To all of those who would feel oppressed in a Libertarian society...

[epi 1:10,000]

I agree, though it is worth pointing out that Nozick is often writing in direct response to Rawls and forms that basis/bedrock of much of the right-libertarian philosophy on this board. So there is indirectly a lot of criticism of Rawlsian social contract positions even if people may not be making them explicitly.

(I would add Iris Marion Young "Justice and the Politics of Difference" for a comprehensive discussion of non-distributive justice and Amartya Sen's "Development as Freedom" for a re-examination of liberty/freedom.)

I haven't read Nozick yet. Thanks for the suggestions! I look forward to reading them.

Might I point to some free books you mentioned

http://books.google.com/books/about/Justice_and_the_politics_of_difference.html?id=Q6keKguPrsAC
http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=Development+as+Freedom&btnG=Search+Books

[1715559917]

1715559917

[NghtRppr]

The magical market would cure global warming with happiness and pixie dust.

Hyperbole: for when you're out of legitimate ways to make your point.

[AyeYo]

Am I wrong?  Answer his question if I didn't do it.

[NghtRppr]

Am I wrong?

Yes you are wrong. Markets aren't "magical" and they don't run on "happiness and pixie dust". You're a hypocrite. You whine about people calling names and using hyperbole right up until the point you start to do it and then you don't even have the balls to admit when you're being a hypocrite. That's why I won't be engaging you in any more arguments. You're intellectually dishonest and rude on top of it. I will however be bookmarking the posts where you whine about other people calling names and using hyperbole so I can point out whenever you're being a hypocrite until you either shape up or get bored with trolling these forums.

[AyeYo]

Am I wrong?

Yes you are wrong. Markets aren't "magical" and they don't run on "happiness and pixie dust". You're a hypocrite. You whine about people calling names and using hyperbole right up until the point you start to do it and then you don't even have the balls to admit when you're being a hypocrite. That's why I won't be engaging you in any more arguments. You're intellectually dishonest and rude on top of it. I will however be bookmarking the posts where you whine about other people calling names and using hyperbole so I can point out whenever you're being a hypocrite until you either shape up or get bored with trolling these forums.

Then I'm obviously not wrong, because you didn't answer his question.  So it wasn't hyperbole, it was your opinion.  "The market will figure it out," will be your response.  Through what means we can only dream, because you're never able to articulate a real explanation, so I've dreamed up happiness and pixie dust.

[NghtRppr]

Am I wrong?

Yes you are wrong. Markets aren't "magical" and they don't run on "happiness and pixie dust". You're a hypocrite. You whine about people calling names and using hyperbole right up until the point you start to do it and then you don't even have the balls to admit when you're being a hypocrite. That's why I won't be engaging you in any more arguments. You're intellectually dishonest and rude on top of it. I will however be bookmarking the posts where you whine about other people calling names and using hyperbole so I can point out whenever you're being a hypocrite until you either shape up or get bored with trolling these forums.

Then I'm obviously not wrong, because you didn't answer his question.  So it wasn't hyperbole, it was your opinion.  "The market will figure it out," will be your response.  Through what means we can only dream, because you're never able to articulate a real explanation, so I've dreamed up happiness and pixie dust.

It doesn't matter even if the market can't figure it out (it can), it's still hyperbole.

hy·per·bo·le/hīˈpərbəlē/
Noun: Exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

Unless you really think magic, pixie dust and happiness aren't exaggerated statements and you really meant them to be taken literally, you're being a hypocrite. Just be a man about it. Admit when you're wrong and change your ways to match your professed ideals or stop whining about hyperbole. Either way will make you stop being a hypocrite.

However, not that this makes you any more of a hypocrite, I will answer the question since it's so easy. Global warming can be dealt with by the market. If it's scientifically proven that greenhouse gasses contribute to global warming, and global warming damages my property, anyone that pollutes with greenhouse gasses is contributing to the damage my property and I can sue them for damages.

If you don't like this answer, tough shit. I'm not arguing with you.

[AyeYo]

Am I wrong?

Yes you are wrong. Markets aren't "magical" and they don't run on "happiness and pixie dust". You're a hypocrite. You whine about people calling names and using hyperbole right up until the point you start to do it and then you don't even have the balls to admit when you're being a hypocrite. That's why I won't be engaging you in any more arguments. You're intellectually dishonest and rude on top of it. I will however be bookmarking the posts where you whine about other people calling names and using hyperbole so I can point out whenever you're being a hypocrite until you either shape up or get bored with trolling these forums.

