Your answer was no. Given the choice, you will let people die. Its OK for you. You may not want them to die, you may even actively hope they will live but there is no way you will accept proactive intervention to save their lives.
Have I misunderstood your logic? Feel free to tell me if you will accept that society has a right to intervene and prevent those deaths.
My beliefs or the implementations thereof do not directly result in the deaths of other people. That's a non sequitur. It's also a strawman argument. A good example of intervening to prevent a death would be equivalent to a man who has drawn his gun and is about to shoot another. Sure, go ahead and intercede. Hopefully, nobody dies. Can the same be said for food poisoning? That appears to be a little more difficult to effectuate it seems, but that doesn't give you the right to make food regulations to possibly, maybe, or hopefully prevent an accidental poisoning death.Were that the case, it would logically follow that you could insert yourself and your "do-gooders" into my home and inspect and regulate all of the ways I prepare my food in my own home. Are you going there? Because if you are, I will oppose you with every fiber of my being. Actually it does. As we discussed with property rights, any right you have to sell food comes from the society. If society does not want you to poison people, it can insist on food hygiene as part of the license to sell food. You may feel strongly that the right to sell poisoned food is somehow inherent in your humanity but you don't really. Bluntly, you can oppose all you want but you don't have a right to sell food from an unhygienic kitchen. What is society? |
|
|
|
There does seem to be a lot of bad stuff this year, but keep in mind that all the 24 hour news needs something to cover, and nothing gets people's attention like bad news.
Also 30,000 acres is only 50 square miles, which is less than .02% the area of Texas. But hey, a big number sounds better.
Out of curiosity, what do you think all the news agencies would talk about if there were 1) no disasters, 2) no governments? I think that would almost completely starve them of source material. |
|
|
|
David Ike is a fruit cake with extra nuts...
I have an alternate theory. There is a group of inter-galactic unicorns who are attempting to enslave and control mankind. They are at war with the reptilians. David Icke is their leader. |
|
|
|
It's been two days since that list, are you going to post some hard evidence or should we start requesting you be banned?
Troll or not he's an attention whore. Just ignore him and hope he goes away. |
|
|
|
I have come to the conclusion that all those Global Warming deniers have either fled the forum or don't want to get into a sparring match here. I was hoping they would, for the benefit of those on the fence, and for the fun of exposing bad propaganda.
Oh well.
I'm on the fence as I've said before, simply because I haven't bothered to research the matter. I would like to see a debate between you and those who think global warming is not anthropogenic. Perhaps if you make a new thread with a more descriptive (and less pejorative) title you would get better results? The thread title is quite apt, given the nature of those engaging in deception and misdirection. If one chooses to manufacture fake documents, mislead with words, and claim to be environmentally aware through the publication of newsletters, but obviously have a political agenda antithetical to the environment, then one deserves to have his propaganda and organization put under a microscope and dissected. If you are more concerned with bashing your opponents and making yourself feel very intelligent and self-righteous don't wonder why no one wants to debate you. I was simply giving you a friendly suggestion on how you might be able to encourage people to discuss with you. Apparently this thread isn't about discussion. It's about something else. That's fine. |
|
|
|
|
This thread is really jumbled and very confusing. Was anything actually discovered/confirmed? Is Tom Williams = Bruce Wagnar?
|
|
|
|
I have come to the conclusion that all those Global Warming deniers have either fled the forum or don't want to get into a sparring match here. I was hoping they would, for the benefit of those on the fence, and for the fun of exposing bad propaganda.
Oh well.
I'm on the fence as I've said before, simply because I haven't bothered to research the matter. I would like to see a debate between you and those who think global warming is not anthropogenic. Perhaps if you make a new thread with a more descriptive (and less pejorative) title you would get better results? |
|
|
|
Not that it matters as you don't care - your ideas are more important than the consequences for other people of your ideas.
