Seriously, though, how would a libertarian society address global warming?

[myrkul]

4) Global warming is a real problem, with a solid consensus that it is a real problem. Behavior would be as it is today, minus any regulatory actions to curb it, with the exception that some fraction of the population voluntarily tries to decrease pollutants, while others take advantage of the decrease in harvested resources to harvest those resources themselves at a lower cost, thus accelerating global warming anyway.

You fail so fucking hard.

You still don't understand it, do you? You can't pick my fruit. If someone decides that a particular resource is important enough to protect, then their ownership of it will protect it. If there is a solid consensus that global warming (BTW, get with the program, the shills are calling it climate change now) is in fact a problem, then most people would protect what they own, and McEvil Co. couldn't get their hands on it. So, please, think before you post, it will prevent that nasty taste of toe-jam you're experiencing right now.

Also, could you please stop replying to the same post twice? That's just retarded. If you want to add something edit your first fucking post.

[ascent]

You can't pick my fruit.

Oh yeah?

I live next to you and drill 2,000 feet down and start pulling up oil. What is the extent of that oil reserve relative to my land?

I pull water from an aquifer accessed from my land, which is next to yours.

I go out onto the deep blue sea and fish.

A river runs through my backyard and yours, and I fish that river.

The short term profit derived from cutting down the rain forest on my property which is next to yours allows me to live a great life, since I have nobody to pass on my inheritance to. However, the act of cutting down that rain forest has created edge effects at our common property line, which has a deleterious effect on the ecosystem of your property.

[myrkul]

I live next to you and drill 2,000 feet down and start pulling up oil. What is the extent of that oil reserve relative to my land?

What functional purpose does oil in the ground provide? Is it like the earth's hydraulic fluid? If I really wanted to preserve that resource, I'd put up wells on my land, and suck the reserve dry before you could, then store the oil.

I pull water from an aquifer accessed from my land, which is next to yours.

So, what are you planning on doing with that water? Going to be irrigating crops? Back into the aquifer. Drinking it? Eventually, back into the aquifer. Washing your house? Back into the aquifer. Honestly, the only thing you could be doing which will actually deplete the aquifer is pump/truck it elsewhere, and it's usually more efficient to get water where you are. So, a very rare case.

I go out onto the deep blue sea and fish.

Not my fish. Not your fish. Nobody's fish.

A river runs through my backyard and yours, and I fish that river.

Unless you're putting a net across the river, your fishing would have a hard time affecting me.

The short term profit derived from cutting down the rain forest on my property which is next to yours allows me to live a great life, since I have nobody to pass on my inheritance to. However, the act of cutting down that rain forest has created edge effects at our common property line, which has a deleterious effect on the ecosystem of your property.

Ah! A reasonably plausible scenario! At last! The solution for this, and indeed any negative effects from the other scenarios, is Arbitration or Mediation. You have caused me damage. I can (and will) sue for damages. The cost of damages should out-weigh the benefit of harvesting irresponsibly (versus responsibly), causing you a net loss from your dickish behavior.

[ascent]

What functional purpose does oil in the ground provide? Is it like the earth's hydraulic fluid? If I really wanted to preserve that resource, I'd put up wells on my land, and suck the reserve dry before you could, then store the oil.

The functional purpose is its ability to create money. Twenty years from now, when you need money, the oil won't be there, because I picked your fruit. Your argument falls flat on its face. Remember, you said I can't pick your fruit, and I gave you an example.

So, what are you planning on doing with that water? Going to be irrigating crops? Back into the aquifer. Drinking it? Eventually, back into the aquifer. Washing your house? Back into the aquifer. Honestly, the only thing you could be doing which will actually deplete the aquifer is pump/truck it elsewhere, and it's usually more efficient to get water where you are. So, a very rare case.

My land is large, but the aquifer resides only near the border of our two properties. I may be more than willing to deplete it to satisfy my needs as long as it works until I die. Again, I'm picking your fruit.

Not my fish. Not your fish. Nobody's fish.

Actually, just the opposite: your fish, my fist, everyone's fish. Thus, I'm picking your fruit.

Unless you're putting a net across the river, your fishing would have a hard time affecting me.

It certainly can. I'm downstream and fishing salmon.

Ah! A reasonably plausible scenario! At last! The solution for this, and indeed any negative effects from the other scenarios, is Arbitration or Mediation. You have caused me damage. I can (and will) sue for damages. The cost of damages should out-weigh the benefit of harvesting irresponsibly (versus responsibly), causing you a net loss from your dickish behavior.

Or you might be of the same mind as me and cut down your forest for the same reasons I did. And the guy next to us, and so forth, until there is less and less rain forest, at which point, it becomes clear we all picked the fruit of our children. It's all fruit picking, and your ideas don't really address it.

