Carbon Tax to become Law in Australia

[Hawker]

You are confusing your own lack of imagination for a immutable law of nature. You can't figure out how property is useful without a government-granted title. You don't know how to interact with people or resolve interpersonal disputes without a government.

That's fine - you're under no obligation to know or learn alternative ways to solve these problem but by stating these things as if you know them to be true you're just putting your own unexamined prejudices forward as fact.

When you have a moment to spare, google "ad hominem."  Its a logic error and your post is a classic of its kind.  After reading up on it, feel free to make a post in which you engage with the arguments.

He didn't attack your character. He specifically attacked a fallacious element of your argument: "You are confusing your own lack of imagination for a immutable law of nature.". You reasoning boils down to this: I can't think of how a market will solve these problems, therefore they can't be solved. This is false logic.

google: "conflict resolution in a free society". There's plenty of info on this.

Note the bold parts; that's an ad hominem .  

We've talked about "conflict resolution in a free society" here before.  It always comes back to the same problem.  You can think of clever and imaginative ways to do it but without a state, they are too inefficient and the nature of competition means that you end up with a single overwhelming entity.  A democracy is better.

[1714822911]

1714822911

[1714822911]

1714822911

[1714822911]

1714822911

[1714822911]

1714822911

[1714822911]

1714822911

[FirstAscent]

You are confusing your own lack of imagination for a immutable law of nature. You can't figure out how property is useful without a government-granted title. You don't know how to interact with people or resolve interpersonal disputes without a government.

That's fine - you're under no obligation to know or learn alternative ways to solve these problem but by stating these things as if you know them to be true you're just putting your own unexamined prejudices forward as fact.

When you have a moment to spare, google "ad hominem."  Its a logic error and your post is a classic of its kind.  After reading up on it, feel free to make a post in which you engage with the arguments.

He didn't attack your character. He specifically attacked a fallacious element of your argument: "You are confusing your own lack of imagination for a immutable law of nature.". You reasoning boils down to this: I can't think of how a market will solve these problems, therefore they can't be solved. This is false logic.

google: "conflict resolution in a free society". There's plenty of info on this.

Note the bold parts; that's an ad hominem .

I personally wouldn't be too quick to accuse someone of ad hominem. Accusing one of ad hominem itself is often a form of ad hominem, precisely because it doesn't address the statement made, but instead draws attention to the character of the statement.

As an example, I might say to another: "Your own obtuseness and lack of imagination prevents you from seeing the bigger picture." And then I might go on with further statements, possibly logical and truthful or not. It is the further set of statements which form the meat of the argument, not the accusation that someone is obtuse.

Or I might say to another: "You're obviously an idiot. I pity you." And then go on to make other statements that might indeed be logically false, but regardless, perhaps it is obvious and true that the person I have called an idiot is truly an idiot.

[Vitalik Buterin]

I think the problem with carbon taxes is that we're thinking of them in the wrong way. We're trained to believe that the choice is between increasing taxes and using the money to fund wasteful subsidies on technologies that will allow us to continue destroying the world's resources but in a more clean and shiny way on the one hand and outright denialism on the other. I think there's a middle ground that libertarians and environmentalists alike will find acceptable: add carbon taxes, but use them to replace other taxes. If the government earns $10 billion from the carbon tax, remove $10 billion from the income tax.

It's economically superior in every way - it helps protect the environment, does so in a neutral way that doesn't build in a preference for any one solution over another, and it reduces taxes that dampen the incentive to produce.

[FirstAscent]

I think the problem with carbon taxes is that we're thinking of them in the wrong way. We're trained to believe that the choice is between increasing taxes and using the money to fund wasteful subsidies on technologies that will allow us to continue destroying the world's resources but in a more clean and shiny way on the one hand and outright denialism on the other. I think there's a middle ground that libertarians and environmentalists alike will find acceptable: add carbon taxes, but use them to replace other taxes. If the government earns $10 billion from the carbon tax, remove $10 billion from the income tax.

It's economically superior in every way - it helps protect the environment, does so in a neutral way that doesn't build in a preference for any one solution over another, and it reduces taxes that dampen the incentive to produce.

Hmmm.

Tax that which you want less of, and don't tax that which you want more of.

1. Tax extraction of natural resources.
2. Tax pollution.

Shades of Herman Daly and a steady-state economy?

http://seedmagazine.com/content/article/rethinking_growth/

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3941

[TECSHARE]

http://occupycorporatism.com/globalists-switching-gears-royal-society-lecturer-says-co2-not-effecting-earths-temperature/

[Explodicle]

http://occupycorporatism.com/globalists-switching-gears-royal-society-lecturer-says-co2-not-effecting-earths-temperature/

Continually spamming all carbon-related threads with links neither helps your cause nor advances the discussion. We have Google too, and you're oozing with confirmation bias.

[TECSHARE]

http://occupycorporatism.com/globalists-switching-gears-royal-society-lecturer-says-co2-not-effecting-earths-temperature/

Continually spamming all carbon-related threads with links neither helps your cause nor advances the discussion. We have Google too, and you're oozing with confirmation bias.

