Socialism

[bitlancr]

Will you please state any example, anywhere in the world, where significant swaths of privately-held, economically-productive land have resulted in long-term preservation of the inherent ecosystems in the absence of intervention from regulatory action?

You know, just anywhere in the world?

Yes.

http://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/

I could go on and make a list, but it only takes one counter example to refute your point.

To give a broader perspective, an eighth of the world's protected nature reserves are privately owned (http://www.economist.com/node/748602). This is in spite of government interventions.

People don't need to be coerced into doing good things.

[bitlancr]

I fully agree that law should be and to a large degree is a reflection of a society's values.

I completely disagree with this. It's dangerous to think that law should be a reflection of the transient 'values' of 'society'.

If 51% of people agree with slavery, does that make it OK?
If 51% of people think homosexuality is wrong, should it be illegal?

[smscotten]

I fully agree that law should be and to a large degree is a reflection of a society's values.

I completely disagree with this. It's dangerous to think that law should be a reflection of the transient 'values' of 'society'.

If 51% of people agree with slavery, does that make it OK?
If 51% of people think homosexuality is wrong, should it be illegal?

Oh come on. Don't be pedantic. I never said the transient values. Even the people who believe that homosexuality is wrong understand and approve of a system that preserves individual rights against the tyranny of the majority. Even if they are too narrow-minded to apply it to a specific case, they will almost all tell you that they defend the right for others to say and do things they disagree with. That's the whole reason the United States has a democratically-elected republican system of government instead of a democracy.

But for pete's sake, if the laws aren't a reflection of the beliefs of the people who are alive and part of a society now, then whose beliefs should they be a reflection of? Should people in Argentina make the laws for the people in Canada? Do we all get our laws handed down from visitors from another planet? Or maybe you get to be the dictator? Completely absurd!

The very idea you're talking about—that the majority shouldn't be permitted to trample the rights of a minority—that is a value. It is a part of the set of values that laws are founded upon. As values change, so too do the laws. If you have a better way, I'm all ears.

I don't know what kind of narrow definition of 'values' you think I'm using to think it is dangerous for laws to be based on values, but laws ought to be about right and wrong. Those sorts of beliefs are referred to in most of the English-speaking world as "values."

[bitlancr]

I'm hardly being pedantic, considering that homosexuality is still outlawed in many parts of the world. Add to that women's rights, political oppression... and you see why 'values' are a sticky subject.

In my opinion, laws shouldn't be based on any particular system of values, other than what is equitable between the parties at hand. Of course you can call that a value system in itself (nice circular argument), but I believe it's the only one which is consistent and fair.

[cWq34#9tH-3]

Your damn "values" should stop at the point where they fuck with me AND vice-versa.

...And with incredibly rare-exception, criminal laws should not be applied to people who haven't done anything that didn't "directly" affect another.

BTW, You guys are making some great arguments here and it's been a very refreshing read from most of the tripe that's in other forums. Thanks!

[Rassah]

As long as there are other states, we will need a national defense because those other states will send people with tanks and bombs to annex us. ... So at the very least we need nationalized (==socialized) defense.

Sorry to interject a random thought, but, I wonder if, in our world of global trade, where it's cheaper and more productive to compete in business than with tanks, if the concept of "standing armies for defense" is quickly becoming as obsolete as "building castles for defense?"

[FirstAscent]

To give a broader perspective, an eighth of the world's protected nature reserves are privately owned (http://www.economist.com/node/748602). This is in spite of government interventions.

Which implies that the other 7/8 of the world's protected nature preserves are publicly owned. It sounds like the methods you advocate are about 1/7 as effective as government methods. I advocate both, to even larger degrees.

In fact, it's absolutely necessary. How often do you see urban and suburban areas becoming nature preserves vs natural areas becoming urban and suburban areas? As time passes, we end up with less and less natural areas. Once you learn about ecosystem services, this will scare you. See the long post I made to which I linked to earlier to understand better.

Also, please consider the ratio of the area of a nature preserve's land to its perimeter. This is a very important number. Again, read the long post I made to which I linked to earlier to understand it.

People don't need to be coerced into doing good things.
[/quote]

Not even worth replying to, given my above statements.

