I am talking about the required designer meds they sell you on at the doctor's office.

No it ain't you forced him to something he didn't wanted. Maybe your child gets some neat complication when he gets an vaccine . I would love to see your face when you will explain to him why you forced him to take it if you ever have the chance to do it.

Most of the discussion about global warming are about CO2-emissions,
but not about the reason for it: We all spend too much resources, and we spend them in an ineffizient way.

We know a mechansim, which forces us to do things efficiently: markets.

Why don't they work against wasting resources like oil, coal, water, electricity ...

A lot of important things have no price, that's why they don't cause costs, and so nobody optimizes them.
Which costs are caused by the air-pollution in the US: I read today 184 billion dollars a year. Just a study of Yale, not real economy.
But there are costs, when people have to go to the hospital because of it, or the reduced crops of farmers.

Which costs are caused, when the US buys oil from Equatorial Guinea?

Which costs are caused, when kids in asia are producing my clothes?

In a really libertarian society it's quite complicate to cope with it. Normally these systems tend to melt down, when the "not payed costs" get to high.
In a society with a government and judges it would be easier, if the community wants it.

For me the solution has to be: Pollution, wasting of resources has to have cost/consequences. There are some, ...
Till now it's quite easy to talk about it.

There is always an excuse to help the economy and not the people.

You volunteering? Or planning on making someone else pay for that search?

If you state the conclusion at a high enough level of generality then everyone can agree. Yes, all other things being equal, let's prefer a solution that releases less CO2 to one that releases more. But, of course, that's not where the issue is. The issue is how much pain and sacrifice is justified to reduce CO2 by some particular amount and who will suffer the pain and make the sacrifice.

What's funny to me is that the very same people who are arguing for massive changes to reduce CO2 output are vehemently opposed to any other form of climate engineering. They're arguing for the biggest such attempt of them all, with massive, certain affects on human existence.

To another country controlled by the central-banking oligarchy. Gotcha.

Yeah, see there's the problem. Let's take, for example, global warming and let's assume that AGW isn't established. (The argument works the same for other things such as GMO and climate engineering, but I'll use AGW.)

Does the cautionary principle work this way: "We're not sure humans are responsible for global warming. But trying to restrict our CO2 output will definitely harm our economy and likely cause a reduction in our ability to produce food. It will raise the cost of energy, causing some people to freeze to death. The cautionary principle says we shouldn't restrict CO2 output."

Or does it work this way: "We're not sure humans are responsible for global warming. But they might be. The cautionary principle says we had better reduce our CO2 output so that we don't risk causing massive damage to our planet."

What happens is that people always raise these arguments to support the conclusions they've accepted for other reasons. Nobody is actually swayed by them. They're basically window dressing. These are issues where both sides claim great impact and claim that the cautionary principle and the lack of complete knowledge justifies the conclusion they wanted in the first place for completely different, and unrelated reasons.

You have to address the real reasons people reach the conclusions they reach. If the evidence is not strong enough to compel either conclusion, people will generally argue for the conclusion that benefits them. And then it's not a scientific argument, it's over who wins and who loses.

Those are (probably) orphans. They're hidden from the transaction view in the official client, but you'll see them if you activate the RPC server of the GUI client or start a daemon and run

Please define Conservative

I'm saying that that argument won't persuade anyone because people always make it when it supports their position and always ignore it when it doesn't. The people who make that argument about global climate change don't accept it themselves about GMO or climate engineering. So why should anyone accept it when they make it about global climate change?

How is this similar? I'm curious.



That's what we have now. We already have monopolies on force. The biggest guns are called governments. An ideal anarchy is one of no rulers, where everybody has the ability to own the same amount of guns. However, this doesn't mean no rules.

Taxation is exactly equivalent to slavery, only that you aren't forced to work, you get to choose what you do for work, and you can work as much or as little as you want. Other than that it's the same.

If you don't advocate it, only tolerate it, then you'll have no objections when I don't do it. Just like I have no objections when people don't do heroin.


Well, it's been said that the best defense is a good offense. Of course, it's still offense.

The people arguing that this applies to climate change never seem to be willing to apply it to things like genetically-modified organisms or intentional attempts to engineer the global climate.