Bitcoin Forum
December 10, 2016, 10:49:13 PM *
News: To be able to use the next phase of the beta forum software, please ensure that your email address is correct/functional.
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Seriously, though, how would a libertarian society address global warming?  (Read 27417 times)
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
September 18, 2011, 03:50:04 PM
 #301

Are nuclear weapons causing global warming? It seems were drifting pretty far from the OP. Perhaps we should take this conversation elsewhere.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
1481410153
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481410153

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481410153
Reply with quote  #2

1481410153
Report to moderator
1481410153
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481410153

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481410153
Reply with quote  #2

1481410153
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481410153
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481410153

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481410153
Reply with quote  #2

1481410153
Report to moderator
1481410153
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481410153

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481410153
Reply with quote  #2

1481410153
Report to moderator
1481410153
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481410153

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481410153
Reply with quote  #2

1481410153
Report to moderator
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
September 18, 2011, 03:55:28 PM
 #302

Are nuclear weapons causing global warming? It seems were drifting pretty far from the OP. Perhaps we should take this conversation elsewhere.

Its a question of fundamentals.  If you don't care about extinction of humanity through nuclear holocaust, then global warming will never be an issue.  If you do care about that enough to prevent it, then there is a logical basis for seeing if global warming is a true threat and if it can be prevented.

FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
September 18, 2011, 03:58:05 PM
 #303

Its a question of fundamentals.  If you don't care about extinction of humanity through nuclear holocaust, then global warming will never be an issue.  If you do care about that enough to prevent it, then there is a logical basis for seeing if global warming is a true threat and if it can be prevented.

Every is-ought issue is a question of fundamentals. I don't want to connect nuclear holocaust to global warming, which it seems you're trying to do. Use this thread for what it was intended. It seems you're taking this nuke thing to a bunch of threads where it wasn't supposed to be.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
September 18, 2011, 04:03:43 PM
 #304

Its a question of fundamentals.  If you don't care about extinction of humanity through nuclear holocaust, then global warming will never be an issue.  If you do care about that enough to prevent it, then there is a logical basis for seeing if global warming is a true threat and if it can be prevented.

Every is-ought issue is a question of fundamentals. I don't want to connect nuclear holocaust to global warming, which it seems you're trying to do. Use this thread for what it was intended. It seems you're taking this nuke thing to a bunch of threads where it wasn't supposed to be.

Fine - resolve it in 1 thread and it goes away.

ineededausername
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 784


bitcoin hundred-aire


View Profile
September 18, 2011, 04:04:35 PM
 #305

Frederic, they are related... they're both examples of disasters which can be averted through regulation.  You, as a fundie libertarian, seem to want no regulation on anything, even things which affect the well-being of millions of people.  

(BFL)^2 < 0
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
September 18, 2011, 04:26:27 PM
 #306

Frederic, they are related... they're both examples of disasters which can be averted through regulation.  You, as a fundie libertarian, seem to want no regulation on anything, even things which affect the well-being of millions of people.  

All laws are regulatory in nature. It's certain types of laws I oppose, not the concept of laws in and of themselves. Don't assume. I'm also not a fundie libertarian or a fundie. I don't like labels personally, since they rarely fit exactly who I am. And even if I were, you labeling me as such doesn't change my logic any, that's just ad hominem. It shows that you might be acting a bit infantile (yes I know... ad hominem, nobody likes it).

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
September 19, 2011, 05:19:39 PM
 #307

All laws are regulatory in nature. It's certain types of laws I oppose, not the concept of laws in and of themselves.

It seems that laws are either coercive or restrictive. You must go do this, or you must not do that. I realize it's likely you separate them in other ways. What are the certain types of laws that you oppose?
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
September 19, 2011, 05:27:14 PM
 #308

Should these guys be regulated? Or are they just claiming property and calling it their own?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gxtxs7itqLjKy6P_bIksR4x39_ng
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
September 19, 2011, 05:38:17 PM
 #309

It seems that laws are either coercive or restrictive. You must go do this, or you must not do that. I realize it's likely you separate them in other ways. What are the certain types of laws that you oppose?

...The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
September 19, 2011, 05:41:48 PM
 #310

It seems that laws are either coercive or restrictive. You must go do this, or you must not do that. I realize it's likely you separate them in other ways. What are the certain types of laws that you oppose?

...The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant. He cannot rightfully be compelled to do or forbear because it will be better for him to do so, because it will make him happier, because, in the opinion of others, to do so would be wise, or even right... The only part of the conduct of anyone, for which he is amenable to society, is that which concerns others. In the part which merely concerns himself, his independence is, of right, absolute. Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign.

