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

[FredericBastiat]

The ethics card stops at humans.

Are you one of those Creationists who says God put the animals on this earth for our pleasure and use?

See my quote above. I'm sure there isn't much to read between the lines.

[1713926945]

1713926945

[1713926945]

1713926945

[1713926945]

1713926945

[1713926945]

1713926945

[Hawker]

The ethics card stops at humans.

Are you one of those Creationists who says God put the animals on this earth for our pleasure and use?

See my quote above. I'm sure there isn't much to read between the lines.

Then you agree that society can intervene onto someone's land when the objective is to protect the survival of species.  Fine - we are in agreement.

No and no again.

Then you believe its not OK for society to intervene on private property to prevent species being made extinct? 

[/b]

No answer?

[FredericBastiat]

No answer?

Asked and answered.

[Hawker]

No answer?

Asked and answered.

Then I can't find it

Tell us again - do you believe that society has a right to intervene on private property to reserve the species on it from extinction?

[FirstAscent]

No answer?

Asked and answered.

But you almost certainly know less than you should. I know less than I should, but it's obviously more than you. Read this recent post of mine:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=25626.msg530155#msg530155

As for your answer, you clearly do believe that God put the animals here for our pleasure and use. Sad.

[FredericBastiat]

But you almost certainly know less than you should. I know less than I should, but it's obviously more than you. Read this recent post of mine:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=25626.msg530155#msg530155

As for your answer, you clearly do believe that God put the animals here for our pleasure and use. Sad.

I seem to have a lot of problems with people putting words in my mouth. Except for this response, I've never mentioned God in our discourses. Please refrain from inferring anything other than what I've actually said, if you can. I'm sure you've got a 'backspace' key. Use it a little more often.

[FirstAscent]

But you almost certainly know less than you should. I know less than I should, but it's obviously more than you. Read this recent post of mine:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=25626.msg530155#msg530155

As for your answer, you clearly do believe that God put the animals here for our pleasure and use. Sad.

I seem to have a lot of problems with people putting words in my mouth. Except for this response, I've never mentioned God in our discourses. Please refrain from inferring anything other than what I've actually said, if you can. I'm sure you've got a 'backspace' key. Use it a little more often.

I won't put words in your mouth if you'd choose to state clearly your beliefs and position, and the reasoning behind those positions. Why do you take the position you do? Is it because of an antiquated and unenlightened view? Is it because you lack empathy? Is it because you value the freedom of being able to produce a product or buy a product far more than most everything else.

Furthermore, don't be one of those ignoramuses that believe the preservation of a species is strictly for ethical reasons.

[Hawker]

But you almost certainly know less than you should. I know less than I should, but it's obviously more than you. Read this recent post of mine:

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=25626.msg530155#msg530155

As for your answer, you clearly do believe that God put the animals here for our pleasure and use. Sad.

I seem to have a lot of problems with people putting words in my mouth. Except for this response, I've never mentioned God in our discourses. Please refrain from inferring anything other than what I've actually said, if you can. I'm sure you've got a 'backspace' key. Use it a little more often.

I won't put words in your mouth if you'd choose to state clearly your beliefs and position, and the reasoning behind those positions. Why do you take the position you do? Is it because of an antiquated and unenlightened view? Is it because you lack empathy? Is it because you value the freedom of being able to produce a product or buy a product far more than most everything else.

Furthermore, don't be one of those ignoramuses that believe the preservation of a species is strictly for ethical reasons.

Actually, if his position on nukes is anything to go by, he doesn't care about preservation of OUR species.

Fred, is that your position?  You are happy for our species to be made extinct in preservation of your pretty treatise on "the law?"

[FredericBastiat]

Actually, if his position on nukes is anything to go by, he doesn't care about preservation of OUR species.

Fred, is that your position?  You are happy for our species to be made extinct in preservation of your pretty treatise on "the law?"

Your being idiotic. I wrote the law for the very purpose of "preserving" our liberties and thus the human species. I trust those who I entrust my security. I don't trust those who force me to trust them. I never will. Forcing me to do something sans provocation will never win you "brownie points" with me.

[FirstAscent]

Actually, if his position on nukes is anything to go by, he doesn't care about preservation of OUR species.

Fred, is that your position?  You are happy for our species to be made extinct in preservation of your pretty treatise on "the law?"

Your being idiotic. I wrote the law for the very purpose of "preserving" our liberties and thus the human species. I trust those who I entrust my security. I don't trust those who force me to trust them. I never will. Forcing me to do something sans provocation will never win you "brownie points" with me.

In the absence of specific knowledge, it's not that hard to trick yourself into thinking that your ideas are well thought out. I have provided quite a bit of information in this thread, and others. I believe I have provided quite a fair bit of explanation on how things work, statistics, etc. More than you have.

You're interested in preserving the human species? I actually believe you. I just don't think you know enough to be proposing ideas on the subject.

[Hawker]

Actually, if his position on nukes is anything to go by, he doesn't care about preservation of OUR species.

Fred, is that your position?  You are happy for our species to be made extinct in preservation of your pretty treatise on "the law?"

