Types of ownership

[NghtRppr]

Yes. I can be a little less vague. But if I choose to be less vague, then I'm demonstrating that you're not able to think it through.

I'm not a mind reader. In the future, unless you make your own arguments, I will simply disregard you. You must think I'm an idiot if you think I can't see that you're just being intellectually lazy.

[FirstAscent]

I'm not a mind reader. In the future, unless you make your own arguments, I will simply disregard you. You must think I'm an idiot if you think I can't see that you're just being intellectually lazy.

How am I being intellectually lazy? I honestly didn't think it would take mind reading on your part to to go back over the argument, see the obvious shortcomings of your analogy, take my rather generous hints, and put together a better analogy. And you call me intellectually lazy?

I'm being patient with you, man! I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

[NghtRppr]

I'm not a mind reader. In the future, unless you make your own arguments, I will simply disregard you. You must think I'm an idiot if you think I can't see that you're just being intellectually lazy.

How am I being intellectually lazy? I honestly didn't think it would take mind reading on your part to to go back over the argument, see the obvious shortcomings of your analogy, take my rather generous hints, and put together a better analogy. And you call me intellectually lazy?

I'm being patient with you, man! I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Stop wasting my time.

[FirstAscent]

I'm not a mind reader. In the future, unless you make your own arguments, I will simply disregard you. You must think I'm an idiot if you think I can't see that you're just being intellectually lazy.

How am I being intellectually lazy? I honestly didn't think it would take mind reading on your part to to go back over the argument, see the obvious shortcomings of your analogy, take my rather generous hints, and put together a better analogy. And you call me intellectually lazy?

I'm being patient with you, man! I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt.

Stop wasting my time.

You do have a history of getting cranky when your arguments are called into question. Let's review your own analogy and its components:

• The cups of water being poured into the well are analogous to pollution, in this case, carbon dioxide.
• The rising water level is analogous to a rising level of atmospheric pollution.
• You and your friends, by pouring cups of water into the well, are analogous to emitters of carbon dioxide.

Now, as stated many posts back, and before your presentation of the water tank/well analogy, carbon dioxide emitted here can be on another continent within a week, and anywhere in the world within a few months. Therefore, it is rather obvious that your analogy, where the water cups affect me, but not you and your friends is rather unrealistic. Really, who should be in the well? Once we've answered that rather simple question (which you neglected to do after repeatedly being asked), we can then choose an appropriate and analogous process which causes the rising water level in the well, can't we?

[NghtRppr]

Therefore, it is rather obvious that your analogy, where the water cups affect me, but not you and your friends is rather unrealistic.

Finally, you get to the point. You're the one talking about carbon dioxide. I was talking about pollution in general. There are examples were my pollution doesn't affect me but does affect you. As just one example, if I own a coal burning plant and soot and ashs get dumped everywhere, including my property, I don't care. I'm sure you can think of other examples but that's ultimately irrelevant. Let's say me and 9 other people are doing something that's causing damage to all of us, you're still being damaged and you still have a legitimate complaint against us. Whether or not we take damage is irrelevant. If you think it's relevant then please explain how. Be quick about it too. Let's not have another half-dozen posts of meandering "I'll give you a hint" smugness.

[FirstAscent]

Therefore, it is rather obvious that your analogy, where the water cups affect me, but not you and your friends is rather unrealistic.

Finally, you get to the point. You're the one talking about carbon dioxide. I was talking about pollution in general. There are examples were my pollution doesn't affect me but does affect you. As just one example, if I own a coal burning plant and soot and ashs get dumped everywhere, including my property, I don't care. I'm sure you can think of other examples but that's ultimately irrelevant. Let's say me and 9 other people are doing something that's causing damage to all of us, you're still being damaged and you still have a legitimate complaint against us. Whether or not we take damage is irrelevant. If you think it's relevant then please explain how. Be quick about it too. Let's not have another half-dozen posts of meandering "I'll give you a hint" smugness.

Do we need to quote the original post in which you created the analogy?

You just don't get it, do you? It may be the case that your pollution output is not violating my rights significantly. After all, the pollutants you emit into the atmosphere are over another continent within a week. Collectively, though, you and your ilk are polluting. By what metric should your output be factored?

Let's say that you're tied up in a large tank with water up to your neck. Me and 9 other people start adding 1 cup of water at a time. Eventually the water goes up over your mouth and nose and you die. Am I liable for 1/10th of a murder? No, I'm liable for the whole thing even though I only contributed to it and there's no way to prove it was me that poured in the final cup of water that killed you.