Then I'm obviously not wrong, because you didn't answer his question.  So it wasn't hyperbole, it was your opinion.  "The market will figure it out," will be your response.  Through what means we can only dream, because you're never able to articulate a real explanation, so I've dreamed up happiness and pixie dust.

It doesn't matter even if the market can't figure it out (it can), it's still hyperbole.

hy·per·bo·le/hīˈpərbəlē/
Noun: Exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

Unless you really think magic, pixie dust and happiness aren't exaggerated statements and you really meant them to be taken literally, you're being a hypocrite. Just be a man about it. Admit when you're wrong and change your ways to match your professed ideals or stop whining about hyperbole. Either way will make you stop being a hypocrite.

However, not that this makes you any more of a hypocrite, I will answer the question since it's so easy. Global warming can be dealt with by the market. If it's scientifically proven that greenhouse gasses contribute to global warming, and global warming damages my property, anyone that pollutes with greenhouse gasses is contributing to the damage my property and I can sue them for damages.

If you don't like this answer, tough shit. I'm not arguing with you.

I love the answer, it's hilarious.  So I can sue every person who operates an internal combustion engine (including lawn mowers, weedwackers, etc.) and even ANYONE WHO'S BREATHING.  hahhahahaha

And people thing we have a litigious society now... oh man...


Good luck proving damage to your property via a 0.1 degree world-wide average temperature increase too. LOLOLOL

[NghtRppr]

I'm glad you liked the answer. I'll answer your questions since you're being civil for the moment.

So I can sue every person who operates an internal combustion engine (including lawn mowers, weedwackers, etc.) and even ANYONE WHO'S BREATHING.

Yes, you can but restitution has to be proportional. It's hard to see how my breathing can be contributing damage worth more than an infinitesimally small fraction of a penny. Feel free to waste your time suing for that.

Good luck proving damage to your property via a 0.1 degree world-wide average temperature increase too.

If you can't prove damage to your property then why else would you be suing, hurt feelings?

[LastBattle]

Am I wrong?

Yes you are wrong. Markets aren't "magical" and they don't run on "happiness and pixie dust". You're a hypocrite. You whine about people calling names and using hyperbole right up until the point you start to do it and then you don't even have the balls to admit when you're being a hypocrite. That's why I won't be engaging you in any more arguments. You're intellectually dishonest and rude on top of it. I will however be bookmarking the posts where you whine about other people calling names and using hyperbole so I can point out whenever you're being a hypocrite until you either shape up or get bored with trolling these forums.

Then I'm obviously not wrong, because you didn't answer his question.  So it wasn't hyperbole, it was your opinion.  "The market will figure it out," will be your response.  Through what means we can only dream, because you're never able to articulate a real explanation, so I've dreamed up happiness and pixie dust.

It doesn't matter even if the market can't figure it out (it can), it's still hyperbole.

hy·per·bo·le/hīˈpərbəlē/
Noun: Exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

Unless you really think magic, pixie dust and happiness aren't exaggerated statements and you really meant them to be taken literally, you're being a hypocrite. Just be a man about it. Admit when you're wrong and change your ways to match your professed ideals or stop whining about hyperbole. Either way will make you stop being a hypocrite.

However, not that this makes you any more of a hypocrite, I will answer the question since it's so easy. Global warming can be dealt with by the market. If it's scientifically proven that greenhouse gasses contribute to global warming, and global warming damages my property, anyone that pollutes with greenhouse gasses is contributing to the damage my property and I can sue them for damages.

If you don't like this answer, tough shit. I'm not arguing with you.

I love the answer, it's hilarious.  So I can sue every person who operates an internal combustion engine (including lawn mowers, weedwackers, etc.) and even ANYONE WHO'S BREATHING.  hahhahahaha

And people thing we have a litigious society now... oh man...


Good luck proving damage to your property via a 0.1 degree world-wide average temperature increase too. LOLOLOL

Oh boy! An easy target!

First of all, unsubsidized roads = far less driving = no problem. It would solve itself in just that fashion as alternate transportation sources were used (probably trains).

Second, it would be proportional. Trace amounts of pollution wouldn't be worthwhile to go after. But then, number one means that such amounts would be lacking and thus there would be no problem.

[AyeYo]

Am I wrong?

Yes you are wrong. Markets aren't "magical" and they don't run on "happiness and pixie dust". You're a hypocrite. You whine about people calling names and using hyperbole right up until the point you start to do it and then you don't even have the balls to admit when you're being a hypocrite. That's why I won't be engaging you in any more arguments. You're intellectually dishonest and rude on top of it. I will however be bookmarking the posts where you whine about other people calling names and using hyperbole so I can point out whenever you're being a hypocrite until you either shape up or get bored with trolling these forums.

