Wouldn't you be more credible if you took it upon yourself to learn as best as you are able the deeper interactions of the Earth's ecosystems, and what has occurred up until this point, before advocating your own ideas of policy?
Here's a little nugget of data for you: the average rate of species extinction over the lifetime of life on Earth is one per million per year. That number has been arrived at through independent methods. Today, the average rate of species extinction is 1,000 to 10,000 per million per year. In other words, species are going extinct today at a rate that is 1,000 to 10,000 times the normal rate. This all ties into biodiversity, which is a huge subject that deals with how the Earth self regulates itself.
I'll give it more thought. In the meantime, I'll refrain from engaging in biodiversity policies and regulatory conversations referring to such things. Consider my contribution to that subject matter as superficial and cursory. However and notwithstanding that, I also suggest you take great care when infringing on the freedoms and liberties of others, even despite their ignorance. A parting quote: "Government is not reason, it is not eloquence – it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master! It is an instrument of force and unless our conscience is clear that we would not hesitate to put a man to death, put him in jail or forcibly deprive him of his property for failing to obey a given law, we should oppose it." --George Washington |
|
|
|
|
This is how I would see food regulatory/rating agencies as operating:
You foodies out there think there are some safe ways and not so safe ways for preparing food. Start a charter, organization or association of like minded individuals. Write a treatise on food safety and preparation. Publicize it. Have dues-paying members support it. Get creative. I'm sure you'll find a way to support yourselves (an insurance company maybe???).
Once you've got a decent following, you advertise to the local pubs and restaurants that you'd like them to submit to inspections so that they can be rated as safe by your criteria. If they don't want to join you or submit to your inspections, then the public will know this as you'll report that fact.
The public will then know that said establishment doesn't wish to be reviewed and that the buyer should beware.
However, if the establishment does prescribe to inspections, that fact would also be made known and John/Jane Q. public would be informed and be more likely to frequent said establishment.
See the difference? I'm sure that's just one of many similar arrangements that could work without being forceful.
|
|
|
|
Yes, I can. Because you keep thinking that pollution is the only negative effect. If you'd use your imagination, you'd realize that there are other damages in addition to pollution. Things you can't even imagine without learning more. Furthermore, a class action lawsuit cannot exist until damage is done. We're at a stage in our civilization where we want to prevent more damage from happening proactively. That means regulation.
I suggest you suspend any further speculation on how your ideas might work until you've taken the time to better understand all the issues that are at stake here.
Of course there's always something else. I just thought I'd tackle one issue at a time. The world is a big place, and a lot is going on in it. It would be presumptuous of me to think I know everything. Eat the proverbial elephant one bite at a time... |
|
|
|
|
It appears we as humans have very little faith in each other to do anything remotely fair, just, or safe. What are we? Just a bunch of animals? Sheesh!
Oh wait, yeah I forgot. There are the perfect and righteous humans (I'm speaking to Hawker) and the evil wicked people (that would be me and bitcoins2cash presumably).
I bow down to my most benevolent overlords...
|
|
|
|
Imagination doesn't matter. We are talking about basic principles. I asked you if its proven that food regulation is the best way to reduce food poisoning, do you accept that its valid for society to force regulation on food providers? Your answer is no - people have to die first and then their agents can sue.
As I said, when you first posted "The Law", you leave out society. To you it doesn't matter if your ideas mean people will die. That's fine; its good to be clear where you stand and what type of society you want to live in.
I need a time machine. If you have one of those, then you have the answers and you're just holding out on us. Do tell, what proof do you have that your food regulation would be any better than my specific criminal prosecution methods? Now I'm asking you a question and I expect an answer. |
|
|
|
I take issue with your proposed solution. First of all, your solution is only addressing local effects, and requires the neighbor to be intelligent and knowledgeable with regard to the effects. Furthermore, your thinking is too local and short term. This only supports my theory that long term ecological management is neither something libertarians are concerned about, nor even aware of.
I have offered you the chance to educate yourself on these matters by recommending reading material. Are you earnestly interested, or would you rather restrain your existing knowledge on these subjects - subscribing to the theory that what you don't know won't hurt your ideas?
