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

[bitrebel]

You don't honestly believe in this, do you?
Quack science!

What exactly is quack science? Clarify.

Global Warming is Quack Science. Yes, its happening, no, we are not responsible. We contribute, but we have pretty much zero to do with it as a species on this planet. Every planet is warming now, and it's not our C02 doing it.

[1714464992]

1714464992

[1714464992]

1714464992

[Explodicle]

These are all coercive by definition.  Your philosophy is a philosophy of might makes right and mob rule.

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

In theory a free market should be able to acknowledge anthropogenic global warming and self-regulate. It's only high transaction costs preventing that from happening already. Imagine a whole bunch of Anarchist groups mutually agreeing to the Kyoto protocol, or something similar.

Well, gee, imagine them not agreeing. For example, those libertarian think tank members over at Heartland Institute. I use the term 'think tank' lightly here - that's what they call themselves.

I said in theory. Until I see an actual working free market solution I'm certainly not objecting to pollution taxes.

[FirstAscent]

Global Warming is Quack Science. Yes, its happening, no, we are not responsible. We contribute, but we have pretty much zero to do with it as a species on this planet. Every planet is warming now, and it's not our C02 doing it.

Thank you for setting me straight. I'll stop reading Nature and Science and Scientific American. What sources do you recommend for further information? Where are you getting your information?

[The Script]

These are all coercive by definition.  Your philosophy is a philosophy of might makes right and mob rule.

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

So, to clarify, in your system if society decided that we needed to kill all Mexicans that would be ok?

[FirstAscent]

So, to clarify, in your system if society decided that we needed to kill all Mexicans that would be ok?

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.

[The Script]

So, to clarify, in your system if society decided that we needed to kill all Mexicans that would be ok?

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.

You just said you were ok with a system of mob rule: "collective action" and "majority defined regulation".  My question was an extreme example, but you have to look at the extremes to make sense of the philosophy.  Here's a milder one: If the majority of society decided that they needed to confiscate all motor vehicles in the country to reduce carbon emissions, would that be ok?

If you aren't here to argue philosophy and philosophical positions you are in the wrong forum, or at least the wrong thread.  The topic is "how would a libertarian society address global warming?".  I'm trying to argue philosophy: libertarian vs. the current system.  You insult my philosophical question, and tell me that "If I could, I would like to be able to influence policy to get governments to enact regulation to help save the environment."  Fine.  But you're in the wrong thread.

[FirstAscent]

You just said you were ok with a system of mob rule: "collective action" and "majority defined regulation".  My question was an extreme example, but you have to look at the extremes to make sense of the philosophy.  Here's a milder one: If the majority of society decided that they needed to confiscate all motor vehicles in the country to reduce carbon emissions, would that be ok?

If you aren't here to argue philosophy and philosophical positions you are in the wrong forum, or at least the wrong thread.  The topic is "how would a libertarian society address global warming?".  I'm trying to argue philosophy: libertarian vs. the current system.  You insult my philosophical question, and tell me that "If I could, I would like to be able to influence policy to get governments to enact regulation to help save the environment."  Fine.  But you're in the wrong thread.

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.

[The Script]

You just said you were ok with a system of mob rule: "collective action" and "majority defined regulation".  My question was an extreme example, but you have to look at the extremes to make sense of the philosophy.  Here's a milder one: If the majority of society decided that they needed to confiscate all motor vehicles in the country to reduce carbon emissions, would that be ok?

If you aren't here to argue philosophy and philosophical positions you are in the wrong forum, or at least the wrong thread.  The topic is "how would a libertarian society address global warming?".  I'm trying to argue philosophy: libertarian vs. the current system.  You insult my philosophical question, and tell me that "If I could, I would like to be able to influence policy to get governments to enact regulation to help save the environment."  Fine.  But you're in the wrong thread.

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

I have.  One of the difficult questions I ask which I don't currently have a good answer to is: Does it make sense that someone could own the world's water supply?  Improbabilities aside, libertarianism states that a single individual could own the world's entire water supply as long as they homesteaded it properly or obtained it through voluntary exchange.  Does this make sense?  I'm not sure it does, but looking at the extremes allows an examination of the ideology. 

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

So what you are saying is society never agrees to anything that is extreme?  I'll let you think about that.

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.

This is fair.  I was being somewhat of a hypocrite because I was irritated, and I can admit that.  But I still wonder why you are wasting your time on a forum dominated by libertarians trying to convince them that more government regulation is good.  Really, if you are so concerned about the environment and you believe the only way to fix that is through government action, why aren't you running for political office, starting an environmental group on a college campus, teaching grade school kids about the need for conservation, etc. etc. instead of being here on this forum?  Seriously.  Re-evaluate your strategies.  How many people have you convinced so far on this forum?

