I agree with him on a few fundamental issues, but I think he is absolutely nuts with 70% of the stuff he says. That being said, he is still 99% better than all of the other Republican candidates combined.

Edit: I am seriously about to consider switching my party affiliation just to help RP out.

Probably the former, but straw polls generally mean very little. I'd expect nothing other than Romney or Perry v. Obama at this point.

Is it weird or hypocritical that I go about my life freely without thought of governance but think it's a really good thing that others feel constrained by laws and government?

Or am I just some kind of psycho?  I really just don't trust the judgment of others.

Delicious.

I'll let you figure it out.

Wow.  Is life in America really that bad?  Surely you are over-dramatising?

Political ideals are like a hammer without any building materials. Mostly useless. Furthermore, is your focus on building houses or blacksmithing? One would require a framing hammer, the other a ball peen hammer. Choose your vocation, then acquire the building materials, then your hammer.

Books on political ideals are like hammers as well, and the knowledge upon which to apply them are the building materials. Choose your calling, then acquire the knowledge, and then select the political ideal which furthers that calling.

Thus, recommending books whose main focus is a political ideology is like recommending a hammer in the vacuum of any knowledge about the real world. Far more constructive (the metaphorical use of the word 'constructive' works well here) is to recommend or request books on real world issues that the world faces.

There is a definite imbalance here related to the book recommendations.

To further the analogy, I suspect that many libertarians here like to call themselves libertarians the way another likes to wear a costume. You too can buy a tool belt and fit a framing hammer into its loop and walk around feeling like a can do handyman. So go arm yourself with the latest book on libertarian thought, and walk about spouting the latest libertarian values - the ultimate rebel without a cause.

Of course, we all know what the term rebel without a cause means - it means you've got a political ideology, but no cause. Like I was saying, find a cause first.

I've presented a metaphor which supports my views. Metaphor is a good way of making an argument when the processes are in someway similar. And I think I can argue well enough that the metaphor can be pushed far and therefore has power.

In an economy, there are many agents buying and selling, surviving either by merit or by established power. In nature it is the same, regarding survival adaptation and other matters such as diversity. Ecosystem metaphors are seen by many as a good way of looking at the economy.

The reason why libertarians and capitalists get upset about ecosystem metaphors is because it touches a very raw nerve? With a huge part of the world economy driven by ecosystem services, use of the nature metaphors reminds them that a large part of the economy does not exist to their ideology, and yet it plainly does and justifies regulation on a global scale.

And thats before you touch them with the ticklestick of global warming.

You may like Immanuel Go's picture better, but you haven't indicated that you're interested in methods to make sure that such environments will be around much longer or in abundance given your political ideological beliefs.

If you wish to look at extremes, start looking at extremes with regard to libertarian policies.

Regarding the confiscation of all motor vehicles, how could society agree to such a thing if, as you say, it's really extreme?

Regarding the wrong thread, I can turn the tables on you and state that if the subject of the thread is how libertarians would handle Global Warming, then you have no business asking me how a non libertarian society handles extreme examples.
If you're so insistent on sticking to the letter of the thread's topic, then answer the question posed by the thread's title.

Libertarian Capitalists believes that if you do not govern, if you leave to chaos - then the emergent outcome will be better than meddling; out will come greatest productivity from less government intervention.

And in a sense they are right. Competition leads to the aggressive seeking out of all niches. In a narrow sense, there is greater economic activity. And this is what it looks like:



Social Democrats advocate a mixed economy where the state is prepared to invest time and effort into planning for the future. And this is what happens when you plan and maintain:



Remember, there may be more Biomass raised by leaving entirely to nature (Biomass analogous to wealth measured by GDP) than the forced unnatural occurrence of a field of potatoes. But the latter will feed more people.


http://a-new-red-dawn.blogspot.com/2010/11/this-is-what-libertarian-capitalism.html

Seriously, are you twelve? Sorry for the insult, but your question kind of deserves it - see below.

To begin with, it's not my system. It's called the state of the World today, and the participating governments, which do in fact apply regulation, or in your words, coercion. If I could, I would like to be able to influence policy to get governments to enact regulation to help save the environment.

As I said, I don't have a system. I'm a participant in the real world.

So what? Call it what you want. What needs to be done needs to be done.

They just used a hack to get more money one too many times... the disasters always follow that!

(how many of you played the original simcity? )

I'm sure they've got a closet full of porn tapes and craigslist photos to keep them occupied during those rough times.

USA: Kyoto agreement? Well fuck that.
Earth: USA? Well fuck that.

Perhaps you should rethink your insistent use of the term 'coercive government'. There are other possibilities, such as 'collective action', or 'majority defined regulations'. Whatever the case, consistent and widespread proactively organized action is necessary to address environmental issues.