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

[FredericBastiat]

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

[1714111033]

1714111033

[Hawker]

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]

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.

[Hawker]

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]

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.  

[FredericBastiat]

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).

[FirstAscent]

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]

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]

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.

[Hawker]

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]

"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]

"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]

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]

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]

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  

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

[FredericBastiat]

"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.

[FredericBastiat]

* 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.

[Hawker]

* 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]

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. 

[Hawker]

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. 

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?