The optimum amount of pollution is not zero. (If it was, we couldn't cook food or breathe.) Unless you have evidence that the present level of pollution is above the optimum level, it is entirely possible that what we actually want is *more* pollution.
That's like saying you want more automobile accidents because you want more people driving. You may accept a higher incident rate of accidents to realize more people driving, but that does not mean you don't want to strive towards maximizing the ratio of people driving to automobile accidents. No, but it does mean that if you apply external downward pressure on automobile accidents, you may just increase the amount of efficient driving that's suppressed. I'm not clear how suggesting that exerting downward pressure on automobile accidents analogizes with your statement that perhaps we want *more* pollution. I thought that wanting *more* pollution analogized with wanting *more* automobile accidents. For the record, I think most people would agree that we want *less* pollution and *less* accidents, and solutions that will improve those ratios of good to bad. |
|
|
|
What if you threaten me with a Chef's knife, but I only have an axe? Would we both call for a timeout, so I can head down to Bed, Bath and Beyond? It's not about weapon. It's about the damage dealt. If you trespass on my property, I can't kill you just for that. If you pick my pocket, I can't kill you just for that. If you don't understand libertarian views then how can you be so opposed to them?
No. Self-defense is defense from an immediate threat of physical violence in proportion to the threat and directly targeted at the person or persons making the threat. The particular people they abducted, tortured and killed were not threatening them with physical violence. Therefore, it wasn't self-defense.
So you don't agree they are entitled to nukes. Phew! Now tell us who you will put in charge of deciding who is fit to have nukes as they only want to defend themselves and who is not? Still waiting for my answer  Who is in charge of deciding if a mugger is using his knife to rob your or is using it to whittle a piece of wood? Witnesses and the person being mugged. And the mugger, if he confesses. That's all very interesting. |
|
|
|
Which ought we to make laws for, and which should we ought not to make laws for?
Great use of the word we. If we decide that we're going to make laws, and enforce them, then we have to pay to have those laws written and enforced. As consistently as possible, otherwise they don't qualify as laws or enforcement. Consistency means everyone. And that means everyone pays. Taxes. |
|
|
|
The optimum amount of pollution is not zero. (If it was, we couldn't cook food or breathe.) Unless you have evidence that the present level of pollution is above the optimum level, it is entirely possible that what we actually want is *more* pollution.
That's like saying you want more automobile accidents because you want more people driving. You may accept a higher incident rate of accidents to realize more people driving, but that does not mean you don't want to strive towards maximizing the ratio of people driving to automobile accidents. Likewise, you want to maximize the ratio of cooked food to smoke. And regarding automobiles as I mentioned in my prior post, you want to maximize the miles that can be driven quickly and in comfort to the cost of doing so, which is generally fuel burned and pollutants generated. In all cases, artificial constraints placed upon the markets to maximize the ratios is better than assuming that the markets will figure it out sans those constraints, because the markets usually flow and gravitate towards some other local minima or maxima which has less regard for many detrimental external factors, which ultimately come back to haunt everyone in the future. |
|
|
|
Self-defense is defense from an immediate threat of physical violence in proportion to the threat and directly targeted at the person or persons making the threat.
What if you threaten me with a Chef's knife, but I only have an axe? Would we both call for a timeout, so I can head down to Bed, Bath and Beyond? |
|
|
|
I was in fact noting that HOA's come into existence because a group of people who have locality, social/economic similarities and an overall sense that they need a governing body do in fact create one. They are under no obligation to do so but take that path on their own which when going back to my original statements people if left alone will self govern.
Look at your own circles back in High School and College where you were placed into a large group and what happened? Your large group subdivided into subgroups of similar background, economics, interest, etc, you formed tribes. Those in your tribe had to maintain a middle of the road social norm or they were looked upon as a deviant and likely removed from the group, either temporarily until they returned to the social norm or permanently. Your tribe had structure as there were leaders and followers and those leaders were allowed to lead by agreement of the group and at any time the group may and likely did migrate to others as leaders in whole or in part depending on the needs of the group (tribe).
People will self govern. Can you just turn off our Oligarchy, of course not but we can first off return the ruling power to a full representative body, then to the states and as things transition over a period of years, maybe decades, Government becomes a "government of the people, by the people, for the people" once again. I would argue that what is happening in Europe, Greece especially, as a perfect example of what happens when the public no longer feels they are able to govern themselves through elections and instead of self governing they are Governed by the power elite. Pending riots, strikes and potential revolt across the EU is a perfect example of Government oppression by a few (Oligarchy - EU Commission/Banks) where the public feels they have lost not their freedoms as much as their right to self govern even if that is at a national level.