Then I'm obviously not wrong, because you didn't answer his question.  So it wasn't hyperbole, it was your opinion.  "The market will figure it out," will be your response.  Through what means we can only dream, because you're never able to articulate a real explanation, so I've dreamed up happiness and pixie dust.

It doesn't matter even if the market can't figure it out (it can), it's still hyperbole.

hy·per·bo·le/hīˈpərbəlē/
Noun: Exaggerated statements or claims not meant to be taken literally.

Unless you really think magic, pixie dust and happiness aren't exaggerated statements and you really meant them to be taken literally, you're being a hypocrite. Just be a man about it. Admit when you're wrong and change your ways to match your professed ideals or stop whining about hyperbole. Either way will make you stop being a hypocrite.

However, not that this makes you any more of a hypocrite, I will answer the question since it's so easy. Global warming can be dealt with by the market. If it's scientifically proven that greenhouse gasses contribute to global warming, and global warming damages my property, anyone that pollutes with greenhouse gasses is contributing to the damage my property and I can sue them for damages.

If you don't like this answer, tough shit. I'm not arguing with you.

I love the answer, it's hilarious.  So I can sue every person who operates an internal combustion engine (including lawn mowers, weedwackers, etc.) and even ANYONE WHO'S BREATHING.  hahhahahaha

And people thing we have a litigious society now... oh man...


Good luck proving damage to your property via a 0.1 degree world-wide average temperature increase too. LOLOLOL

Oh boy! An easy target!

First of all, unsubsidized roads = far less driving = no problem. It would solve itself in just that fashion as alternate transportation sources were used (probably trains).

Second, it would be proportional. Trace amounts of pollution wouldn't be worthwhile to go after. But then, number one means that such amounts would be lacking and thus there would be no problem.

Irrelevant.  More pixie dust.  While you masturbate to the free market's ability to solve all problems to perfection, I'll be busy filing a law suit again.... every human being on the planet.  The trace amounts of CO2 in one person's breath isn't a big deal, but the amount of CO2 generated by 6+ billion people breathing should be enough to sue for more money than I'll ever need.

[NghtRppr]

The trace amounts of CO2 in one person's breath isn't a big deal, but the amount of CO2 generated by 6+ billion people breathing should be enough to sue for more money than I'll ever need.

That's nothing but idle speculation. You haven't crunched the numbers. Let me know when you have some kind of facts to back up your baseless assertion. Yes, 6 billion people is a large number but 0.0000001 cents is a small number. You'll get a whopping $600. That's enough to keep you in macaroni and cheese for... months. Of course, my numbers are completely made up, just as yours would be. What facts do you have to prove your case? None? Then I reject it outright.

[Anonymous]

The trace amounts of CO2 in one person's breath isn't a big deal, but the amount of CO2 generated by 6+ billion people breathing should be enough to sue for more money than I'll ever need.

That's nothing but idle speculation. You haven't crunched the numbers. Let me know when you have some kind of facts to back up your baseless assertion. Yes, 6 billion people is a large number but 0.0000001 cents is a small number. You'll get a whopping $600. That's enough to keep you in macaroni and cheese for... months. Of course, my numbers are completely made up, just as yours would be. What facts do you have to prove your case? None? Then I reject it outright.

Subtract the expenses in mailing all the people claims for their pollution.

[AyeYo]

The trace amounts of CO2 in one person's breath isn't a big deal, but the amount of CO2 generated by 6+ billion people breathing should be enough to sue for more money than I'll ever need.

That's nothing but idle speculation. You haven't crunched the numbers. Let me know when you have some kind of facts to back up your baseless assertion. Yes, 6 billion people is a large number but 0.0000001 cents is a small number. You'll get a whopping $600. That's enough to keep you in macaroni and cheese for... months. Of course, my numbers are completely made up, just as yours would be. What facts do you have to prove your case? None? Then I reject it outright.

When I take you to my own court (which I also happen to be the judge of), then I'll make up whatever numbers I want and I'll determine what are and aren't facts.  You can just sit there, quietly or I'll have you executed for violating my court rules, while I tell you how wrong you are and how much money you're going to pay me.

[Anonymous]

The trace amounts of CO2 in one person's breath isn't a big deal, but the amount of CO2 generated by 6+ billion people breathing should be enough to sue for more money than I'll ever need.

