I have a question regarding the environment and libertarians?

Don't mix them together.

 

A duck is a member of the animal kingdom, and can be positively identified genetically from a loon or grebe even if deceased.

Labels in political discussion are easily applied based on a definition held by the one applying the label which may vary greatly and seldom, if ever, results in producing positive results in solving a problem.

I've yet to see you post anything more than complaints from your viewpoint, with no effort to arrive at any form of acceptable solutions. While you seem to imply that the problems being discussed are not either/or, black/white, rich/poor, you refuse to become involved in any form of reasonable or rational discussion attempting only to beat those who disagree with you into submission through intimidation until the topic becomes morphed into us versus them, or essentially an either/or.

 

Ok so its clear I’m not going to get any help from Indie, maybe he doesn’t know what he meant oh well I’ll have a go…

What power is being talking about? How is it ‘possessed’ and ‘exercised’ And just because it is ‘possessed’ and ‘exercised’ is that a good or bad thing? A man could be big and strong and rule his home with a rod of iron beating up his wife and children if they step out of line leading him to believe he has greater ‘power’ at home than anywhere else - but is that a ‘good’ power? Would he feel that his right to exercise that power was taken away if laws were passed by ‘government’ against abuse and he was arrested and warned that he’d go to jail if he did it again. What if women were the ones that voted for the Politician that brought in the law?

Then there is the system being used – there are differences in relative voter power between say proportional representation and a first past the post system.

But again I’m really not sure what you are trying to say – do you?

It depends on the rich individual, many are not interested in playing politics - other are, but as I’ve told you many many many many many times I’m talking about wealth not rich individuals although it can include rich individuals. Really honestly Indie can you not remember anything of your past on these forums?

Wealth will usually try and work for its own best interests if it can and it will do it where it feels it’s needed, politically that can be local, state, or national.



Again I’d wish you’d explain what you were trying to say?

 

Its called the duck test -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duck_test

What problem are you trying to solve, and how would you go about solving it?

I disagree with your ideas and I’ve explained often ant length and in detail why, many, many criticisms that you seem unable to address.

The only argument you seem able to present against my views is that you don’t like them and you main argument against me is that I keep presenting criticism of your ideas that you don’t seem able to address.

As I’ve said to solve problems we need good ideas ones that stand up to scrutiny and can be defended from criticism – your ideas don’t seem to stand up to criticism and you seem unable to defend them from criticism.

Can you give an example of this?

Man I’ve tried about everything to can to have a reasonable or rational discussion with you and all I get is this type of evasion you’ve done it in every thread I know about – and I’m happy for people to read the threads and see. I post links to them all the time.

I wish you would put as much effort into address the many outstanding criticisms of your views as you do to evasion.

 

Bal,

You're right, we've been through all this previously and you still refuse to join into a reasonable or rational discussion, avoiding and/or evading questions asked responding with little more than questions about the questions.

Perhaps someone else would like to waste their time trying to converse with you? I find it totally a waste of valuable time resulting in nothing at all that can be agreed upon.

Global government a New World Order, totally unacceptable to me, for reasons previously explained to you many, many, many times.

Perhaps you should try to acquire a crystal ball, maybe then you could discover the flaws in what you would like to impose in the way of government upon others.

 

Indie

I think you posted that in the wrong thread - this isn't the Global Government thread do you want me to answer it here or there?

 

Bal,
All the posts I've made tonight have been meant for the 'global government New World Order' thread. If I've been posting in the wrong thread it's due to being referred to a past post and due to poor eyesight I can't easily read the tabs in Firefox.

If you can move them go ahead. I'm quite tired and ready to call it a night.

Thanks for pointing it out.

 

To recap –

The right wing libertarian environmental policy seems to come down to two things -

1 Deregulation to make things ‘simpler’

2 A reliance on property rights and torts to deter wrong doing.

*

Others are sceptical that these would work and think they are more likely to make things worse and the right wing libertarians don’t seem able to refute their criticisms.

Thing is that some things need to be regulated and most right wing libertarians agree with that but beyond slogans and assertion they don’t seem able to say what regulation they would have and what they would remove and don’t seem clear on who would be setting the regulations.

Many of us seem to think that there needs to be more than property rights and torts as a deterrent and they are there anyway, we think there needs to be robust bodies backed up with strong regulation that can investigate and inspect, to stop things from going wrong.

And there is another concern right wing libertarian seem to want to vastly increase the power and influence of wealth (through changes in the tax structure etc) and this in a political system dominated by money I fear that wealth would have a greater influence on how regulation was formed and that it would be formed to advantage themselves rather than the environment.

 

Actually, that's totally not true. If regulations are so "good" for us, why have EPA/FDA employees been allowing corperations to dump waste/steal public water (about 15 ft per year from the Great Lakes) etc etc etc.
You fail to see the problem, so how could you properly judge our solution? Corperations today get away with whatever they want, cause they can just bribe our government.