[FirstAscent]

Your damn "values" should stop at the point where they fuck with me AND vice-versa.

No, they should fuck with you if necessary. As an example, did you know that in many cities in California, you are forbidden to cut down oak trees of certain sizes? That's fucking with you. And I'm so glad for it.

[J603]

I fully agree that law should be and to a large degree is a reflection of a society's values.

I completely disagree with this. It's dangerous to think that law should be a reflection of the transient 'values' of 'society'.

If 51% of people agree with slavery, does that make it OK?
If 51% of people think homosexuality is wrong, should it be illegal?

The thing is, morals are subjective. You and I might be "moral" enough to know that slavery is wrong, and that homosexuals deserve equal rights, but that is our opinion.

If 51% of the people believe something, it makes sense that that should be the law, whether or not you and I agree with it.

Interestingly enough, you brought up two different examples which are opposites in terms of morality vs. majority. Arguably, slavery is wrong. The majority of people in the US believe this to be true. Yet you do not argue for hardliners that would legalize slavery. You're going against the minority.

The majority of people are against gays. Bigotry is immoral (by my standards), but the majority of people think that anti-gay laws are ok. I'm guessing based on the post, that you support homosexuals. You're going against the majority in this case.

You contradicted yourself. You supported the minority in the one case and the majority in the other. So how should laws reflect values of society? Why does it make sense that your morals should dictate laws, as opposed to the majority's views?

[bitlancr]

Which implies that the other 7/8 of the world's protected nature preserves are publicly owned. It sounds like the methods you advocate are about 1/7 as effective as government methods. I advocate both, to even larger degrees.

That's a gross oversimplification. When you consider that private entities don't have the power of compulsory purchase, (directly) enacting legislation in their favour, taxing for revenue, I think that 1/8th figure should be considered impressive.

Besides, the point wasn't about scale, it was to demonstrate that private property can be conducive to environmental protection.

No, they should fuck with you if necessary. As an example, did you know that in many cities in California, you are forbidden to cut down oak trees of certain sizes? That's fucking with you. And I'm so glad for it.

Here's a perfect example of an unjust law - being coerced into preserving a species on behalf of those who want it preserved. I'm all for conservation, but it's something that individuals who support it should do themselves.

[bitlancr]

The thing is, morals are subjective. You and I might be "moral" enough to know that slavery is wrong, and that homosexuals deserve equal rights, but that is our opinion.

Precisely. This is why laws shouldn't be based on morals.

If 51% of the people believe something, it makes sense that that should be the law, whether or not you and I agree with it.

I couldn't disagree more. You're either contradicting yourself here, or you think the law should be subjective. The latter is worrying, in my opinion.

You contradicted yourself. You supported the minority in the one case and the majority in the other. So how should laws reflect values of society? Why does it make sense that your morals should dictate laws, as opposed to the majority's views?

They are both hypothetical questions, I don't see the contradiction.

Laws should be based on principles of fairness, and natural rights (in oneself and one's property). No subjective "morals" should be involved.

[FirstAscent]

Which implies that the other 7/8 of the world's protected nature preserves are publicly owned. It sounds like the methods you advocate are about 1/7 as effective as government methods. I advocate both, to even larger degrees.

That's a gross oversimplification. When you consider that private entities don't have the power of compulsory purchase, (directly) enacting legislation in their favour, taxing for revenue, I think that 1/8th figure should be considered impressive.

Besides, the point wasn't about scale, it was to demonstrate that private property can be conducive to environmental protection.

What good is your point without factoring the relevance of scale? Is it due to you not understanding the issue?

No, they should fuck with you if necessary. As an example, did you know that in many cities in California, you are forbidden to cut down oak trees of certain sizes? That's fucking with you. And I'm so glad for it.

Here's a perfect example of an unjust law - being coerced into preserving a species on behalf of those who want it preserved. I'm all for conservation, but it's something that individuals who support it should do themselves.

But individuals won't. And that's the whole point. Thus regulations. Thank you for pointing out the ineffectiveness of your views.

[cWq34#9tH-3]

Your damn "values" should stop at the point where they fuck with me AND vice-versa.

