air traffic safety, right of ways, traffic management, insurance, terrorism potentially targeting air, land or sea (human beings or cargo), boating, car safety, shipping ports, noise abatement, bicycle pathways, delivery of hazardous materials, etc.

How does all this interrelate safely and efficiently? Are there commonly defined protocols?

How about the environment? Ecosystems, species extinction, soil sustainability, aquifers, water quality, riparian zones, trophic cascades, erosion, deforestation, old growth forests, secondary growth forests, fire management, wildlife corridors, cattle grazing, toxic dumping, sewage management, water tables, ocean pollution, air pollution, edge effects, ecosystem fragmentation, ocean currents, styrofoam, plastic bags, tar sands, oil spills, animal poaching (Sumatran Rhino), suburban sprawl, dust pollution (Owens Lake due to the DWP), preserves, etc.

It's not that interesting. Honestly, in an emergency, do what you've got to do - just try to minimize your damage to others. A good rule of thumb is: it must be an emergency, avoid putting others at risk, avoid causing more damage than the damage you're trying to prevent, and weigh how much the parties you're affecting will be affected relative to what you need to do. Geez, breaking into a cabin and eating someone else's food because you're starving is so fundamental and so trivial relative to the issues the world faces today.

These emergency situations you bring up are generally understood, and not the underlying basis for the big things that need to be addressed, such as: climate change, disaster management, agriculture, starvation, transportation, national defense, environmental destruction, economic stability, resource management, etc.

Among those listed, the nuke situation falls under disaster management and national defense, but it also relates to all topics just listed.

You're the one saying: "If it kills a million, that's ok, because otherwise, we would have had to curtail the desires of one in a hundred thousand."

Why do you think people just automatically think that? Honestly, the reality is, most people gripe every fucking day about all manner of laws. You are the ignorant one to believe that people just think laws echo morality.