Not having any imagination of my own, but something more rudimentary, I propose the following: If I suspected my neighbor was emitting foul substances, or I watched the tele' and I saw somebody I thought had some knowledge in said emissions, I then do one of two things. First, I educate myself. If it is determined that my understanding is clear and evident that said emissions cause harm, I bring charges against my neighbor. Alternatively, if I don't want to educate myself, I call the pollution expert over to my place and have him do a proper investigation. If there is anything of merit, then we sue, if not, we don't. I lied. There's a third option. I rally all of my neighbors, both far and wide. We do a long term analysis with global reach, investigating every plausible scenario and combination of interaction. If it can be determined with some degree of accuracy that the pollution did me harm, I sue for damages for that part of that contribution my neighbor made to the overall pollution of my environment. I then assist those neighbors who have experienced the same issues, and then ask them to sue, or they allow me to sue on their behalf. A class action lawsuit could work here. Rinse and repeat. See how long the polluter stays in business if he doesn't change his ways. Of course, everybody emits some amount of pollution to some effect upon his neighbors, so now everybody's a target. This is about to get very interesting... Of course, I haven't much of an imagination, so maybe you could help me out with that...? |
|
|
|
Like Bitcoin2Cash, you are an extreme libertarian. You will never allow inspectors to walk in and close down an establishment. Your ideal freedom is more important than the reality that people will die. Are you sure of that position?
It would seem likely, that if said establishment was preparing food that was known to be causing physical discomfort, perhaps up to and including death, the likelyhood that that establishment could stay in business would be very short. If I had an imagination, I might see this possible scenario playing out: First it is made known the food prepared has caused harm. Second, customers who have been harmed (or their agents acting on their behalf) bring charges against the proprietors. The proprietors are found guilty. The restitution wouldn't be cheap. If something more sinister is afoot, the proprietors would go to jail for their crimes. There is nobody to run the place, and nobody dares associate themselves with said establishment due to their shaky track record. The establishment goes out of business. That's if I had an imagination, but I don't. Maybe you could help me out with that...? |
|
|
|
I asked him a question along similar lines in my most recent post here. I'm still waiting for an answer.
Likewise as with food preparation, any emissions or effusions that emanate forth from a property you should first determine the extent of damage or trespass it imposes upon their neighbors. If said pollution causes damages, then determine with specificity what restitution should be made. This should be done on a case-by-case basis. You have cause when you can prove damages. |
|
|
|
It was a question. If its proven that food regulation is the best way to reduce food poisoning, do you accept that its valid for society to force regulation on food providers?
Except on a case-by-case basis, no. You should prove that any method of food preparation has, or is about to, imminently bring harm to an unsuspecting victim. It would seem to overstep the bounds of proper jurisprudence to direct the specific actions and materials a food preparer incorporates without cause. As a simple example: You could buy a sample of food from a suspected food establishment that was prepared in a manner you deem dangerous and then examine if the food has chemicals or biologics in it that would cause physical harm to the customer. If it does, you prosecute for food poisoning and sue for damages, if any. |
|
|
|
Maybe we can easily agree then  If its proven that food regulation is the best way to reduce food poisoning, do you accept that its valid for society to force regulation on food providers? Make your case. I'm all ears. |
|
|
|
Then we differ. In my world, the people who are on the land with legal title are the owners. Their right comes from the society they are in and unless you destroy their society their ownership won't change. Trust me, I have been to eastern Turkey and they would actively defend their land if you tried to interfere.
As I said earlier, you don't want to look at the real world consequences of your ideas and you have no interest in accepting other people's ideas. It makes debate circular. If someone is concerned about food poisoning, your logic is "My list of rules says food safety rules are a breach of my property rights so its all wrong and who cares about people dying." Would it not be better if you did consider the real world instead of just ideas?
I considered all of the ideas and options, looked at the past and determined that the position or ideology I side with would be the least damning. To wit, I do care if people get poisoned or not. I want no one to get hurt. Can I prevent all of it, both criminal and accidental? Nope, nobody can do that. I always consider the real world in all of my responses, if anything, I try to be as careful as possible to introduce the least amount of injury and external influence to everyone. That is the goal and mission of the laws and justice. The least harm and the most freedoms and liberties, right? The real world is only what you make it. It merely depends on the actors. Some societal laws are okay, others are absolutely draconian. |
|
|
|
True, debating complex subjects in snippet form is no substitute for learning. But neither is assuming one man, or even an army of supposed knowledgeable men should be directing and controlling the rest of the world based on speculative data, especially when it involves a lot of guessing (probabilities and statistics). That's what we affectionately call hubris.
Please back up your claim that the scientific data available is flimsy and can only be interpreted as speculative. I would say you're the one speculating. No, even worse, you're simply choosing to be unaware of how in depth the scientific studies are, and how damning the data is. I've offered you reading material, but it seems it's more convenient for you to be blissfully unaware. The assumption was that the data (whatever it's origins) was speculative. I wasn't starting with global anthropogenic climate change data per se. It was a broad stroke assumption about complex descriptions and interactions involving tens or hundreds of variables with varying degrees of influence. Piecing that together may be construed as second guessing. It could lead to false assumptions or improper conclusions with partial or ineffective solutions. Lots of what-ifs and wherefores. Not impossible to solve, but any solutions may also be just as difficult to produce as is their efficacy and outcomes. Unless were just going to go back to being cave men... |
|
|
|
So help me understand you by making your position clear. Let me repeat the question:
If you go to eastern Turkey, Israel or northern Cyprus, you see property that is owned and cared for by its owners. Try to take it and they have a legal system that will punish you. Dispute their ownership and they will product title deeds.