No, they should fuck with you if necessary. As an example, did you know that in many cities in California, you are forbidden to cut down oak trees of certain sizes? That's fucking with you. And I'm so glad for it.

I don't consider a law to be fucking with "ME" if it's necessary. And these types of laws are necessary because while an individual tree might not matter - as a national or global policy they certainly do: So I too am glad that they have this law.

However, your nonchalant and happy/wanting to fuck with me attitude (or in other words your taking pleasure in fucking with other people) now that bothers me. All I am going to say about this is go ahead fuck with people on purpose. See what that get's ya....

[cWq34#9tH-3]

I am am somewhat surprised that with the advanced level of knowledge in here - that some in here still have no clue about the tragedy that's happened to our environment. And to those of you like this - do you not realize how much the temperature is expected to change by just 2050? Red Alert: Do you not realize the ramifications of this? This is far more dangerous that any so-called T threat or just about anything else. How the hell can you not get this? And are you effin crazy? We should all be extremely concerned about the environment and knowing-understanding that if we are to err - that it must be on the side of the environment. JFC, come on, quit rattling off crazy foxnews & teaparty talking points.

[FirstAscent]

I am am somewhat surprised that with the advanced level of knowledge in here - that some in here still have no clue about the tragedy that's happened to our environment. And to those of you like this - do you not realize how much the temperature is expected to change by just 2050? Do you not realize the ramifications of this? How the hell can you not get this? And are you effin crazy? We should all be extremely concerned about the environment and knowing-understanding that if we are to err - that it must be on the side of the environment. JFC, come on, quit rattling off crazy foxnews & teaparty talking points.

Maybe we're on the same page, for the most part. I'm not entirely familiar with your views, as expressed on this site, long term.

You might want to read this fairly long post I made some time ago: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=97243.msg1073879#msg1073879

[crumbs]

...
Laws should be based on principles of fairness, and natural rights (in oneself and one's property). No subjective "morals" should be involved.

"Principles of fairness"?
"Natural rights"?  You mean something like "Lebensraum ("living space") as being a law of nature for all healthy and vigorous peoples of superior races to displace people of inferior races"? (-wikip)

[bitlancr]

What good is your point without factoring the relevance of scale?

See below...

But individuals won't. And that's the whole point. Thus regulations. Thank you for pointing out the ineffectiveness of your views.

Individuals already have - that was my point!

Obviously scale is relevant, but we're not talking orders of magnitude here. 12.5% is impressive considering the powers that governments have!

I'm sorry that you think so low of your fellow man that you think coercion is the only means of protecting ecosystems... We humans are a better lot than you make us out to be.

[FirstAscent]

What good is your point without factoring the relevance of scale?

See below...

But individuals won't. And that's the whole point. Thus regulations. Thank you for pointing out the ineffectiveness of your views.

Individuals already have - that was my point!

Obviously scale is relevant, but we're not talking orders of magnitude here. 12.5% is impressive considering the powers that governments have!

I'm sorry that you think so low of your fellow man that you think coercion is the only means of protecting ecosystems... We humans are a better lot than you make us out to be.

12.5 percent isn't enough. Scale matters.

[cWq34#9tH-3]

I am am somewhat surprised that with the advanced level of knowledge in here - that some in here still have no clue about the tragedy that's happened to our environment. And to those of you like this - do you not realize how much the temperature is expected to change by just 2050? Do you not realize the ramifications of this? How the hell can you not get this? And are you effin crazy? We should all be extremely concerned about the environment and knowing-understanding that if we are to err - that it must be on the side of the environment. JFC, come on, quit rattling off crazy foxnews & teaparty talking points.

Maybe we're on the same page, for the most part. I'm not entirely familiar with your views, as expressed on this site, long term.

You might want to read this fairly long post I made some time ago: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=97243.msg1073879#msg1073879

Really, I think that the majority of us in here are on the same page for the vast majority of the issues - disagreeing mostly to small degrees. And I've been enjoying the read, so thanks I'll check out your post.

[crumbs]

...Obviously scale is relevant, but we're not talking orders of magnitude here. 12.5% is impressive considering the powers that governments have!
...

This is the first time i'm hearing these stats, what do they mean, exactly?