TokyoTom: ls, I`m afraid I don`t really get what`s with you. I`ve really treated you rather nicely, but you seem to want to have an enemy. Sorry, but I don`t really want to play.. your time here will be short. The snappy answer, of course, is that this is MY line, but then I`m one of those rational, caring and sensitive people who doesn`t hide his lack of self-confidence with threats. FYI, I`ve been commenting at LvMI for 5 1/2 years.
ls, I`m afraid I don`t really get what`s with you. I`ve really treated you rather nicely, but you seem to want to have an enemy. Sorry, but I don`t really want to play..
your time here will be short.
The snappy answer, of course, is that this is MY line, but then I`m one of those rational, caring and sensitive people who doesn`t hide his lack of self-confidence with threats. FYI, I`ve been commenting at LvMI for 5 1/2 years.
In this forum community, the standard of discourse is sincerity. If you are going to strawman, to the point where it becomes obvious lying, you can go back to commenting elsewhere. This is not a unique standard for you, it is community norm. If you want to discuss facts and ideas, that is wonderful. If you are here to mis-characterize and be anti-social, then save us all the trouble and back off.
TokyoTom: Where are the non-libertarians? Um, the ones who read my blog.
Where are the non-libertarians?
Um, the ones who read my blog.
You are aware this is not your blog, but the forum community, yes?
TokyoTom:For REAL libertarians, their beliefs are not an echo chamber.
And pray tell, what is a real libertarian?
TokyoTom:Instead, they try to persuade other people.
Perhaps you are unaware of the body of work of many libertarians here.
TokyoTom:That seems to be beyond your ability to conceive.
Not at all. But your premise requires everyone to buy into CC, and I think you have seen there is a fair amount of skepticism here. Next, you want us to buy into the notion that the best way to deal with CC is to work with the government, rather than against the government. If you spent some time following the tenor and direction of conversations here, you would find that there is a strong sentiment that directing government is immoral.
So it seems to me, that if you want to have an honest discussion, with many very intelligent and thoughtful libertarians here in this community, you may need to stop assuming that climate change is in fact, a done deal, and then you may need to stop assuming that everyone who is not pursuing your agenda, your way, is doing absolutely nothing.
Libertarian philosophy is not centered on the right policy or effective government planning via tariffs, taxes and regulation but rather a complete approach to property and life.
No one here will disagree with you on the correctness of reducing taxes, but the point is that there should be no taxes at all.
If you find something evil that wobbles, push it. - Gary North
TokyoTom:But what are your thoughts about dealing with public utilities?
The utilitarian argument is fairly straight forward.
Interventions within the public sector implies a redistribution of public property from some public servants to others. This encourages a higher time preference and short sighted over-utilization of resources on the part of public servants. The greater the level of state intervention internally, the greater it's external level of exploitation. Insofar as there are public utilities at all, they should be left unregulated.
TokyoTom:And wouldn``t insisting that citizens get a per capita cut of royalties be a good step on the way to privatization?
No. Citizens in general do not own public utilities. One class of citizens, the taxpayers, owns the public utilities. Paying royalties to citizens would be redistributive. If anyone deserves royalties, it's the taxpayers, and in proportion to the taxes they've paid plus interest from the time they paid them. What would be even better, is giving the taxpayers shares of the company, in proportion to the taxes they've paid. That would be the proper step toward privatization.
Liberals don't mean to destroy people. They just do.
February 17 - 1600 - Giordano Bruno is burnt alive by the catholic church. Aquinas : "much more reason is there for heretics, as soon as they are convicted of heresy, to be not only excommunicated but even put to death."
ls, I`m afraid it``s not me who`s the weird one.
In this forum community, the standard of discourse is sincerity.
great standard, but I have hard time seeing it in your posts.
If you are going to strawman, to the point where it becomes obvious lying,
I have no CLUE as to what you think you`re talking about. Try being a little more frank about tell me HOW you think I`ve transgressed. The fact that I`m still here while several who have called me a liar are gone ought to tell you something - chiefly, that you`re shadow boxing with demons of your own making.
If you want to discuss facts and ideas, that is wonderful.
Great,
If you are here to mis-characterize and be anti-social, then save us all the trouble and back off.
Well said, but take a look at the man in the mirror, man!
You seem to have problem figuring out what for anyone else is obvious context. I live where people are a quite a bit more adept at figuring out what others mean. If you can`t follow me, I guess that must make me a liar, or something.
your premise requires everyone to buy into CC
No, it doesn`t; it merely requires people to assume what is obvious; namely that OTHERS believe in CC.
you want us to buy into the notion that the best way to deal with CC is to work with the government, rather than against the government.
No. I want you buy into the notion that ONE way work against the government is to find other people who will agree with you to cut it back.
there is a strong sentiment that directing government is immoral.