[FirstAscent]

But I still wonder why you are wasting your time on a forum dominated by libertarians trying to convince them that more government regulation is good.  Really, if you are so concerned about the environment and you believe the only way to fix that is through government action, why aren't you running for political office, starting an environmental group on a college campus, teaching grade school kids about the need for conservation, etc. etc. instead of being here on this forum?  Seriously.  Re-evaluate your strategies.  How many people have you convinced so far on this forum?

Excellent question/observations. To begin, preaching to the choir is not necessary, but pointing things out to those with very different views allows one to hone their arguments and points, as well as spread ideals/ideas, because as you know, forum posts aren't just for the one you're debating, but for all the other readers/lurkers as well. Regarding conservation goals, I'm seriously evaluating what and how I might engage in such activities, and this forum in the mean time allows me to explore and share my growing knowledge base on the subject.

Now, I think that was a reasonable answer.

One more note: this is the real world we're living in. If you want to debate about a (as of yet nonexistent) libertarian society and how it might address Global Warming, that's a fine hobby. But also consider the state of the World as it exists right now, and the value in discussing how environmental issues within the context of the world we are currently living in can be addressed. One of the most serious issues we all face right now is the industry which manufactures propaganda in an attempt to malign the science behind climate change, and the libertarian community is hugely responsible for a large portion of that brownlash. So consider that to be another reason why I hang out here. To put it bluntly, there are probably no small number of individuals here who choose to wear libertarian values like a costume, because of its novelty and supposed independent thought it spawns. If I can bring to their attention an alternative viewpoint, then I consider my efforts successful.

[stevendobbs]

I actually think libertarians should be opposed at every front where we find them.

Personally I see right wing economic libertarianism as fascism rebranded - sure they get rid of stupid racist ideas, but still maintain positive views about social darwinism and often, suspicion of democracy.

Some of the more extreme libertarian-conservatives such as James Delingpole are beyond the pale. To these sorts of libertarians, the scientists, in particular, those connected to advancing understanding of global warming are the new jews to be demonised.

I blogged about him. http://a-new-red-dawn.blogspot.com/2011/07/political-extremist-james-dellingpole.html

[Bind]

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

this way ...

[bitconformist]

I actually think libertarians should be opposed at every front where we find them.

Personally I see right wing economic libertarianism as fascism rebranded - sure they get rid of stupid racist ideas, but still maintain positive views about social darwinism and often, suspicion of democracy.

Some of the more extreme libertarian-conservatives such as James Delingpole are beyond the pale. To these sorts of libertarians, the scientists, in particular, those connected to advancing understanding of global warming are the new jews to be demonised.

I blogged about him. http://a-new-red-dawn.blogspot.com/2011/07/political-extremist-james-dellingpole.html

Oh, there's still plenty of racism; it's just tucked away so you don't see it. There's no more overt vilification but there's plenty of talk about dirty illegals stealing taxes and support for policies that only harm minorities.

[Explodicle]

I actually think libertarians should be opposed at every front where we find them.

Personally I see right wing economic libertarianism as fascism rebranded - sure they get rid of stupid racist ideas, but still maintain positive views about social darwinism and often, suspicion of democracy.

Some of the more extreme libertarian-conservatives such as James Delingpole are beyond the pale. To these sorts of libertarians, the scientists, in particular, those connected to advancing understanding of global warming are the new jews to be demonised.

I blogged about him. http://a-new-red-dawn.blogspot.com/2011/07/political-extremist-james-dellingpole.html

Oh, there's still plenty of racism; it's just tucked away so you don't see it. There's no more overt vilification but there's plenty of talk about dirty illegals stealing taxes and support for policies that only harm minorities.

That illegals part is the worst. I don't even consider people who don't support free immigration to be real libertarians. Oh ok, you're "libertarian" so long as we do everything in the order you think is best... But for now you are just another nationalist conservative. "Libertarians" who would send armed men to break apart peaceful families. Makes me sick.

[bitrebel]

I actually think libertarians should be opposed at every front where we find them.

Personally I see right wing economic libertarianism as fascism rebranded - sure they get rid of stupid racist ideas, but still maintain positive views about social darwinism and often, suspicion of democracy.

Some of the more extreme libertarian-conservatives such as James Delingpole are beyond the pale. To these sorts of libertarians, the scientists, in particular, those connected to advancing understanding of global warming are the new jews to be demonised.