If you go across the borders, you will meet Armenians, Arabs and Greek Cypriots who will tell you of rape, massacres and people running for their lives from the same properties. They have title deeds to those properties and if you go to court in Armenia, the West Bank or southern Cyprus, the court will tell you these people are the legal owners. In the Palestinian and Cypriots' cases, they often still have the doorkeys from the houses they fled from.
Who is the real owner of those houses? The Turks and Israelis that live in them or the Armenians/Arabs/Greek Cypriots?
Given the conditions and circumstances you stated, the Turks and Israelis are the occupiers of the land/houses. The Cypriots are the rightful owners. Your question is one of is-ought. |
|
|
|
FredericBastiat, was that a long way of saying that ownership in the legal real world sense is not enough? Thats what you said last time. If so, thats fine. You have your ideas and they are lovely. If not, then you really need to make yourself clear.
I've never said ownership in the real-world "legal" sense was not enough, if anything it's excessively complicated and contradictory. In addition to that, it also depends on what country, what part of said country, what jurisdiction and what judge you have. My take on ownership and property is quite concise. It was your version that's convoluted. Who needs to make themselves more clear here? Not me. My treatise on "The Law" is what I believe. I would assume that isn't too hard a read. |
|
|
|
Complex systems (i.e. the Earth) are not subjects to be summarized in a paragraph. It takes a sustained interest level (months to years) which allows an individual to absorb lots of articles and books. Any single item, evaluated out of context, won't go very far.
Do you really believe that debating snippets is a substitute for genuine learning? Before the end of the day, I will post a set of books that I earnestly recommend, as well as some PDFs or HTML articles, which won't cost you any money. Please don't pretend that my offer is anything other than what it is, which is to allow you to have a greater understanding of the complexities of our world, which in turn, might affect the political views you value.
True, debating complex subjects in snippet form is no substitute for learning. But neither is assuming one man, or even an army of supposed knowledgeable men should be directing and controlling the rest of the world based on speculative data, especially when it involves a lot of guessing (probabilities and statistics). That's what we affectionately call hubris. My take on it is this: the more obvious the affect (man's inputs) the more direct the approach and the more "hands on". The less obvious the affect, or limited the understanding is, or the data is of questionable interpretation or origins, the less direct, and therefore less intervention, is advisable. Don't guess, don't surmise, don't purport, don't assume, don't speculate, just prove or disprove then direct your actions in accordance. If I were to compose a scale, this is what it would look like: (Less understanding/intervention) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (More understanding/intervention). |
|
|
|
FirstAscent, you misunderstand Frederic. We established in the IP thread that he works on the basis that only ideas matter and the real world consequences are immaterial. He uses phrases like "factual ownership" as if the there were some other more important kind of ownership. So pointing out that something is impractical achieves nothing as he doesn't care. All that matters to him is his ideas. And it is his ideas only.
Frederic - you'll remember this from our conversation about who owns lands in Eastern Turkey, Israel and northern Cyprus.
An idea, being intangible, is only within the confines of the mind of the man who believes it, regardless of its truthfulness. So, your ideas are yours, and my ideas are mine. Okay...? Only your ideas matter to you, and they are only your ideas too. If we're describing tangible things, it matters not what our attitudes towards them are, as that would not change their composition. My attitude toward how gravity works doesn't change the effects of gravity any more than your attitudes and ideas towards it, changes them either. I remember our conversations about the Turks, Israelies and Cypriots. Given specific instances and evidences regarding who owned what and when, and why who took what away from whom, could resolve the issues of ownership. The enforcement of that could get messy, but nobody was disputing that wouldn't be the case. The argument you were positing was the fact that mere enforcement determines ownership, which isn't true (assuming rightful ownership justifications), it only indicates current possession. Ownership is a concept wherein just one of the components would be the defense of said property. |
|
|
|
When I read your responses, I see an intelligent person, but one who is willfully stubborn when it comes to clinging to a political ideology, as opposed to reevaluating his world view. We are in agreement regarding what types of things require regulation, to some extent. I refer to the latter type of regulation you have mentioned above. But I am in disagreement over your proposed method of enforcement. With the world's current population, we cannot assume that there are enough neighbors who can understand the synergistic effects of trophic cascades, edge effects, riparian zones, extirpation, pollination, HIPPO, OPPIH, etc., etc., etc. Your model may look good from your current base of knowledge. Read Edward O. Wilson's The Future of Life and then get back to me with your world view. I will remain stubborn in my beliefs until you demonstrate good reasoning to lead me to believe otherwise. Provide an example, don't "reference" entire books. I'm not, at this moment in time, going to go purchase a book just so I can further extend this conversation. Don't get me wrong, I like to learn new things, but I'd like to see you supply a specific scenario you have in mind and then we could argue the finer points of regulatory implementation and methodologies. I understand there are complexities beyond my knowledge and experience. This is true. Can you provide a scenario which would demonstrate the legitimacy of your position? |
|
|
|
And this only serves to underscore a point I have been making, which is to say, if you are ignorant of scientific data, either willfully or simply because you have not been exposed to the data, then you are neither qualified to influence policy nor can your actions on your land go unregulated.