The rest of your post is pointless garbage so there's nothing else to address. Notice how every time you put forth an argument like you just did above it gets demolished, is that why you're so hesitant? Is that why you like to play it aloof? I think it is.

It's quite clear that we were talking about carbon dioxide. Notice the question I asked you that prompted you to analogize pollution to the water tank/well? It followed a discussion about carbon dioxide. However, if you choose to be so wormy, and claim that we were talking about pollution in general, then that would include carbon dioxide, and many other pollutants and environmental effects which would also affect you and your friends in addition to me.

Why is it relevant that you and your friends are taking damage as well? Because by putting you and your friends in the well along side me, we've clarified to you who is really being affected. Based upon your analogy, you failed to clarify that you understood all who were affected, which makes your analogy weak, and calls into question the justification of your beliefs.   

Once you're aware that you are taking damage, it influences your decisions in a way that is different than if you are not aware of it. By placing the burden upon me alone to demonstrate that everyone is taking damage, you have delayed mitigating the damage done. In other words, the water level rises more than necessary, and possibly results in irreversible damage. Your friends, by being stubborn, or ignorant, are in fact the embodiment of a libertarian think tank engaged in either brownlash or ignorance in the defense of a political ideology.

Your argument, and your analogy, must factor in as much knowledge and truth as possible, if you don't want to be accused of being either willfully ignorant, just plain ignorant, or willfully deceitful.

On a sidenote, it's interesting to note that in your analogy, I am constrained such that I cannot leave the well. This is accurate, as it represents either the fact that we cannot just leave the Earth, or that it is not always easy to relocate. You might want to also consider that we are all constrained within the well. As for the cups of water being poured in, you might want to consider that it's actually our piss and shit, which affects the fish which swim in the well with us. When we've fished out all the fish, we hunt the birds above us, which accounts for how our piss and shit is additive to the water within the well.

Feel free to apply your homesteading logic to fishing within the well if you want. We'll see how that works out.

The well analogy, if properly fleshed out, is in fact an excellent example of a closed ecosystem. It's too bad you thought you and your friends weren't a part of it, as if they lived on Mars.

[NghtRppr]

Therefore, it is rather obvious that your analogy, where the water cups affect me, but not you and your friends is rather unrealistic.

Finally, you get to the point. You're the one talking about carbon dioxide. I was talking about pollution in general. There are examples were my pollution doesn't affect me but does affect you. As just one example, if I own a coal burning plant and soot and ashs get dumped everywhere, including my property, I don't care. I'm sure you can think of other examples but that's ultimately irrelevant. Let's say me and 9 other people are doing something that's causing damage to all of us, you're still being damaged and you still have a legitimate complaint against us. Whether or not we take damage is irrelevant. If you think it's relevant then please explain how. Be quick about it too. Let's not have another half-dozen posts of meandering "I'll give you a hint" smugness.

Do we need to quote the original post in which you created the analogy?

You just don't get it, do you? It may be the case that your pollution output is not violating my rights significantly. After all, the pollutants you emit into the atmosphere are over another continent within a week. Collectively, though, you and your ilk are polluting. By what metric should your output be factored?

Let's say that you're tied up in a large tank with water up to your neck. Me and 9 other people start adding 1 cup of water at a time. Eventually the water goes up over your mouth and nose and you die. Am I liable for 1/10th of a murder? No, I'm liable for the whole thing even though I only contributed to it and there's no way to prove it was me that poured in the final cup of water that killed you.

The rest of your post is pointless garbage so there's nothing else to address. Notice how every time you put forth an argument like you just did above it gets demolished, is that why you're so hesitant? Is that why you like to play it aloof? I think it is.

It's quite clear that we were talking about carbon dioxide. Notice the question I asked you that prompted you to analogize pollution to the water tank/well? It followed a discussion about carbon dioxide. However, if you choose to be so wormy, and claim that we were talking about pollution in general, then that would include carbon dioxide, and many other pollutants and environmental effects which would also affect you and your friends in addition to me.

Why is it relevant that you and your friends are taking damage as well? Because by putting you and your friends in the well along side me, we've clarified to you who is really being affected. Based upon your analogy, you failed to clarify that you understood all who were affected, which makes your analogy weak, and calls into question the justification of your beliefs.   