That's shockingly reasonable.  When did you come around?


Anonymous
Guest

September 19, 2011, 05:42:57 PM
 #311

"Every man is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man."

- Herbert Spencer

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others".

- John Stuart Mill

"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory."

-Murray Rothbard

*slurps drink*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
September 19, 2011, 05:50:15 PM
 #312

"Every man is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man."

- Herbert Spencer

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others".

- John Stuart Mill

"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory."

-Murray Rothbard

*slurps drink*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

The third quote contradicts the first two. If someone has smallpox, they may have no harmful intentions but they have to be quarantined.  

Anonymous
Guest

September 19, 2011, 05:52:19 PM
 #313

A person with smallpox would be an aggressor regardless of his intention. It's the act that defines violence. Good intentions nor purported innocence makes a man's violent act or pollution less violent or polluting.

So, no, it's not contradicting at all.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
September 19, 2011, 05:53:40 PM
 #314

Should these guys be regulated? Or are they just claiming property and calling it their own?

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gxtxs7itqLjKy6P_bIksR4x39_ng

I really want an answer to this. That means you, Fred.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
September 19, 2011, 05:53:59 PM
 #315

A person with smallpox would be an aggressor regardless of his intention. It's the act that defines violence. Not the intention.

Then I can't see how anyone could disagree Smiley  

* Hawker twiddles his thumbs waiting for Fred to lecture us on the right to have smallpox on your own property

FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
September 19, 2011, 06:16:44 PM
 #316

"Every man is free to do that which he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man."

- Herbert Spencer

"The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others".

- John Stuart Mill

"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory."

-Murray Rothbard

*slurps drink*

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle

Sorry about not providing attribution. I had the quote but not the reference to the author. Thanks.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
FredericBastiat
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 420


View Profile
September 19, 2011, 06:20:58 PM
 #317

* Hawker twiddles his thumbs waiting for Fred to lecture us on the right to have smallpox on your own property

You could probably possess the smallpox strain in a containment vessel and that would be fine. That's already being done anyway. If however you were infected with smallpox, and you wanted to physically interact with others, that could be construed as sufficiently life-threatening, and could be defended against. Quarantining would be apropos.

http://payb.tc/evo or
1F7venVKJa5CLw6qehjARkXBS55DU5YT59
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
September 19, 2011, 06:27:05 PM
 #318

* Hawker twiddles his thumbs waiting for Fred to lecture us on the right to have smallpox on your own property

You could probably possess the smallpox strain in a containment vessel and that would be fine. That's already being done anyway. If however you were infected with smallpox, and you wanted to physically interact with others, that could be construed as sufficiently life-threatening, and could be defended against. Quarantining would be apropos.

That's laughable.  We spend 50 years eradicating smallpox virus and you want to have vials of it freely available because there is no way that someone would abuse that is there?  Who could ever imagine someone using it to teach his ex-girlfriend a lesson?  Just because people with AIDS deliberately infect lovers doesn't mean they'd also use smallpox.  Or does it?

Do you actually believe the stuff you are posting now or are you being obtuse for the fun of it?


Explodicle
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 947


View Profile
September 19, 2011, 08:01:18 PM
 #319

Smallpox isn't the same threat model as global warming. We can afford to do an imperfect job on global warming for a few years (either with or without regulation), but one slip-up with smallpox screws everyone. Doing research without proper containment procedures is aggression - like pointing a loaded gun at our heads while you clean the trigger.

I don't have any philosophers to back me up, but I'd probably pay towards a bounty to incinerate Frederic's hypothetical specimen, property rights be damned. Maybe I'll eat those words soon enough.  Grin
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
September 19, 2011, 08:05:14 PM
 #320

Smallpox isn't the same threat model as global warming. We can afford to do an imperfect job on global warming for a few years (either with or without regulation), but one slip-up with smallpox screws everyone. Doing research without proper containment procedures is aggression - like pointing a loaded gun at our heads while you clean the trigger.

I don't have any philosophers to back me up, but I'd probably pay towards a bounty to incinerate Frederic's hypothetical specimen, property rights be damned. Maybe I'll eat those words soon enough.  Grin

Agreed.  Its an incredible arrogance on his part that he assumes it's OK for you to risk dying a horrible death covered in boils just so he can say "I have created a right for all and sundry to carry a smallpox vial - rejoice in my liberty."

Fred you either have not thought this through or you are delusional.  Have you any idea what a nasty death you want people to risk?

Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 [16] 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!