That's nothing but idle speculation. You haven't crunched the numbers. Let me know when you have some kind of facts to back up your baseless assertion. Yes, 6 billion people is a large number but 0.0000001 cents is a small number. You'll get a whopping $600. That's enough to keep you in macaroni and cheese for... months. Of course, my numbers are completely made up, just as yours would be. What facts do you have to prove your case? None? Then I reject it outright.

When I take you to my own court (which I also happen to be the judge of), then I'll make up whatever numbers I want and I'll determine what are and aren't facts.  You can just sit there, quietly or I'll have you executed for violating my court rules, while I tell you how wrong you are and how much money you're going to pay me.

Good luck funding said court. I doubt you will have many subscribers.

[AyeYo]

The trace amounts of CO2 in one person's breath isn't a big deal, but the amount of CO2 generated by 6+ billion people breathing should be enough to sue for more money than I'll ever need.

That's nothing but idle speculation. You haven't crunched the numbers. Let me know when you have some kind of facts to back up your baseless assertion. Yes, 6 billion people is a large number but 0.0000001 cents is a small number. You'll get a whopping $600. That's enough to keep you in macaroni and cheese for... months. Of course, my numbers are completely made up, just as yours would be. What facts do you have to prove your case? None? Then I reject it outright.

When I take you to my own court (which I also happen to be the judge of), then I'll make up whatever numbers I want and I'll determine what are and aren't facts.  You can just sit there, quietly or I'll have you executed for violating my court rules, while I tell you how wrong you are and how much money you're going to pay me.

Good luck funding said court. I doubt you will have many subscribers.

I don't give two shit whether I have subscribers or not.  As long as I've got more guns than you, I can make you do whatever I want.  That's the beauty of a lawless society.

[Anonymous]

The trace amounts of CO2 in one person's breath isn't a big deal, but the amount of CO2 generated by 6+ billion people breathing should be enough to sue for more money than I'll ever need.

That's nothing but idle speculation. You haven't crunched the numbers. Let me know when you have some kind of facts to back up your baseless assertion. Yes, 6 billion people is a large number but 0.0000001 cents is a small number. You'll get a whopping $600. That's enough to keep you in macaroni and cheese for... months. Of course, my numbers are completely made up, just as yours would be. What facts do you have to prove your case? None? Then I reject it outright.

When I take you to my own court (which I also happen to be the judge of), then I'll make up whatever numbers I want and I'll determine what are and aren't facts.  You can just sit there, quietly or I'll have you executed for violating my court rules, while I tell you how wrong you are and how much money you're going to pay me.

Good luck funding said court. I doubt you will have many subscribers.

I don't give two shit whether I have subscribers or not.  As long as I've got more guns than you, I can make you do whatever I want.  That's the beauty of a lawless society.

Guns aren't free. I hope you have proper funding lined up. Guards don't work cheap either. Your investors aren't just going to want a tyrannical court either. They will want it to be sustainable.

[NghtRppr]

I don't give two shit whether I have subscribers or not.  As long as I've got more guns than you, I can make you do whatever I want.  That's the beauty of a lawless society.

If you have more guns than me, you can do that anyways, laws or no laws. Fortunately, there are more people that are decent and peaceful until provoked than there are megalomaniacs.

We need to commit violence against each other in order to protect us from violence against each other. Brilliant.

[Anonymous]

I don't give two shit whether I have subscribers or not.  As long as I've got more guns than you, I can make you do whatever I want.  That's the beauty of a lawless society.

If you have more guns than me, you can do that anyways, laws or no laws. Fortunately, there are more people that are decent and peaceful until provoked than there are megalomaniacs.

Your logic is jaw-dropping. We need to commit violence against each other in order to protect us from violence against each other. Brilliant.

You neglect to mention many others will have similar amounts of guns. He won't have a monopoly.

[NghtRppr]

You neglect to mention many others will have similar amounts of guns. He won't have a monopoly.

No, in his fantasy world he will have already purchased all the guns with his unlimited supply of gold that fell from the sky.

[AyeYo]

I don't give two shit whether I have subscribers or not.  As long as I've got more guns than you, I can make you do whatever I want.  That's the beauty of a lawless society.

If you have more guns than me, you can do that anyways, laws or no laws. Fortunately, there are more people that are decent and peaceful until provoked than there are megalomaniacs.

We need to commit violence against each other in order to protect us from violence against each other. Brilliant.

"Si vis pacem, para bellum"


In the lawless society, the man with the biggest gun rules.  We'll have to shoot out everything because there will be no centralized authority with a final say in disputes.