Great; but when did PARING BACK government become "immoral"?
you may need to stop assuming that climate change is in fact, a done deal
You tire me, ls, as I`ve made no such assumption; in fact, my argument revolves around the notion that warmers can`t get what they want, and so might be interested in listening to a saner pro-freedoom policy.
if you want to have an honest discussion, with many very intelligent and thoughtful libertarians here in this community
You`ve just about convinced me that you are NOT one of those people.
Thanks for stating the obvious. Too bad that means for you anyone who is interested in exploring HOW to cut back on government planning via tariffs, taxes and regulationis evil.
Only you, apparently. And find ways to move TOWARDS ending taxing is evil because it`s a half-way measure? Thanks for your sincere, intelligent and thoughtful engagement.
I think I`ve had about all of the intelligent and thoughtful engagement I can take for now now, thanks.
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool."
-- Richard Feynman
In a libertarian society, where a lot land would be private, the energy source to prevail would be the one who occupied the smallest terrain possible, so it wouldnt be stupid wind farms, dams would be in a disadvagent too. Nuclear that would have the uphand, and nuclear is an extremely clean energy.
TokyoTom:I have no CLUE as to what you think you`re talking about.
This
TokyoTom:but you guys, like liberty student, all "sincerely" set on the "modest" policy of hoping that the state will simply wink out of existence
Am I set on the modest policy of hoping the state will wink out of existence? If so, prove it. If you can't, it is a lie.
TokyoTom:No, it doesn`t; it merely requires people to assume what is obvious; namely that OTHERS believe in CC.
And we should care why?
TokyoTom:No. I want you buy into the notion that ONE way work against the government is to find other people who will agree with you to cut it back.
When has that ever worked? Are the incentives of a politician to cut back?
TokyoTom: there is a strong sentiment that directing government is immoral. Great; but when did PARING BACK government become "immoral"?
Did you mean "Great" when you wrote it? Because you're asking a question that you just agreed to an answer on.
TokyoTom:You tire me, ls, as I`ve made no such assumption; in fact, my argument revolves around the notion that warmers can`t get what they want, and so might be interested in listening to a saner pro-freedoom policy.
What is pro-freedom about advancing your agenda using the state?
TokyoTom:You`ve just about convinced me that you are NOT one of those people.
But I don't care what you think. As I've said earlier in this thread when you questioned my sincerity, my peers will judge.
TokyoTom: Libertarian philosophy is not centered on the right policy or effective government planning via tariffs, taxes and regulation but rather a complete approach to property and life. Thanks for stating the obvious. Too bad that means for you anyone who is interested in exploring HOW to cut back on government planning via tariffs, taxes and regulationis evil.
If it is obvious, then you agree it is evil. This is the second time you agreed with me, then disagreed with what you just agreed with.
TokyoTom:Only you, apparently. And find ways to move TOWARDS ending taxing is evil because it`s a half-way measure?
No, not because it is a half measure. Because it isn't a half measure. A 1% tax is no closer to no tax than a 50% tax. Ron Paul talks about how the principle of taxation means the state owns 100% of your production, and lets you keep a share. And he is correct. So don't tell me about tax cuts. That's LP/minarchist/Objectivist/conservative fantasy.
And to boot, cutting taxes is meaningless in an economy run by fiat.
TokyoTom:I think I`ve had about all of the intelligent and thoughtful engagement I can take for now now, thanks.
You'll be back.
This is a populist intervention, not libertarian cooperation.
TokyoTom:Thanks for stating the obvious. Too bad that means for you anyone who is interested in exploring HOW to cut back on government planning via tariffs, taxes and regulationis evil.
The notion of using government to cut back it's "own planning via tariffs, taxes and regulationis" is a delusion. The only inducement for government to 'pare back' itself is to enhance it's own influence, that is, to create the illusion of cutting back in order to increase it's own wealth and power.
"Climate change' and 'global warming' are monikers of force, not science - collectivist illusion.
Collectivist solutions presume a universal problem which only the use of force can solve. GW is just one of any number of supposed universal problems.
What next? Collectivist 'policy' which insures against catastrophic anthropologic asteroid impacts?
Is it not possible that so-called "science" can achive 'concensus' that anthropologic space interventions create gravitational asteroid hazard? - thus justifying collectivist solutions which only the use of force can solve......(.but, oh, by the way, 'libertarian policy' will work better to solve this forboding threat to humanity and that's really not using force.) What recourse is there to prove or dis-prove societal threat from anthropologic space interventions?
GW and CC are Malthusian fantasy veiled in science for the purpose of transferring wealth and power from society to government.
The libertarian solution to GW and CC is first and foremost to discern actual from imagined threat.