Your being idiotic. I wrote the law for the very purpose of "preserving" our liberties and thus the human species. I trust those who I entrust my security. I don't trust those who force me to trust them. I never will. Forcing me to do something sans provocation will never win you "brownie points" with me.

Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean that they get used, are you willing to accept regulation of them?

Nope.

Don't say taking you at your word is idiotic.  If you have your way, millions will die and their property will be uninhabitable for generations.  That's what nukes are for.  They have no other use.  

Now lets make things absolutely clear:

Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean serious risk of human extinction, are you willing to accept regulation of them?

[FredericBastiat]

Don't say taking you at your word is idiotic.  If you have your way, millions will die and their property will be uninhabitable for generations.  That's what nukes are for.  They have no other use.  

Now lets make things absolutely clear:

Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean serious risk of human extinction, are you willing to accept regulation of them?

Question: If a piece of paper can be lit by a match and burn a house down with all the occupants in it every time, should we regulate paper use?

[FirstAscent]

Don't say taking you at your word is idiotic.  If you have your way, millions will die and their property will be uninhabitable for generations.  That's what nukes are for.  They have no other use.  

Now lets make things absolutely clear:

Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean serious risk of human extinction, are you willing to accept regulation of them?

Question: If a piece of paper can be lit by a match and burn a house down with all the occupants in it every time, should we regulate paper use?

Three things wrong with this. Paper has other uses. A burning house takes some time, and there is a chance of rescue. A burned house is not an obliterated city.

Try again.

[FirstAscent]

Don't say taking you at your word is idiotic.  If you have your way, millions will die and their property will be uninhabitable for generations.  That's what nukes are for.  They have no other use.  

Now lets make things absolutely clear:

Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean serious risk of human extinction, are you willing to accept regulation of them?

Question: If a piece of paper can be lit by a match and burn a house down with all the occupants in it every time, should we regulate paper use?

This would be a better question for you to ask: If a person can possess a nuke, and by pressing a button, obliterate a whole town and cause radioactive damage further out, should we regulate ownership of nukes by persons?

[FredericBastiat]

Three things wrong with this. Paper has other uses. A burning house takes some time, and there is a chance of rescue. A burned house is not an obliterated city.

Try again.

The materials in a nuclear bomb can be used for nuclear power. The metals the bomb is composed of can be used to build a bridge. They also have other uses. Of course, I could take the metals and make a fork to poke your eye out too. It goes to intent.

[FirstAscent]

Three things wrong with this. Paper has other uses. A burning house takes some time, and there is a chance of rescue. A burned house is not an obliterated city.

Try again.

The materials in a nuclear bomb can be used for nuclear power. The metals the bomb is composed of can be used to build a bridge. They also have other uses. Of course, I could take the metals and make a fork to poke your eye out too. It goes to intent.

When did a bridge require metals that you can't possess? When was it determined that it was likely that there would be much benefit to any person or society at large to allow a single individual to effectively try and construct power plants which are safe?

[FredericBastiat]

When did a bridge require metals that you can't possess? When was it determined that it was likely that there would be much benefit to any person or society at large to allow a single individual to effectively try and construct power plants which are safe?

If you can find it in the periodic table of the chemical elements, then you can possess it. I'm not going to answer your power plant question as it's a red herring and digresses from the topic at hand.

[Hawker]

Don't say taking you at your word is idiotic.  If you have your way, millions will die and their property will be uninhabitable for generations.  That's what nukes are for.  They have no other use.  

Now lets make things absolutely clear:

Question: If it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean serious risk of human extinction, are you willing to accept regulation of them?

Question: If a piece of paper can be lit by a match and burn a house down with all the occupants in it every time, should we regulate paper use?

A piece of paper is not a weapon of mass destruction.  There is a difference between burning 1 house at a time slowly and burning an entire city in a second.

Now with respect, please give your position; if it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean serious risk of human extinction, are you willing to accept regulation of them?

[FredericBastiat]

A piece of paper is not a weapon of mass destruction.  There is a difference between burning 1 house at a time slowly and burning an entire city in a second.

Now with respect, please give your position; if it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean serious risk of human extinction, are you willing to accept regulation of them?

Define the word "regulation" as it relates specifically to "nuclear bombs". Use your own words.

[Hawker]

A piece of paper is not a weapon of mass destruction.  There is a difference between burning 1 house at a time slowly and burning an entire city in a second.

Now with respect, please give your position; if it can be demonstrated that giving the right to nukes to everyone will mean serious risk of human extinction, are you willing to accept regulation of them?

Define the word "regulation" as it relates specifically to "nuclear bombs". Use your own words.

The danger of nukes is of total human extinction.  Therefore regulation should try to eliminate their physical existence over time and meanwhile reduce the risk of those that do exist.  It should limit access to them to those who already have it.  And get those who already have it to decommission it.  While we are waiting for that, ensure that no 1 individual can ever detonate a nuke and ensure that they are stored safely so that no accidental detonations occur. 

Its bad that they exist at all.  A regulation system should aim to eliminate the risk of a nuclear holocaust.