Spamming relevant current events in direct relation to the topic, which you just so happen to disagree with? Because you can find something on Google means you have knowledge of it already? That's a cool trick. By the way your refractory type of rhetoric is all too familiar. Sock puppet much?

[Explodicle]

By the way your refractory type of rhetoric is all too familiar. Sock puppet much?

Ok this is way too good to resist, sorry everyone else.

Whose sock puppet am I?

[FirstAscent]

By the way your refractory type of rhetoric is all too familiar. Sock puppet much?

Ok this is way too good to resist, sorry everyone else.

Whose sock puppet am I?

I don't know, but Fritz Vahrenholt (TECSHARE's link) is a chemist, affiliated with energy companies, and sat on the board of Shell. He has never published a paper on climate or climatology in a peer reviewed journal.

I have said over and over: all claims made by these charlatans can be refuted, and they can be tied to Big Oil or other organizations of ill repute, such as the Heartland Institute, the Cato Institute, etc. Think tanks are what they call themselves, and what they really are are nothing but fronts for conservative thinking masquerading as organizations which claim to be experts on climate.

It pretty much began with Frederick Seitz and his claims that tobacco smoke does not cause cancer, when he was on the payroll of RJ Reynolds, and then later, when he went on the payroll of Exxon/Mobil, where he then made claims about climate change. These windbags have continued spouting their fictions ever since.

Individuals such as TECSHARE find what they believe to be these earth shattering news items, and gleefully post them as though they were real science. Pretty sad.

[TECSHARE]

By the way your refractory type of rhetoric is all too familiar. Sock puppet much?

Ok this is way too good to resist, sorry everyone else.

Whose sock puppet am I?

I don't know, but Fritz Vahrenholt (TECSHARE's link) is a chemist, affiliated with energy companies, and sat on the board of Shell. He has never published a paper on climate or climatology in a peer reviewed journal.

I have said over and over: all claims made by these charlatans can be refuted, and they can be tied to Big Oil or other organizations of ill repute, such as the Heartland Institute, the Cato Institute, etc. Think tanks are what they call themselves, and what they really are are nothing but fronts for conservative thinking masquerading as organizations which claim to be experts on climate.

It pretty much began with Frederick Seitz and his claims that tobacco smoke does not cause cancer, when he was on the payroll of RJ Reynolds, and then later, when he went on the payroll of Exxon/Mobil, where he then made claims about climate change. These windbags have continued spouting their fictions ever since.

Individuals such as TECSHARE find what they believe to be these earth shattering news items, and gleefully post them as though they were real science. Pretty sad.

You called it science, I called it a related current event. You really enjoy speaking for other people don't you.

[Explodicle]

By the way your refractory type of rhetoric is all too familiar. Sock puppet much?

Ok this is way too good to resist, sorry everyone else.

Whose sock puppet am I?

I don't know, but Fritz Vahrenholt (TECSHARE's link) is a chemist, affiliated with energy companies, and sat on the board of Shell. He has never published a paper on climate or climatology in a peer reviewed journal.

I have said over and over: all claims made by these charlatans can be refuted, and they can be tied to Big Oil or other organizations of ill repute, such as the Heartland Institute, the Cato Institute, etc. Think tanks are what they call themselves, and what they really are are nothing but fronts for conservative thinking masquerading as organizations which claim to be experts on climate.

It pretty much began with Frederick Seitz and his claims that tobacco smoke does not cause cancer, when he was on the payroll of RJ Reynolds, and then later, when he went on the payroll of Exxon/Mobil, where he then made claims about climate change. These windbags have continued spouting their fictions ever since.

Individuals such as TECSHARE find what they believe to be these earth shattering news items, and gleefully post them as though they were real science. Pretty sad.

You called it science, I called it a related current event. You really enjoy speaking for other people don't you.

lolz

So first you get called out on a bullshit sockpuppet accusation. Then FirstAscent completely destroys your source. And your response to both... is to weasel out of addressing either.

What a coward.

[TECSHARE]

You guys are comical, what is to respond to? This is nothing I haven't heard 20 times from him. I just enjoy the complete total over reaction at the mere sight of an opposing view induces in your little circle, as well as the coordinated personal attacks never resulting in ANY actual empirical data being introduced. The over reaction serves to illustrate how your emotional motivations clearly over power your logical observations, as well as completely entertain the shit out of me.

[Explodicle]

Perhaps these three things share something in common:

1) I am using sock puppets.
2) FirstAscent and I are coordinating attacks.
3) Globalists are tricking the world's scientists about CO2.

[TECSHARE]

http://occupycorporatism.com/climategate-scientists-governments-private-industry-conspire-to-fool-the-world/
http://junkscience.com/2012/06/22/hank-campbell-ipcc-gives-up-on-science-makes-grey-literature-official/
Have fun attacking me and not staying on topic, as usual.

[caish5]

25.905 cents per kwh. is my new electricity price. Up from 22.759.
So ok a bit extra for carbon tax, fair enough you think.....
That is not how Australian business works!
You see we also have a daily fee for the luxury of being charged that price, up from 28.787 cents per day to 65.9 cents per day.
125% extra!
And all of this for the same filthy coal we've always used.

And mining companies are working on shipping ever increasing quantities of coal to China so they can burn it tax free.

I'm sure this will really help the environment!