Do you realize what you're calling for? Tribal warfare. Gangs. Ostracizing. Racism. Bullying. Warlords. Walls. Fortresses. Decent people will want in the good communities, and thus the good communities willl grow, and write a constitution, declare a tax, and become a nation. |
|
|
|
Regarding taxes, acknowledging that they aren't fun, and government spending can be wasteful, consider: Tax what we want less of. Apply a zero tax, or even a negative tax to what is better. Think creatively. What do we want less of? Pollution, destruction of the environment, excessive consumerism of wasteful products, hunger. What do we want more of? Efficient solutions, not efficient exploitation. That's the problem with capitalism today - it encourages efficient exploitation, not necessarily efficient solutions for the consumer. Tax pollution. Tax resource exploitation. Tax wasteful products. As for hunger, that's where thinking creatively helps. I made a long post about automobile design and production. I mentioned the Volkswagen XL1 as an example. The key is to get businesses to compete effectively in a constructive way. Right now, automakers compete by determining the most efficient way to sell expensive automobiles. We want to get them to compete at building the most efficient automobiles. Big difference. I've been thinking of one way to do it, and I'm not entirely sure of the mathematics behind it, but follow along. Take the full lineup of new automobiles available today. Split them into ten tiers, numbered one through ten, where the least efficient autos are in tier one, and the most efficient are in tier ten. Tier one gets the highest tax. Tier five gets the lowest positive tax. Tier ten gets the largest negative tax. Now the automakers will compete like crazy to get their auto lineup into the top tier. If most everyone buys only automobiles in tier ten, then it becomes even more difficult to get your auto placed into tier ten, because the negative tax has to be paid by the positive taxes below it. Wealthy people can afford whatever auto they want, regardless of tax. People who aren't wealthy will embrace the negative tax on the most efficient autos, and benefit from their efficiency. Efficiency should increase drastically, much more aggressively than today, as automakers compete to always have autos in the top tiers. New auto startups will obviously strive to only have autos in the top tiers, and by doing so, they'll be able to compete because of the negative tax. This will increase competition for efficiency even further. Notice that this system does not mandate a specific MPG requirement. For example, the government currently might be mandating 30+ MPG for future automobiles. The problem is, that might be too difficult or too easy for automakers to meet. But what I'm proposing drives the market to competitively up the MPG continuously with no upper limit, and the end result should approach the MPG of the Volkswagen XL1, which happens to be 260 MPG. |
|
|
|
Any what specifically about lynching makes a self governing group of people nonfunctional? What is the difference in an execution ordered by a court of law and an execution decided upon by the group as a whole? I would argue actually that there would be fewer deviants in a self governing body over what we have now.
This is scary. The US has about 4.2% of it's population under some form of correctional supervision, from prison to various stages of parole. It is my contention a group of people left to self govern would see far less than that in deviant behavior that exceeds social norms to the point it required action by the group to enact formal punishment. Sure there would be the fringe elements however given the need for social interaction in a self governing society those on the fringe would be pulled to the center far more than they are in our current society.
Take a look at Home Owner's Associations as an example of a group of people that through a common need form a self governing society. Look at this forum or any other on the Internet where the group as a whole has defined what is proper and accepted even though there may be a ruling party (Admin) it is the group that self governs.
Home Owners' Associations have been discussed in this forum before. They are in fact like miniature governments - they even tax their residents! But you're mistaken if you think they're self governing. The behavior of people in an HOA is still influenced by the state. |
|
|
|
Why do you trivialize the sum total of everything we are derived from and depend upon? I think you need to seriously reevaluate the importance of the concept of property rights against everything else that has ever existed. Read what you just wrote. Do you think I'm going to give you a book which goes on about property rights? Seriously. There are bigger things in this world to discuss. Understanding those things, instead of trivializing them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWdd6_ZxX8cSome Coen Brothers films are some of my favorite all time films. However, I think what I said bears some more thought. In fact, most of the things I say here bear a little bit more thought than you're giving. Try it for a few weeks, and then you can go back to your views if you so desire. Are you going to read more of what I recommend, or should I not bother? Let me know. |
|
|
|
The Shankill butchers believed they were defending their community. Does that belief entitle them to nukes? No. Self-defense is defense from an immediate threat of physical violence in proportion to the threat and directly targeted at the person or persons making the threat. So using this logic and your past logic, you can "defend" yourself from taxes with nukes. Seems totally logical. No doubt he's still ignoring you. He was actually agreeable for a short period of time, and then declared that he was concerned that my reading recommendations were going to mostly represent consequentialism. It seemed an odd thing to be concerned about, assuming it was true. |
|
|
|
If I haven't contracted for services, or at the very least voted for you and your "highwaymen", you don't represent me (this is unequivocal as my life is mine and not state owned). You may have superior forces and may apply those betimes, but superior force does not a legal state make.
That's all well and good. Let's say it works like that. And so the state only taxes those individuals consenting to the tax, and only provides services to those being taxed. Fine. What happens when you leave your property and drive on the road paid for by the taxpayers? |
|
|
|
I didn't mean to be as mean as my last few posts sound. I'm just completely floored that some of you actually think people will self-govern and do the right thing when the whole of human history says otherwise.