"Oh, I wish I could pray the way this dog looks at the meat" - Martin Luther
KCF: "If you want to push for incremental freedom, by all means do so, but leave all the environmentalist crap out of it because you're only empowering the other side to achieve their own objectives - which have absolutely nothing to do with the environment."
This is just wrong, and confuses the agenda of the statists who use enviros and the enviros themselves. The push on climate change is what political scientists call a "Bootleggers & Baptists coalition", with the enviros and a wide swath of people very much caring about the environment. Explaining a better way to lessen environmental impact will lessen their eagerness for the statist agenda. Many are already getting fed up with the cap and trade pork, and are looking for alternatives.
I note for readers` interest that I found another one of my evil, it`s-okay-to-try-to-find-allies-to-roll-back-government types on the Mises Blog front pages:
http://blog.mises.org/archives/010986.asp
Privatize the roads!
TokyoTom: I note for readers` interest that I found another one of my evil, it`s-okay-to-try-to-find-allies-to-roll-back-government types on the Mises Blog front pages: http://blog.mises.org/archives/010986.asp
Appeal to authority?
Mises supported second bests as well in the form of a night watchman state. That doesn't mean the opinion is valid. Kinsella is wrong here.
Tom, do you think that tax is legitimate?
TokyoTom: While complete elimination of pollution laws in favor of enforcing property rights is desirable, and I have suggested elsewhere that many enviros would take in exhange for carbon taxes, it simply won`t happen, largely because INDUSTRY likes the barriers to entry and the dirtier plants like their grandfathering.
While complete elimination of pollution laws in favor of enforcing property rights is desirable, and I have suggested elsewhere that many enviros would take in exhange for carbon taxes, it simply won`t happen, largely because INDUSTRY likes the barriers to entry and the dirtier plants like their grandfathering.
slippery slope already? "enforcing property rights is desirable... simply won't happen..."
ok then - since it won't happen - case closed.
TokyoTom: Eliminating corporate welfare in agriculture we can do unilaterally; we`re better off even if there are subsidies elsewhere.
Eliminating corporate welfare in agriculture we can do unilaterally; we`re better off even if there are subsidies elsewhere.
"are subsidies elsewhere." so more government spending, policies, programs...
i understand the intent as it showed it's faced with rarity in the thread, but i see a terrible outcome. a mix of defeatism with advocation of government subsidies, frankly, stinks.
"I used to see a mountain as a mountain.. Thereafter.. when I saw a mountain; lo! it was not a mountain.. yet now of final tranquillity: I see a mountain just as a mountain as I used to.." - Master Yuan; molon labe
TokyoTom:Many are already getting fed up with the cap and trade pork, and are looking for alternatives.
Like the carbon tax? C'mon. Imo a free market legal system would tend to adopt a 'cap and trade' solution to pollution problems. 'Capping' would just be know as getting an injunction. Trading would be contractual trading of one's homesteaded easement share of the environment's pollutant absorption capacity. The problem isn't w/ cap and trade. The problem is w/ gov. cap and trade, especially w/ a non problem like AWG.
wilderness, you missed the thread; I`m not referring to adding subsidies, but to ending them/corporate welfare at home, w/o worrying whether anyone follows our example abroad.
Stephen, on alternatives, you seem to have missed the whole point of my thread.
In addition to trying to pare back the state, of course we should also be pointing out what can be done without the state: prizes for carbon-capture tech, green rankings of businesses, voluntary trading/offsets, etc.
But there`s no way we`d see cap and trade outside of govt, because even though the atmosphere and oceans have absorption capacity limits (CO2 isn`t pollution per se, but simply initiating rapid change), none of us has any way to exclude others, thus none of us can really homestead it.
TokyoTom: KCF: "If you want to push for incremental freedom, by all means do so, but leave all the environmentalist crap out of it because you're only empowering the other side to achieve their own objectives - which have absolutely nothing to do with the environment." This is just wrong, and confuses the agenda of the statists who use enviros and the enviros themselves. The push on climate change is what political scientists call a "Bootleggers & Baptists coalition", with the enviros and a wide swath of people very much caring about the environment. Explaining a better way to lessen environmental impact will lessen their eagerness for the statist agenda. Many are already getting fed up with the cap and trade pork, and are looking for alternatives.
Supporting their so-called efforts to find environmental solutions does two things. First, it permits the statists to control the dialog and opens the door to more government intervention. Second, it undercuts the libertarian position, as well as the position of real scientists, that there is no environmental problem. Why not expose the liars for what they are rather than pussy-foot around with it?
Ludwig von Mises Institute | 518 West Magnolia Avenue | Auburn, Alabama 36832-4528
Phone: 334.321.2100 · Fax: 334.321.2119
contact@Mises.org | webmaster | AOL-IM MainMises
Mises.org sitemap