Once you're aware that you are taking damage, it influences your decisions in a way that is different than if you are not aware of it. By placing the burden upon me alone to demonstrate that everyone is taking damage, you have delayed mitigating the damage done. In other words, the water level rises more than necessary, and possibly results in irreversible damage. Your friends, by being stubborn, or ignorant, are in fact the embodiment of a libertarian think tank engaged in either brownlash or ignorance in the defense of a political ideology.

Your argument, and your analogy, must factor in as much knowledge and truth as possible, if you don't want to be accused of being either willfully ignorant, just plain ignorant, or willfully deceitful.

On a sidenote, it's interesting to note that in your analogy, I am constrained such that I cannot leave the well. This is accurate, as it represents either the fact that we cannot just leave the Earth, or that it is not always easy to relocate. You might want to also consider that we are all constrained within the well. As for the cups of water being poured in, you might want to consider that it's actually our piss and shit, which affects the fish which swim in the well with us. When we've fished out all the fish, we hunt the birds above us, which accounts for how our piss and shit is additive to the water within the well.

Feel free to apply your homesteading logic to fishing within the well if you want. We'll see how that works out.

The well analogy, if properly fleshed out, is in fact an excellent example of a closed ecosystem. It's too bad you thought you and your friends weren't a part of it, as if they lived on Mars.

Red herring.

My point stands, you're still being damaged and you still have a legitimate complaint against me. If you can show that I'm contributing to the damage of your property then you have a complaint. You can sue me and force me to stop damaging your property, with force if necessary, just as you could if I were throwing rocks at your house.

[FatherMcGruder]

The analogy works better if all parties find themselves at the bottom of a large vessel from which they cannot escape. The vessel features two taps (with valves), one for water and one for food, like that stuff in The Matrix, but lacks any kind of drainage. Whatever comes out of those taps stays in the tank, in one form or another.

[FirstAscent]

Red herring.

My point stands, you're still being damaged and you still have a legitimate complaint against me. If you can show that I'm contributing to the damage of your property then you have a complaint. You can sue me and force me to stop damaging your property, with force if necessary, just as you could if I were throwing rocks at your house.

So let me understand what you've just said within the context of the developing analogy. You're declaring we each have a claim on two or three square feet within the well, is that correct?

[TiagoTiago]

That analogy is flawed, it doesn't contain any aspect of real choice, either you drink and eat and end up drowning everyone in your shit and piss, or you die of starvation or dehydration and leave the other people with a rotting corpse that eventually either putrefy and become a serious health treat to everyone, or will be used as food and result in piss and shit everyone will have to live in.

[NghtRppr]

The analogy is only supposed to illustrate that I can do one thing by myself and not harm someone but in doing the same thing along with multiple others, I cause real damage. The analogy works perfectly well to show that. There's nothing flawed about it insofar as I meant it to be applicable.

[TiagoTiago]

Just one person pissing and shitting, or dieing, inside a small confined space with a bunch of other people also stuck in there is already too much.

[Explodicle]

When explaining an idea to a receptive audience, analogies can be useful. They form a conceptual bridge to something that would be too complex to grasp otherwise.

In political arguments they are always always always useless. The other party will always dispute the model because your analogy always supports your main thesis. Or worse yet, sometimes the reality  IS more complex than your analogy in an important way. It never helps. The other party doesn't need simplification, they need more detail that you can back up with facts.

[NghtRppr]

When explaining an idea to a receptive audience, analogies can be useful. They form a conceptual bridge to something that would be too complex to grasp otherwise.

In political arguments they are always always always useless. The other party will always dispute the model because your analogy always supports your main thesis. Or worse yet, sometimes the reality  IS more complex than your analogy in an important way. It never helps. The other party doesn't need simplification, they need more detail that you can back up with facts.

Fair enough. Let me explain the details and perhaps you can make something of it. FirstAscent claims that enforcing property rights aren't enough to prevent pollution because certain types of pollution are a combined result of many people, not a single person e.g. dumping trash on your property. What I'm trying to explain is that even if they are only one of many contributors, they all share equal culpability and can be individually forced to stop their activities much as if they were the only person causing the pollution. What do you make of this?

[Explodicle]

When explaining an idea to a receptive audience, analogies can be useful. They form a conceptual bridge to something that would be too complex to grasp otherwise.

In political arguments they are always always always useless. The other party will always dispute the model because your analogy always supports your main thesis. Or worse yet, sometimes the reality  IS more complex than your analogy in an important way. It never helps. The other party doesn't need simplification, they need more detail that you can back up with facts.