Furthermore, you have completely failed to address a very important question that I asked you, and I will not let you ignore it. Perhaps your ignoring of it was by design? Tell me, if the scientific data is correct, demonstrate how property rights is a complete and robust solution in of itself, without regulation.
I would have to agree, if you're ignorant of the scientific data, you shouldn't be influencing policy. I'm not sure what I'm ignoring. We are speaking in generalizations, so I'm not sure exactly under what circumstances your question applies to regulation. Everybody's experience or interaction with their environment, including their neighbor, will be unique. I really don't like the cast-a-wide-net type of regulation, any more than I like treating every murderer the same way, despite the fact that dead is dead. However, if the scientific data you're referring to indicates some sort of measurable annoyance, then that specific type of interaction could be regulated (I prefer the word prosecuted). To be very crystal clear, if by regulation you mean to define what types of property I can own or who I can trade it with (i.e. you tell me I can't own coal because it could pollute) then I don't agree with your version of regulation. On the other hand, if the coal I burn pollutes the property you possess, then that action you could possibly regulate (the unconstrained emissions). All actions require at least two actors to determine crime. I believe there is no such thing as a victimless crime. To wit, you could regulate the actions and actors depending on the severity they impart to the other properties in their vicinity, but you shouldn't regulate the material itself. Neither could your regulations disproportionately impose greater harm to the violator than the original crime. The greater the crime, the greater the time (i.e., pickpockets are different than murderers). To regulate another man's property implies you are a part owner in their possessions. A fun little example would be cocaine. If I, as a citizen, possess cocaine, I'm a criminal. However if you're a DEA agent, and you confiscate the cocaine, you're now in possession of it. Wouldn't that, by the law (assuming equity application) make you the criminal now? Talk about a hot potato! No one could possess cocaine since the law is no respecter of persons. |
|
|
|
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.
I'm not an advocate of ignoring anything, good bad or indifferent, or for that matter, their existence. However, some solutions do require less, not more intervention. Science, or more specifically physics and politics are different animals. The ability to observe, express and describe one's environment is not the same as why we think one type of action over another is necessarily bad or good or somewhere in between. Those are mere attitudes and emotions irrespective of their physical characteristics. Science doesn't require regulation, it just is. 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.
Given those two variables you have 4 combinations. 1) data is correct, problems are real; 2) data is incorrect, problems are real; 3)data is correct, problems aren't real; and finally 4)data is incorrect, and problems aren't real. Just saying. 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. I'm not sure if any political ideology would necessarily produce such a belief outcome. That, at least, is not how I see it. I don't subscribe to the belief that if regulation is unnecessary that scenario 2 is what I believe. My version of regulation and where it applies is when an individual or group of individuals has initiated aggression against me sans provocation. Given that outcome, the aggression towards me requires some "regulation" of the aggressor(s). For all intents and purposes, don't initiate "regulation" against/towards me if I haven't aggressed you first. No carte blanche regulation should ever be applied to all. That violates the premise of Liberty, private property, and life; those things we hold near and dear. 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?
No one can see the future, but we can all speculate based on examples in the past. We should be able to address most of the current issues of the day given enough evidence; and if we can't then, we take a wait and see stance. Probability and statistics aside, I do think there are some things we do as humans that we don' t understand very well, and we should take extra caution to reduce our negative footprint on society, but until such time as we have better measuring capabilities or predictive skills we shouldn't be forcing society as a whole into any particular direction, so aggressive regulation is a no-go, in my opinion. |
|
|
|
Do you stand behind that position with regard to all regulation, in all its forms, as applied to all industries and entities?
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say yes. I'm sure you'll find some edge case that will make me think twice about that position, but hey, why not. That's what were in this forum for, debate, right? |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