Actually, take heart. Society has decided that our view is more important than bitcoin2cash's views. Don't kid yourself. Most people simply allow the current system to propagate itself without actually actively examining and deciding that it is what they want. Have you ever seen how Americans vote? I'm well aware of all that you mentioned. Just because my views are often nearly opposite bitcoin2cash's does not mean my views are not well thought out or absent of independent thinking. I never said they were. I'm simply pointing out it's not very accurate to say "society has decided" when most of society doesn't give a fuck. I guess you could define "decided" to also mean "absence of a decision" because you could decide by not caring. I suppose. If a majority of society actually got off their asses, thought for themselves and did some critical thinking, who knows what they would actually decide? I just don't think humanity operates that way. There's usually a powerful minority that free-rides off of the passive acceptance of the vast majority. |
|
|
|
God is angry.
Well, something sure seems amiss. So either that, or someone's playing around with HAARP, or we're just living in a time of incredible coincidences. I blame the fallout from Japan. And yeah, I think it'll get worse. I'm tempted to bet that it will peak around November 2012. December 21st, actually. |
|
|
|
|
I read this thread and wonder: who is trolling who?
|
|
|
|
Fair enough. This is a valid point. I'll add it to my list of topics to research.
Excellent. Keywords are "Steady state economics" and "Ecological economics". Now you will explain what you mean by hoarding? Or will you change the subject again? I don't mean anything by hoarding, as I never mentioned it or referenced it, nor do I have much interest in discussing it. Sorry. Sorry. I confused you with FlipPro as you jumped in right where he left off. |
|
|
|
Not that it matters as you don't care - your ideas are more important than the consequences for other people of your ideas.
Actually, take heart. Society has decided that our view is more important than bitcoin2cash's views. Don't kid yourself. Most people simply allow the current system to propagate itself without actually actively examining and deciding that it is what they want. Have you ever seen how Americans vote? |
|
|
|
Fair enough. This is a valid point. I'll add it to my list of topics to research.
Excellent. Keywords are "Steady state economics" and "Ecological economics". Now you will explain what you mean by hoarding? Or will you change the subject again? |
|
|
|
|
I want to see Murphy and Krugman debate. I think it would be very interesting and would provide people with a better understanding of both Austrian economics and Keynsian economics. Also, as of right now, over $60,000 will be donated to the Fresh Food program at the New York food bank. I wish someone would successfully appeal to the Conscience of a Liberal to get Krugman to agree to debate.
|
|
|
|
What needs to happen is to actually grow the economy.
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. lol So I should have said "develop" the economy. Is this where jgraham shows up and begins to spew autistic arguments on semantics? Let's not argue semantics. The point of my post is to demonstrate that conventional economic theory uses a mathematical model that does not account for the limitations as dictated by physics, ecology, etc. Fair enough. This is a valid point. I'll add it to my list of topics to research. |
|
|
|
No. A three and half hour documentary(?) about the Alien take over of earth. I admit that I only watched the first minute. |
|
|
|
I prefer the original as well. When I first discovered the Internets it took me a while to figure out who the heck this guy was and why his video had misleading titles all the time. |
|
|
|
What needs to happen is to actually grow the economy.
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. lol So I should have said "develop" the economy. Is this where jgraham shows up and begins to spew autistic arguments on semantics? |
|
|
|
Has anyone written a fictional story about what it would be like to live on a libertarian island that was intentionally built that way? I'm having a difficult time with understanding how it would work. After the headache Ayn Rand left me, I would hope that this idea has improved in the last several decades.
I sympathize with the Rand headache. I only made it about half-way through Atlas Shrugged before the dramatic, long-winded prose, and idealistic two-dimensional characters defeated me. Withur We might be what you are looking for. I believe it's the author's first book and the writing seemed a little stilted to me at the beginning but I think it improves throughout the book. Libertarianism and Austrian economics are littered throughout the book, but the story is interesting and I thought the anarchic society was handled even-handedly. I don't want to say much more because I don't want to spoil the story. It's a novel with a definite ideological bias but it's pretty good reading. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