[TheGer]

No problem.  I'll be sure to get that list of emails from the Climategate "scientists" lol. 

Your Ideological Agenda is...




"I suggest you write some emails to all the scientists out in the field and in the labs doing research on Global Warming"

[bittersweet]

Libertarians don't address global warming. They also don't address cosmic rays and volcano eruptions.

[myrkul]

The functional purpose is its ability to create money. Twenty years from now, when you need money, the oil won't be there, because I picked your fruit. Your argument falls flat on its face. Remember, you said I can't pick your fruit, and I gave you an example.

OR: I use the money I make from pumping out the oil in competition with you to make MORE money, and 20 years from now, my kids are sitting on a fat inheritance.

My land is large, but the aquifer resides only near the border of our two properties. I may be more than willing to deplete it to satisfy my needs as long as it works until I die. Again, I'm picking your fruit.

You damage me, you pay damages. Be a dick, pay the price.

Actually, just the opposite: your fish, my fish, everyone's fish. Thus, I'm picking your fruit.

Nope, Nobody's fish, until you claim them.

It certainly can. I'm downstream and fishing salmon.

Again, Unless you put a net across the stream, you are going to have a hard time affecting the rest of the river. One man with a pole don't make me no nevermind. And again, you do me harm, you pay damages.

Or you might be of the same mind as me and cut down your forest for the same reasons I did. And the guy next to us, and so forth, until there is less and less rain forest, at which point, it becomes clear we all picked the fruit of our children. It's all fruit picking, and your ideas don't really address it.

Because it is not the job of politics to address those issues. it is the job of the people to address that. The political structure simply delineates how. Libertarianism, and by extension, AnCap, simply says you cannot initiate the use of force to make someone comply with your wishes. That is the only restraint. You are free to use other, non-violent means to convince someone to stop clear-cutting their forest, and if they try to clear-cut yours, you can shoot 'em. If someone causes you damage through actions entirely on their property, you are entitled to recompensation.

Aside from that, libertarianism is neutral on Global Warming, resource depletion, etc.

[TheGer]

Myrkul, you just can't argue with people who don't value Liberty.  They are to dumb to know any better, or collecting a paycheck to sell out their own race.  Collaborators if you will.  Collaborators get what's coming to them in the end.  When/if the Overlords ever come to complete power the people who got them there are the first ones they get rid of.  This has been proven throughout History.

Let the dead bury the dead.

[JoelKatz]

2) Global warming is a real problem. In this case, those individuals who are really looking out for themselves would give a shit about it because it's going to hurt them.

But those who don't give a shit would really make it worse for everyone, regardless of the fact that there are those who do give a shit.

Sure, in a Democracy that's exactly what happens. Those who don't give a shit simply get the government to set pollution limits that allow them to pollute as much as they want and pre-empt any nuisance lawsuits. But that tool wouldn't be available to them in a Libertarian society.

[TheGer]

^^ Lol @ Mr. Obtuse trying to hang onto this thread. ^^

[AyeYo]

Because it is not the job of politics to address those issues. it is the job of the people to address that. The political structure simply delineates how. Libertarianism, and by extension, AnCap, simply says you cannot initiate the use of force to make someone comply with your wishes. That is the only restraint. You are free to use other, non-violent means to convince someone to stop clear-cutting their forest, and if they try to clear-cut yours, you can shoot 'em. If someone causes you damage through actions entirely on their property, you are entitled to recompensation.

There's a really significant problem here and it's preventing you from thinking logically.  You really and truly believe that it's possible for your single acre of land to look like this:




While everything around you for hundreds of miles looks like this:




That makes you delusional.

[myrkul]

Because it is not the job of politics to address those issues. it is the job of the people to address that. The political structure simply delineates how. Libertarianism, and by extension, AnCap, simply says you cannot initiate the use of force to make someone comply with your wishes. That is the only restraint. You are free to use other, non-violent means to convince someone to stop clear-cutting their forest, and if they try to clear-cut yours, you can shoot 'em. If someone causes you damage through actions entirely on their property, you are entitled to recompensation.

There's a really significant problem here and it's preventing you from thinking logically.  You really and truly believe that it's possible for your single acre of land to look like this:

While everything around you for hundreds of miles looks like this:

That makes you delusional.

There's a really significant problem here and it's preventing you from thinking logically.  You really and truly believe that that's what I think.

That makes you delusional.

[AyeYo]

If that's not what you believe, then nothing you've said has a leg to stand on.

[myrkul]

If that's not what you believe, then nothing you've said has a leg to stand on.

Oh? How about this?