I blogged about him. http://a-new-red-dawn.blogspot.com/2011/07/political-extremist-james-dellingpole.html

Oh, there's still plenty of racism; it's just tucked away so you don't see it. There's no more overt vilification but there's plenty of talk about dirty illegals stealing taxes and support for policies that only harm minorities.

That illegals part is the worst. I don't even consider people who don't support free immigration to be real libertarians. Oh ok, you're "libertarian" so long as we do everything in the order you think is best... But for now you are just another nationalist conservative. "Libertarians" who would send armed men to break apart peaceful families. Makes me sick.

No country in the world allows free immigration. It's not liberal. It's suicidal.

[NghtRppr]

No country in the world allows free immigration. It's not liberal. It's suicidal.

If we allow free immigration, social services will be overrun with freeloaders. Solution? Get rid of social services.

[bitrebel]

No country in the world allows free immigration. It's not liberal. It's suicidal.

If we allow free immigration, social services will be overrun with freeloaders. Solution? Get rid of social services.

A good point, and retort.

[AyeYo]

So what you are saying is society never agrees to anything that is extreme?  I'll let you think about that.

Think about this:

The majority has the power, therefore, if the majority really wants to, the majority will do whatever the hell it wants, whenever the hell it wants - whether you think it's right or not is irrelevant.  Your system, while it may condemn "might makes right" does absolutely nothing to stop it, because in unregulated-no-governmentland, the man with the biggest gun will make the rules.

Under the current system, society has agreed to entrust an entity (government) with enough power to suppress the majority, in order to protect the minority.  Government says it's not ok to kill all the Mexicans, because that's what society thinks is reasonable and the government enforces society's wish.  If society changes its mind and begins to think it is ok to kill Mexicans, then they have the option to change the laws to make it ok.  It will be massive, massive costly and time consuming, will require great effort and tremendous backing by the populace, but it is theoretically possible.  That doesn't mean the current system is a failure.  That means the current system is realistic.  Because you can pretend that in your system might doesn't make right and no one would be allowed to decide it's ok to kill all the Mexicans, but until you have a centralized entity in place that's powerful enough to control the majority that might want to kill all the Mexicans, your promises are hollow and your system is a pie in the sky joke.

[Bind]

Solution? Get rid of social services.

People dont want to take personal responsibility anylonger.

They have gradually and systematically been weened off taking any responsibility for themselves.

They are now addicted to money they have yet to earn (credit debt) and government subsidies in order to survive.

This need to change, but let me tell you it will be bad if it happens.

Stockpile lots of guns, ammunition, tradable tangible goods, food, and seeds. Then be prepared to defend it all with your life if they ever take those social programs away, because the vast majority of the population is NOT prepared to fend for themselves, either financially, mentally, or physically.

[Hawker]

Solution? Get rid of social services.

People dont want to take personal responsibility anylonger.

They have gradually and systematically been weened off taking any responsibility for themselves.

They are now addicted to money they have yet to earn (credit debt) and government subsidies in order to survive.

This need to change, but let me tell you it will be bad if it happens.

Stockpile lots of guns, ammunition, tradable tangible goods, food, and seeds. Then be prepared to defend it all with your life if they ever take those social programs away, because the vast majority of the population is NOT prepared to fend for themselves, either financially, mentally, or physically.

Are you seriously thinking that you need to grow your own potatoes and raise pigs ?  Is life in America really that bad or are you also stockpiling tinfoil for hats ?

[Bind]

Are you seriously thinking that you need to grow your own potatoes and raise pigs ?  Is life in America really that bad or are you also stockpiling tinfoil for hats ?

No, but I think everyone should prepare for the worse financial times possible.

In my opinion, a collapse like that will never ocurr. What will happen is increasing prices...hyperinflation. That will be (is) our collapse. So, the more you can do for yourself in a true sustainable fashion, the more money you will save (or spend less if you cant save). The politicians will ensure a total colapse of society and infrastructure will never happen. They will create a new currency before that happens, giving the poorest people the most (percentage) in return because thats where the majority of the votes will come from.

What I was saying was that they will never take away social services, because those addicted to them will rise up, revolt, kill and steal, and pretty much do anything within their ability TO survive.

Cold and hungry people are not afraid of prison and certainly wont concern themselves with the law.

Very few people have the skills to survive on their own in this day and age ... by design.

You know, I know alot of well-off people and alot of poor people. A huge part of my family lives very meager existances with very little money, and they do it by farming and raising livestock. They are some of the happiest people I know and they do better than others in lean financial times like we are experiencing right now.

In fact, I had many conversations with my grandparents before their deaths, and they almost didnt even know there was a great depression, if it wasnt for the newspapers telling them. It simply did not affect them because they did everything for themselves on their farm and through trade/barter within their community.