I am am somewhat surprised that with the advanced level of knowledge in here - that some in here still have no clue about the tragedy that's happened to our environment. And to those of you like this - do you not realize how much the temperature is expected to change by just 2050? Do you not realize the ramifications of this? How the hell can you not get this? And are you effin crazy? We should all be extremely concerned about the environment and knowing-understanding that if we are to err - that it must be on the side of the environment. JFC, come on, quit rattling off crazy foxnews & teaparty talking points.
Maybe we're on the same page, for the most part. I'm not entirely familiar with your views, as expressed on this site, long term. You might want to read this fairly long post I made some time ago: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=97243.msg1073879#msg1073879Really, I think that the majority of us in here are on the same page for the vast majority of the issues - disagreeing mostly to small degrees. And I've been enjoying the read, so thanks I'll check out your post. Check out my post now, if you would, please. And I'd say that I'm definitely not on the same page with many, if not the vocal majority here. |
|
|
|
What good is your point without factoring the relevance of scale?
See below...
But individuals won't. And that's the whole point. Thus regulations. Thank you for pointing out the ineffectiveness of your views.
Individuals already have - that was my point!  Obviously scale is relevant, but we're not talking orders of magnitude here. 12.5% is impressive considering the powers that governments have! I'm sorry that you think so low of your fellow man that you think coercion is the only means of protecting ecosystems... We humans are a better lot than you make us out to be.  12.5 percent isn't enough. Scale matters. |
|
|
|
We would love to slant all, rather than most, of the laws in your favor. Unfortunately, that raises the problem of tar, feathers and pointy pitchforks. But we're working on it.
Love,
The Government.
Contracts resulting from voluntary agreements are so tiresome... Hey, if slavery was allowed, but voluntary, I'm certain plenty of businesses would be all over it, and they'd get workers, since the workers would be provided food and board. But we don't have slavery, do we? We have employment that pays you barely enough to pay for food and board. |
|
|
|
I am am somewhat surprised that with the advanced level of knowledge in here - that some in here still have no clue about the tragedy that's happened to our environment. And to those of you like this - do you not realize how much the temperature is expected to change by just 2050? Do you not realize the ramifications of this? How the hell can you not get this? And are you effin crazy? We should all be extremely concerned about the environment and knowing-understanding that if we are to err - that it must be on the side of the environment. JFC, come on, quit rattling off crazy foxnews & teaparty talking points.
Maybe we're on the same page, for the most part. I'm not entirely familiar with your views, as expressed on this site, long term. You might want to read this fairly long post I made some time ago: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=97243.msg1073879#msg1073879 |
|
|
|
Which implies that the other 7/8 of the world's protected nature preserves are publicly owned. It sounds like the methods you advocate are about 1/7 as effective as government methods. I advocate both, to even larger degrees.
That's a gross oversimplification. When you consider that private entities don't have the power of compulsory purchase, (directly) enacting legislation in their favour, taxing for revenue, I think that 1/8th figure should be considered impressive. Besides, the point wasn't about scale, it was to demonstrate that private property can be conducive to environmental protection. What good is your point without factoring the relevance of scale? Is it due to you not understanding the issue? No, they should fuck with you if necessary. As an example, did you know that in many cities in California, you are forbidden to cut down oak trees of certain sizes? That's fucking with you. And I'm so glad for it.
Here's a perfect example of an unjust law - being coerced into preserving a species on behalf of those who want it preserved. I'm all for conservation, but it's something that individuals who support it should do themselves. But individuals won't. And that's the whole point. Thus regulations. Thank you for pointing out the ineffectiveness of your views. |
|
|
|
Your damn "values" should stop at the point where they fuck with me AND vice-versa.