Because it is not the job of politics to address those issues. it is the job of the people to address that. The political structure simply delineates how. Libertarianism, and by extension, AnCap, simply says you cannot initiate the use of force to make someone comply with your wishes. That is the only restraint. You are free to use other, non-violent means to convince someone to stop clear-cutting their forest, and if they try to clear-cut yours, you can shoot 'em. If someone causes you damage through actions entirely on their property, you are entitled to recompensation.

Aside from that, libertarianism is neutral on Global Warming, resource depletion, etc.

[ascent]

OR: I use the money I make from pumping out the oil in competition with you to make MORE money, and 20 years from now, my kids are sitting on a fat inheritance.

So now we're in a race even though you weren't interested in being in a race prior to me drilling my well? I've now forced you to do something you weren't interested in before.

You damage me, you pay damages. Be a dick, pay the price.

According to your take on it with regard to oil, it's all about being in a race. But now it's all about you being aware of the resource while I'm sucking water out of the aquifer. What if you don't know what I'm doing - let's say I don't allow you on my property and you're not an expert with regard to aquifers? You may not know the causes of why your land has lost its natural resource until after I've died. Clearly, you wouldn't be in the right to sue who purchased my land just before I died.

Nope, Nobody's fish, until you claim them.

Well, golly, it's all about making claims then. Then I guess I can claim all that water in the aquifer, right? Why not? I claim it's just like the oceans. I seriously doubt you have considered, until this moment, how deep land ownership goes. Do you own all the way to the center of the Earth, in the shape of an inverted pyramid for every square parcel you own?

Again, Unless you put a net across the stream, you are going to have a hard time affecting the rest of the river. One man with a pole don't make me no nevermind. And again, you do me harm, you pay damages.

I am going to put a net across the river. My lawyers are better than yours, and you're the only guy upstream, so good luck.

Because it is not the job of politics to address those issues. it is the job of the people to address that. The political structure simply delineates how. Libertarianism, and by extension, AnCap, simply says you cannot initiate the use of force to make someone comply with your wishes. That is the only restraint. You are free to use other, non-violent means to convince someone to stop clear-cutting their forest, and if they try to clear-cut yours, you can shoot 'em. If someone causes you damage through actions entirely on their property, you are entitled to recompensation.

You are not entitled to compensation by me under your ideology unless you have the ability to actually get me to pay you. Good luck.

[myrkul]

You are not entitled to compensation by me under your ideology unless you have the ability to actually get me to pay you. Good luck.

Good luck eating your oil, or driving your water, or selling those fish.

When word gets out that you don't go to Arbitration, you are the very definition of an outlaw: outside of society.

Enjoy your brief, violent life.

[ascent]

When word gets out that you don't go to Arbitration, you are the very definition of an outlaw: outside of society.

I will go to arbitration, and I'll bring my lawyers, and I have a huge budget for them, because I've been making a lot of money selling my oil.

Of course, it's possible that I instead chose a farmer's life, cut down the rain forest all around your property, and failed to make any real money engaging in agriculture, and died bankrupt. Good luck getting any money out of me in that scenario as well.

[AyeYo]

You are not entitled to compensation by me under your ideology unless you have the ability to actually get me to pay you. Good luck.

Good luck eating your oil, or driving your water, or selling those fish.

When word gets out that you don't go to Arbitration, you are the very definition of an outlaw: outside of society.

That's not possible unless you have a centralized, relatively single-minded society.  You don't.  You can't be an outcast from a land full of people doing whatever they want and making their own rules.

[myrkul]

When word gets out that you don't go to Arbitration, you are the very definition of an outlaw: outside of society.

I will go to arbitration, and I'll bring my lawyers, and I have a huge budget for them, because I've been making a lot of money selling my oil.

Of course, it's possible that I instead chose a farmer's life, cut down the rain forest all around your property, and failed to make any real money engaging in agriculture, and died bankrupt. Good luck getting any money out of me in that scenario as well.

True on the second point, but then I get your land. In a few years, the rainforest will start to reclaim it.

In the first scenario, perhaps you had better look up what arbitration is. It's not like a State court.

[AyeYo]

If that's not what you believe, then nothing you've said has a leg to stand on.

Oh? How about this?

Because it is not the job of politics to address those issues. it is the job of the people to address that. The political structure simply delineates how. Libertarianism, and by extension, AnCap, simply says you cannot initiate the use of force to make someone comply with your wishes. That is the only restraint. You are free to use other, non-violent means to convince someone to stop clear-cutting their forest, and if they try to clear-cut yours, you can shoot 'em. If someone causes you damage through actions entirely on their property, you are entitled to recompensation.

Aside from that, libertarianism is neutral on Global Warming, resource depletion, etc.

You can attempt to get them to compensate you all you want, but the damage is done and it's irreversable.  All the lawsuit money in the world is no good if your home is permenantly ruined and you're dying of some horrible disease because of all the pollution you live in.