I just hope they don't all amount to consequentialist arguments i.e. the environment will be spoiled unless we stomp all over property rights. I'll go ahead and grant you that it will be spoiled, for the sake of argument, (even though in all actuality, I doubt it) but it matters not.

Self-defense is defense from an immediate threat of physical violence in proportion to the threat and directly targeted at the person or persons making the threat.

If someone says, "Wait until I get a gun, so I can kill you." then that's an argument for not allowing them to have a gun. If someone says, "Wait until I get a gun, so I can defend myself from attackers." then you have no right to stop them. Likewise, you have no right to stop someone from owning nukes if they haven't made any threats. These "Shankill Butchers" obviously wouldn't get to own nukes. The only thing wrong with them was that they weren't given the same treatment after they were caught.

Those quotations represent a very different kind of thinking from my own. I'm simply not overly concerned with the perpetuation of our species. It's a nice idea but not too important. I want people currently living to have full and happy lives, happy by their own measure and no one else's. I love humans, not humanity. That's not something that can be argued over because it's deeply emotional. It's based on my experiences and my disposition. If that's what you hope to change, I highly doubt you'll have any success.

I'm sure you can come up with more reading than I have time to read so put your best foot forward. I'll let you know when I've read this and you can quiz me on it if you like.

Yes. Did you know that I wasn't born a libertarian? In fact, I voted for Obama because I wanted him to give me "free healthcare". I was all for socialized medicine. This whole libertarianism thing is actually kind of new to me. I could be swayed to your position. What's doubtful, however, is that you could sway me to your position. But if you've got some articles or books you'd like to recommend, I'd be happy to read them and I'll give them the same harsh criticism that I gave the libertarian authors, which I ultimately failed to counter and so I begrudgingly joined their ranks.

I can't be defeated because this isn't a fight. I can only be swayed to your position. Calling me names and speaking in riddles isn't going to work. You should try something else.

Yes, because it all about defeating me personally. Who cares if any ideas get challenged or examined. It's all about me knowing that I've been vanquished and that you get the last word. That's so important.

*face palm*

Please stop obsessing over me. I really don't matter in the grand scheme of things.

BLAH BLAH BLAH INSULT INSULT BLAH BLAH

That's all I read. Get back to me when you can control your temper.

The same way a thread about intellectual property became a thread about the environment. The statists run out of straws very quickly.

How about you exercise your manners?


That's not how most economists use the term "scarce".


Who said anything about proportionally? That's your straw man, not mine. It depends on how elastic the demand is. However, it's very much the case that as price increases even the most inelastic demands will find substitutes.


Only if demand is fixed, which it never is. As the price goes up, the demand goes down. Focusing solely on the fact that the price is higher neglects the fact that there is a lower demand. Do the math. If a million people want to buy something at ten dollars profit per unit but only one person wants to buy the same thing at one million dollars profit per unit, you make more profit but setting your price at ten dollars. Price is not the only variable. It's also quantity demanded at that price. This is basic economics.


Let me know when you have a point to make.

You don't own land on the moon.

It's the old myth that nature is whatever man doesn't do. It's as old as Aristotle. Spiders weave webs. Terminates build mounds. Humans use tools. It's all natural.

...what does Babies"R"Us sell?

What makes you think you can just say "wrong" without any kind of argument to back it up?


Let's just call them suppliers instead of reinventing the wheel. The short answer is, marginal revenue approaches marginal cost and the demand at that price point drives the supply. I think it would be easier if you would just make your point instead of playing Socrates.


That's your job. Please explain why it's irrelevant since you claim it's so.

You've got it backwards actually (See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supply_and_demand).


Without scarcity, this model of supply and demand is irrelevant. Like I said, you have it exactly backwards. What was your point again?

As natural resources become more scarce, what's available for purchase right now will decrease.


Yes it does. Notice where I said "demand drops". Here's a good example. It used to be the case that teenagers would spend their weekends driving around aimlessly. When gas prices rose, many of those teenagers stopped doing it. If that doesn't address human behavior, I don't know what does.

Define "too far". Is it just your personal opinion or what?


When supply drops but demand doesn't, price goes up and then demand drops.

No, just your simplistic formulation of it.


If it was the last lake on Earth would I drain it? At some point, the environment has value and people won't destroy that because it can make them wealthy. Will we have every last lake on Earth saved? No.

I'm being ironic. I don't see what's wrong with that. You should take my comments as meaning the exact opposite of what I say. For example, when I joked that "none of us are interested in our own survival" and therefore "at no point would most of us voluntarily decide that we should be careful how much we change things", it should be taken to mean the opposite. We are interested in our own survival and therefore we will voluntarily regulate our behavior. I'm sure you knew that though.