No, they should fuck with you if necessary. As an example, did you know that in many cities in California, you are forbidden to cut down oak trees of certain sizes? That's fucking with you. And I'm so glad for it. |
|
|
|
To give a broader perspective, an eighth of the world's protected nature reserves are privately owned ( http://www.economist.com/node/748602). This is in spite of government interventions. Which implies that the other 7/8 of the world's protected nature preserves are publicly owned. It sounds like the methods you advocate are about 1/7 as effective as government methods. I advocate both, to even larger degrees. In fact, it's absolutely necessary. How often do you see urban and suburban areas becoming nature preserves vs natural areas becoming urban and suburban areas? As time passes, we end up with less and less natural areas. Once you learn about ecosystem services, this will scare you. See the long post I made to which I linked to earlier to understand better. Also, please consider the ratio of the area of a nature preserve's land to its perimeter. This is a very important number. Again, read the long post I made to which I linked to earlier to understand it. People don't need to be coerced into doing good things. [/quote] Not even worth replying to, given my above statements. |
|
|
|
If people don't want to conserve the environment without government, why would they want to with?
That's kind of the point. The EPA, among others, can force them. You know, that whole coercion thing you're against? If you don't want to, then tough shit, you do need to be coerced. |
|
|
|
dominicus, in a theoretical perfect world where we could track every molecule we might have success tying ecological health to property rights. "Waitaminnit, that's my water you're poisoning. I'm taking you to court, buddy."
And if someone gets poisonous chemicals into your food at home? Castle doctrine. Time to get your gun.
You fail to recognize that we already live in a world where you can sue and engage in private arbitration. We already have class action lawsuits. We already have demonstrators. We already have conservation groups. You need to understand how property owners seek near term profits. Property owners do not seek alignment with neighbors to decrease or eliminate edge effects. Property owners do seek to create fences. Read the long post I made which I provided a link to a few posts back. Argue against it to make your point. |
|
|
|
thats cool that you want that, i say more power to you. capitalism is about recognizing that some people do want to buy a bunch of crap the make their neighbors jealous and respecting their right to do that so long as are working to earn those things and not stealing them. its about freedom, the freedom to live a minimalist life OR not.
I'm still trying to figure out the diff between capitalism and socialism. The basic premise (I think; someone correct me on this) of capitalism is to take profit, invest it in some business (your own or someone else's), and then make more profit and repeat. Is this not allowed in socialism, or is it setup so that it cannot be done as easily or at all? Well there is a huge range of disagreement on exactly what these terms mean. They mean so many different things to so many different people so as to render them almost meaningless. what i can do is explain what they mean to me. Capitalism is the physical manifestation of the generally held belief within a society that the individual (individuals) who creates (create) a thing is (are) the one (ones) who has (have) the right to determine whether or how that thing is used. Socialism on the other hand is the physical manifestation of the generally held belief within a society that the members of that society share the right to determine whether or how that thing is used. Without delving too deeply into the economic arguments in favor of the former, which are myriad and some of which quite complex and nuanced, there is one simple intuitive explanation that is, in my opinion, in and of its self sufficient to make the case. Say you have 365 people living on an imaginary island in an imaginary society. Every day all 365 go to the river to catch fish with their hands. They eek out a meager living this way with each person catching 1 fish each day. One day someone gets the idea of creating a net. he thinks that if he makes this net he may be able to catch twice as many fish per day. In order to create the net he would have to go a day with out fish, a very large cost indeed for a person who is already on the brink of starvation. Under socialism he would get to use his net 1 day per year. it is very unlikely that he would decide to go a full day with out eating in order to have a net for 1 day per year. In fact everyone who ever thought of the idea would come to the same conclusion and no nets would ever be made and the society would net (no pun intended) 365 fish per day. Under capitalism anyone who made a net would get to use it every day, and so everyone would decide it was worth it, everyone would make a net and the society as a whole would net 720 fish per day. This simple change