I know what you mean - it is weird how dreamy and idealistic some of these guys are.. In another thread, FredericBastiet and Bitcoin2Cash are seriously arguing that everyone should be entitled to have nuclear weapons. Imagine if http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jared_Lee_Loughner had a nuke instead of a pistol; does it really help the situation to argue that his victims could have detonated their nukes as well? I grew up in Ireland at a time when there was an paramilitary army made up of people who believed their "liberty" was infringed by there being too many Protestants in the northern counties. I dread to think what they would have done if they had been able to use nukes. Any number of social studies show people will band together, form a governing body, lay down rules and expectations of the group and so forth when left to their own. Even smaller studies of students in a class or sub group have shown they do the same, they set rules of expected behavior even if those rules are not written or even fully communicated everyone knows what is considered normal and defiant behavior. Agreed. Thats the basis of law - a shared set of norms. Some people who don't share the norm need to be coerced to go along with it. Thats why we have laws. I don't think his views are in complete alignment with yours. He's arguing against government, saying societies will function absent a set of enforced laws. I countered by saying lynching will occur. |
|
|
|
Any number of social studies show people will band together, form a governing body, lay down rules and expectations of the group and so forth when left to their own. Even smaller studies of students in a class or sub group have shown they do the same, they set rules of expected behavior even if those rules are not written or even fully communicated everyone knows what is considered normal and defiant behavior.
Hence lynch mobs. |
|
|
|
I hope you will continue to read the reading recommendations that I will be suggesting. I just hope they don't all amount to consequentialist arguments i.e. the environment will be spoiled unless we stomp all over property rights. I'll go ahead and grant you that it will be spoiled, for the sake of argument, (even though in all actuality, I doubt it) but it matters not. Why do you trivialize the sum total of everything we are derived from and depend upon? I think you need to seriously reevaluate the importance of the concept of property rights against everything else that has ever existed. Read what you just wrote. Do you think I'm going to give you a book which goes on about property rights? Seriously. There are bigger things in this world to discuss. Understanding those things, instead of trivializing them. |
|
|
|
No. Self-defense is defense from an immediate threat of physical violence in proportion to the threat and directly targeted at the person or persons making the threat. The particular people they abducted, tortured and killed were not threatening them with physical violence. Therefore, it wasn't self-defense.
Don't you find this all to be a little too philosophical? I mean, you very recently implied that what I hope to change will not likely be achievable, saying "I highly doubt you'll have any success." I hope you will continue to read the reading recommendations that I will be suggesting. I don't think they're philosophical at all. |
|
|
|
Those quotations represent a very different kind of thinking from my own. I'm simply not overly concerned with the perpetuation of our species. It's a nice idea but not too important. I want people currently living to have full and happy lives, happy by their own measure and no one else's. I love humans, not humanity. That's not something that can be argued over because it's deeply emotional. It's based on my experiences and my disposition.
Viewpoints are malleable, and seldom remain static over the course of one's life. The catalyst for changing one's worldview is typically experience, observation and knowledge. To love something, or feel a certain way, is but a reflection of who you are now, which in turn is what you've thus far experienced, and know up until this point. If that's what you hope to change, I highly doubt you'll have any success.
What am I trying to change? |
|
|
|
I'm sure you can come up with more reading than I have time to read so put your best foot forward. I'll let you know when I've read this and you can quiz me on it if you like.
Here's a short article for starters. I may have linked to it before. It's food for thought. I'll post plenty more. This is just one article - it's the sum of many articles or books taken together that is important. http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/starting_over/ |
|
|
|
I'm sure you can come up with more reading than I have time to read so put your best foot forward. I'll let you know when I've read this and you can quiz me on it if you like.
Excellent! |
|
|
|
Yes. Did you know that I wasn't born a libertarian? In fact, I voted for Obama because I wanted him to give me "free healthcare". I was all for socialized medicine. This whole libertarianism thing is actually kind of new to me. I could be swayed to your position. What's doubtful, however, is that you could sway me to your position. But if you've got some articles or books you'd like to recommend, I'd be happy to read them and I'll give them the same harsh criticism that I gave the libertarian authors, which I ultimately failed to counter and so I begrudgingly joined their ranks.
I can come up with plenty of book and article recommendations - probably more than you have time to take in. Look for a post detailing such recommendations in the near future. Here's one I've mentioned several times, and it's definitely worth reading. I cannot recommend it highly enough: The Future of Life by Edward O. Wilson |
|
|
|
I can't be defeated because this isn't a fight. I can only be swayed to your position. Calling me names and speaking in riddles isn't going to work. You should try something else.
Can you be swayed to my position? Is that within the realm of possibility? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
