I don't think what I would present would be an edge case, but rather fundamental. I don't think its appropriate that libertarians (or a large portion of them), choose to solve the problems by arguing the problems do not exist. That is not a solution, but a politically motivated decision to ignore science when it's apparent that addressing the problem would in fact require regulation if the problem existed.

Let's assume two possible scenarios:

1. The scientific data is correct, and the problems are real. I am not just speaking of climate change, here.
2. The scientific data is incorrect, and the problems are not real.

When a political ideology is in direct opposition to something such as regulation, you will typically find them to denounce scenario 1, and instead promote scenario 2, even using underhanded tactics to do so (see this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=40283.0 ). However, data is independent of political beliefs. Given that, there is no correlation between what the science says and what your political ideology promotes. In other words, scenario 2 does not necessarily manifest itself because it is more convenient for those who believe in a certain political ideology.

You can argue that your political ideology addresses scenario 2 all you want, but that hardly demonstrates the robustness of your political ideology. To truly demonstrate the robustness of your political ideology, assume for argument's sake, that scenario 1 is correct, and then proceed to show how your political ideology addresses it.

Regarding what you might think as an edge case, and what I am quite certain is the fundamental foundation upon which mankind depends, bear in mind that there are complexities, synergies, and pathways that the average joe is not aware of, nor will he necessarily ever be aware of. We can be certain that 13,000 years ago, nobody would've necessarily been aware of any of those complexities, but the impact of 10,000 individuals on a continent is negligible, as compared to today's population, so one can argue that back then, knowledge wasn't necessary. Note however, that there is compelling evidence that those 10,000, actually initially estimated to be 300, did in fact have a drastic effect - it is called the overkill hypothesis, and I would be happy to debate you on that topic  as well if you wish.

But back to the main point, and that is scenario 1. Are property rights, which are the premise of libertarians, robust enough to address scenario 1? Or is extensive regulation necessary?

Science is about as good as anything can be, as compared to political 'think tanks' masquerading as experts within a domain (can you say Heartland Institute?) denouncing science because it does not agree with their political ideology. Please review this thread: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=40283.0

Science, as published in the peer reviewed journals, such as Science and Nature, is a peer reviewed process, where a scientist can gain significant stature and elevate his career if he can do either of the following: present an alternative and better theory that withstands peer review or augment and strengthen an existing theory.

Science works, otherwise, you'd be hard pressed to explain the existence of cell phones, microwave ovens, and satellites.

This is what your typical economist believes, or more accurately, is his only solution to prosperity, although it is flawed at the most fundamental level.

Oath of Fealty by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle?

Do you stand behind that position with regard to all regulation, in all its forms, as applied to all industries and entities?

Let's examine the hypocrisy of bitcoin2cash's remark here.

It's been stated above that the FDA has chosen to not regulate homepathic products. Bitcoin2cash is apparently implying that that is undesirable based on his statement: "You want more of that?" Emphasis his. Yet, bitcoin2cash's stance is always an argument against regulation. Furthermore, in the absence of regulation of homepathic products by the FDA, it would appear that this would be the perfect opportunity for the free market to analyze, rate and publicize the efficacy and safety of homeopathic products, which is something that bitcoin2cash constantly states would be the natural and efficient state of things if the government would just step out of the way. Clearly, the government has stepped out of the way in this instance, and bitcoin2cash hypocritically implies incompetence because of that, yet simultaneously, fails to note that his idealistic market model has failed in the same instance.

Although you have me on ignore, I reply to you for the benefit of other readers. I think my last two posts in this thread do an excellent job of illustrating the difference between peer reviewed science and scientific consensus, vs. organizations which are motivated by political agendas. Everyone is invited to read or reread what I said.

There is a big difference between scientists who allow scientific results to influence their political agenda and those who allow their political agenda to influence their interpretation of scientific data.

I don't see how a political ideology should bias the interpretation of scientific data. It logically follows that if a political ideology is not biasing one's interpretation of scientific data, then there would not be such a consistent belief among the members of that political ideology that the scientific data should be interpreted such that it just happily coincides with the libertarian's view that nobody should suffer regulation.


But the research is not polarized at all! It's the non researchers, the 'think tanks' which are funded by the likes of Exxon Mobil and advocate zero regulation, who publish officious sounding newsletters masquerading as real science who are the ones making a lot of noise trying to make the uninformed public think that the scientific community is polarized. The Oregon Institute petition is a classic example.

As for recommending material on climate change, would not the simplest and most honest source material be peer reviewed scientific literature? Nature and Science Magazine are no brainers. But if you want less technical material, Scientific American is an excellent magazine.

There is no single article that can sway your viewpoint one way or another. Rather, I have found that over time, and after having read numerous articles which detail the scientific methods, discuss the studies, the correlations between core samples and satellite data, and the correlations between tree rings and soil deposition, and by learning about glacier calvings or weather patterns, that ultimately, the idea that anthropogenic global warming is happening is both convincing and equally important, interesting. That last point is important. The real science is interesting, not the brownlash material which really is driven by a political agenda. Also read the online Seed Magazine. Trust me. These publications aren't out to pull the wool over your eyes and deceive you. But you might find it refreshing to go from being enlightened via a libertarian view to simply being humbled about the complexity of our world and the real problems that we face.