of allowing the person to keep the products of his labor for himself has made the society as a whole twice as wealthy. obviously i oversimplified and took a lot of things for granted. for example its unlikely that EVERYONE would make a net even under capitalism but it ought to be sufficient to communicate the general idea of dispersed benefits and concentrated costs (its weird saying that because im used to talking about the problem of concentrated benefits and dispersed costs). Thank you for the 19th century view on society and the environment. We live in the 21st century now, and we have a good understanding of the dynamics and interplay between our actions and the reactions of the environment. As I've told you many many times, your views demonstrate your ignorance of a lot of things, and that renders you unqualified to speculate like you do in your own vacuum of knowledge. Have fun throwing out your little ideas. But they're kind of worthless absent any further knowledge. Must I point you once again to this long post I made a long time ago? It seems I need to. The post in question: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=97243.msg1073879#msg1073879 |
|
|
|
Well, yes, OOP is hard to understand in first place. BUT it is state of the art  Sort of, I guess. I think Lisp macros are more state of the art than OOP, but Lisp has been around for 55 years. Lisp macros are Lisp functions that you write which are in your program, yet they run at compile time (not run time), and what they do is dissect your macro calls and reconstruct them into whatever code you want, which then runs at run time. And Lisp allows you to do this magnificently, because Lisp code (and Lisp macros) is nothing but an s-expression (nested lists, so to speak), which is essentially the native data structure in Lisp, thus Lisp has a rich set of functions to dissect and construct s-expressions. |
|
|
|
"Climb a mountain, find a tree, carve a hole in it, whisper the secret into the hole and cover it up with mud." - From two different movies, each related. The origins are likely a Chinese proverb. As spoken in one of the movies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubJ09At2Pnk |
|
|
|
The key is, what answer would get me the next contract or grant.
Cooling! Exxon/Mobil will then give you your next grant. |
|
|
|
Do you mean the ecosystem concerns? If someone can be proved to be damaging the environment, then they should be sued in court.
This is the heart of the problem. When all the neighbors are damaging the environment, they all look the other way. When all the neighbors are ignorant of what ecosystem services are, nothing gets stopped. When damages have to occur before any action is taken, it's kind of too late. Knowledge is key. And you have yet to address the scenario I laid out for you about the driveway and the land next to it. And I'm still wondering if you even really know what ecosystem services are. |
|
|
|
As I've said, this is all open to interpretation. What I've given you isn't a code of law, it's a principle to guide the creation of one. I believe the best way to do this is through a common law style system of private courts, arbitrators, and tribunals. To satisfy your hunger for answers right now, I'll give you my opinions: So building a sand castle means all the sand is yours?
Depends who owns the beach. If the answer is no-one, then yes. Think hard about this one. Is the sand yours for removal? Can someone else destroy the castle? Three days later? What about when the sand castle erodes away? Or, let's take it a step further into what you're actually implying: building a sand castle means that section of the beach is yours?
No. Common sense applies. Common sense is the gateway to slippery slopes. You build a dam, so that section of river is yours?
Interesting one. If the river isn't owned in the first place, then I'd say yes. So do you own the water? Which water? Anyway, you're still not addressing other concerns that I've mentioned. Very important concerns. |
|
|
|
FirstAscent, my examples (unproductive land) are only a rough illustration of how the principle could be applied. I'm not saying that's the way it should be applied, nor do I know how it should be. Any property you derive from your body (i.e. labour) is rightfully yours.
That's an interesting proclamation. Why do you believe this? That seems self evident to me. Can you give any examples of when products of your labour aren't rightfully yours? If you're going to suggest employment, then that's a voluntary exchange of your labour for a salary. If you're going to suggest taxation, then that is theft and wrong under libertarian natural rights. So building a sand castle means all the sand is yours? Or, let's take it a step further into what you're actually implying: building a sand castle means that section of the beach is yours? You build a dam, so that section of river is yours? You burn down some rainforest to farm. So that land is now yours? But really, I asked you some more questions. I need answers to those so we can discuss more intelligently these topics. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