Fair enough. Let me explain the details and perhaps you can make something of it. FirstAscent claims that enforcing property rights aren't enough to prevent pollution because certain types of pollution are a combined result of many people, not a single person e.g. dumping trash on your property. What I'm trying to explain is that even if they are only one of many contributors, they all share equal culpability and can be individually forced to stop their activities much as if they were the only person causing the pollution. What do you make of this?

Here's where I am so far (correct me if needed).

Pollution, including carbon dioxide, is a "tragedy of the commons" and behaves as an externality. If transaction costs are relatively low and most participants are rational, they should be able to resolve it on their own - I don't think anyone is disputing that. It gets tricky when transaction costs are higher or many participants are irrational.

So yes, in theory you should be able to employ force against a polluter overseas, and even collaborate with other people who perceive the threat. But in reality this can prove so difficult that strong property rights on their own might not be the most efficient solution (for now). I'm not disputing that a non-aggressive solution exists, but we're not quite there yet and might not survive a sudden transition.

Has anyone attempted a vigilante libertarian solution to carbon dioxide emissions yet? Or some smaller-scale externality resolution using strong property rights? Maybe I just need to educate myself.

[TiagoTiago]

Doesn't Greenpeace do that? (or tries to anyway)

[FirstAscent]

When explaining an idea to a receptive audience, analogies can be useful. They form a conceptual bridge to something that would be too complex to grasp otherwise.

In political arguments they are always always always useless. The other party will always dispute the model because your analogy always supports your main thesis. Or worse yet, sometimes the reality  IS more complex than your analogy in an important way. It never helps. The other party doesn't need simplification, they need more detail that you can back up with facts.

Fair enough. Let me explain the details and perhaps you can make something of it. FirstAscent claims that enforcing property rights aren't enough to prevent pollution because certain types of pollution are a combined result of many people, not a single person e.g. dumping trash on your property. What I'm trying to explain is that even if they are only one of many contributors, they all share equal culpability and can be individually forced to stop their activities much as if they were the only person causing the pollution. What do you make of this?

Here's where I am so far (correct me if needed).

Pollution, including carbon dioxide, is a "tragedy of the commons" and behaves as an externality. If transaction costs are relatively low and most participants are rational, they should be able to resolve it on their own - I don't think anyone is disputing that. It gets tricky when transaction costs are higher or many participants are irrational.

So yes, in theory you should be able to employ force against a polluter overseas, and even collaborate with other people who perceive the threat. But in reality this can prove so difficult that strong property rights on their own might not be the most efficient solution (for now). I'm not disputing that a non-aggressive solution exists, but we're not quite there yet and might not survive a sudden transition.

Has anyone attempted a vigilante libertarian solution to carbon dioxide emissions yet? Or some smaller-scale externality resolution using strong property rights? Maybe I just need to educate myself.

The problems:

1. The free market perpetuates that which is really profitable to a few at the expense of the rest of us. They employ heavily funded misinformation media campaigns and pseudoscience quite successfully to uneducate the public. There is a well documented history of this going on at least back to the tobacco industry, and although the misinformation being spread relates to undermining scientific research, if one looks at the real agenda, it can be attributed to libertarian think tanks whose primary goal is to eliminate regulation. It's interesting that they're generally unsuccessful at selling the idea of deregulation and pure free markets directly, so they have to resort to campaigns which distort and mislead.

2. The uneducated public, the ignorant, the naive and so forth, often the result of the above mentioned media campaigns, do not collectively sue everyone to keep everyone regulated.

3. Additionally, there's a lot of neighborly "I'll look the other way if you do."

4. Nobody wants to be hated by their neighbor. That's understandable, but it allows for an inconsistent and ineffective reduction of pollutants or environmental destruction - it's better if a centralized agency regulates, thus neighbors don't have to adopt the burden of feeling like a tattletale.

5. For every type of pollution or negative effect which affects the environment that most are aware of, there are ten more that the average Joe is not aware of. The cascading effects of anthropogenic environmental change are complex, despite what bitcoin2cash says. As just one among many many effects, consider the temperature that is required for female alligators to be born vs. male alligators. It takes only a few degrees to tip the balance to 100 percent male or 100 percent female. Factor in the fact that species in the Northern Hemisphere are relocating northwards at an average of four miles per decade to compensate for temperature changes. However, this is increasingly difficult in today's environment when the habitat is not available for relocation - i.e suburban sprawl, differing northward relocation rates of symbiotic environmental features, etc.