But if you really want to read the brownlash material, driven by a political agenda which is really all about property rights and anti-regulation, (and funded by the likes of Exxon Mobil), then you can read any number of 'documents' and newsletters, such as Environment & Climate News, put out by the Heartland Institute, and edited by a property rights advocate, as opposed to someone who has any type of scientific credentials, let alone a scientific degree related to climatology or ecology.

Choose your source material wisely.

If you want to learn about edge effects, umbrella species, wildlife corridors, and conservation in general, or the importance of biodiversity, then read John Terborgh, Tim Flannery, or Dave Foreman. And of course, read Paul Ehrlich's The Dominant Animal. He's taken a lot of flak for some predictions he's made, but you should read his recent book before making any judgements.

Go find your favorite libertarian think tank websites. Then check their stance on climate change, among other things. You'll find that they are almost always skeptical of climate change. Now, without even getting into whether climate change is real or not, ask yourself why you wouldn't find about half of the libertarian think tanks to be pro climate change, and about half to be anti climate change.

My analysis is that libertarians value freedom from any type of regulation with regard to their property over in depth studies of civilization's ever increasing impact on the biosphere. Consider the following statement:


In other words, where do you see libertarians unifying themselves to address the point made by Ehrlich? I'm not seeing it at all, but instead seeing a near blanket wide denial of the problem, or a claim that the untested theory of property rights will solve it.

More to the point, I'm seeing in libertarians a naivete that is hardly aware of the complexities of the biosphere. As an example, are you aware of any of the following terms and their significance?

• Edge effects
• Umbrella species
• Trophic cascades

You may or may not be, but regardless, in a libertarian society, your knowledge of such topics does you little good if your neighbors don't care to know their significance.

I'm sorry, but I missed the proclamation where it said that bitcointalk is a libertarian club and anyone who attempts to point out the glaring omissions in the typical libertarian's knowledge with regard to the complexity of the biosphere, the environment, and ecosystems (among other things) gets labeled a troll. If you want a specific example (among many), search for lobster on this site.

And if you wish to simultaneously accuse me and AyeYo of being trolls, here is the correct grammar:


Your speculation regarding our sameness is amusing, but considering you're a moderator, I think your speculation needs to be held to a higher standard. As for the claim that we are trolls, perhaps you should consider that we have different opinions from you, and find some posts to be ironic, based on their accusations and choice of words. As an example, if you wish, you're welcome to do a search on AyeYo's posts, looking for a post which contains an image of the globe in black and white, and see where AyeYo has used it in reference to how bitcoin2cash views the world.

Oh, the irony!

I wasn't that impressed with the list. Honestly, I didn't see anything on the list that would dissuade me or really cause me difficulties if I wanted to leave the US in relation to say, if I wanted to leave the US ten or fifteen years ago.

Geez, there's a lot of individuals in this thread who are heavily bought into the drivel spewed forth from the brownlash community. To sum up their conclusions: "Yes, my source of information is from Environment & Climate News, clearly the most trusted source in science reporting, even though it's edited by a guy who has no degree in science, and does not ever practice science, but instead is an advocate of property rights."

I'm sure they'll trot out the Oregon Institute petition next.

I see. So what you're saying is if we didn't have the FDA or patents, market share is determined by who is first to market, right? Thus, the motivation would be all about being first to market, and we know for certain that such a motivator would never ever inspire a company to risk getting a drug or treatment out there before their competition could if it might result in ill effects down the road. Cool.

I will. His speech is all well and good, and speaks about individual liberty, but he doesn't address the very real issues brought to attention by the scientists quoted in the link below.

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/starting_over/

Shoes vs. roads. You're right - we don't buy our shoes from the government. Ever stop and wonder why shoes are free market goods and roads typically are not?


Sounds like a misguided attempt to confuse consumer dissatisfaction with massive and redundant construction projects.


Where exactly was someone telling you that you couldn't wear shoes in your house, and furthermore, why are you implying that we're scared of such choices?


You've used the word 'we' several times here. Who is 'we'? Do you mean, 'we, the people', as in a declaration of independence? Do you mean 'we', as to imply that we all will run our businesses according to some set of laws - you know - like a set of laws enforced by a government?


You mean you're describing how you fantasize it might work, without really factoring in anything that has been presented to you here.

Honestly, Bitcoin is likely dead unless Africa actually adopts it, which could happen.

As I stated a few posts back, imagine the joy of staying current with each road owner's differing set of policies, regulations, requirements, monitoring equipment, contracts, and so on. Imagine how much fun it would be to research the different policies and fees, and staying abreast of changes due to change in ownership, and so on. You too can live the libertarian dream.

Well said. And the home buyer who voluntarily decides to take up residence in the HOA and pay the fee is directly analogous to the individual who immigrates to the US (or whatever nation they have chosen to take up residence in).

Neither.