You don't understand fully. The wealthy is not for this change in Government, cause the currently use government to get ahead in business, and to do things that would otherwise be illegal. If they say they're "Liberating" a country, history shows us we pay a fortune tearing it down, a fortune rebuilding it, and for what? Just to remain #1 through use of force. Libertarians support taxes being lowered for everyone, not just the rich. But local/state governments can still take the place to take care of those people. It's not right to micromanage 313 million people, and treat them all as statistics. IF people need help and they can get it from charities, most of us aren't opposed to local level foodstamps, but it's not right for me to have to pay someones foodstamps in Idaho or NY, and you never know who that money is going to. (I'm sure politicians take their chunk)

 

The Libertarian party platform http://www.lp.org/platform answers the question of where Libertarians stand on the environment, as well as many other important issues. While I don't agree 100% on some issues as they are defined, I would have no problem giving 100% of my support to a political candidate who uphold them as defined.

 

25

Just slogans that have already been covered

Covered in post 259 of this thread

Covered in post 261 of this thread

Covered in post 18 - My arguement against Communism, and for Freedom. Thread

 

Indie

I read the platform years ago and I’ve pop by form time to time to check it (as I do with many sources, including your old posts). Thing is that it has coloured much of my criticism of right wing libertarian ideas.

So can you please address the outstanding criticisms?

Well clearly you can’t because many have been outstanding for over two years and most have been repeated thousands of times.

I wonder which of your many tricks you’ll use this time? Ask me to repeat for the thousandth and one time – claim you have answered (but be unable to produce the evidence) - get all self righteous and claim you are the wronged man - or simply run away?

 

A pdf of the Libertarian party platform, which was adopted (dy a democratic process) in convention, May 2012 is available at https://www.lp.org/files/LP Platform 2012.pdf

The major argument arising from most of the threads on these forums appears to me as one between "government of the people" versus "government by the people". The term 'democracy', so loosely thrown around in most of these threads, implies involvement of the people who are governed, while over my lifetime it appears that the larger government has grown, the less accountable it has become to the people in representing them.

 

And still you refuse to address the many outstanding criticisms.

And again I ask – what would be your alternative?

Oh hell indie once again I ask what do you mean when you say ‘the people’ since you have suggested that wealth should have greater voting power so that it could block the vote of the majority.

 

Sorry to stick my nose in, but the bit I underlined - that's what we have right now.

It's a modern sort of feudalism, the politics is controlled by baronial corporations who own the land and not only charge us rent, but set us to work for their profits.

Edit - I forgot to add that it is NOT working. Not only is it driving us towards destroying the world through climate change... it's despicably unjust. And it's time fo change mofos. *turns on telly*

 

Actually, the people have the greatest voting power but fail to exercise it by selecting from the candidates those with wealth provide to represent us.

As an example, in the New Jersey Senate primary, only 22% of contributions to Cory Booker came from New Jersey with the remaining 78% coming from New York, Los Angeles, and Washington D.C.
His opponents, Frank Pallone, received 82% from within New Jersey, and Rush Holt received 93% from within New Jersey.

When elected, who will Cory Booker be MOST beholding to? Should those who contributed large sums yet are not New Jersey residents feel owed anything in return? And will Cory Booker feel any debt owed his out of State contributors relative to the New Jersey voters who only voted for him?

But what has this to do with libertarians and the environment?

 

Which is why I support campaign finance reform laws, that come from public funds and not private sector funds.

I also advocate more candidates on public debates that are broadcasted and I also support the use of props, and visual aids (with sources cited) (like powerpoint) during presidential debates.

That way common citizens can fact check on their own, more efficiently and there's less of this gridlock in Congress.

There outta be an amendment to the Constitution about how political elections are funded at the state and federal levels.

 

I and probably many others would be supportive of some form of campaign finance reform, but that's another can of worms.

The main point, democratically speaking, is that the people (meaning those who are to be represented by the candidate elected) whether they voted for, against, or not at all, need to start exercising their rights in holding their elected representatives accountable for their actions as they apply to them directly, State by State, district by district. The same is true for the President, who although is elected by only a majority vote, is still accountable to ALL the people, which is why the Constitution remains very relevant in our form of government, and should be interpreted without application of one or another political parties agenda.

 

Gridlock can be good, especially when it keeps something bad from happening, becoming law, and/or simply putting off undesirable consequences for future generations to try and solve.

I've yet to find any words in the Libertarian party platform that promote environmental destruction.

 

Unedited

Please do stick your nose in that what this place is all about – at the moment the US still works on the one person one vote principle Indie seemed to be suggesting that wealth be give extra votes so some people would only be able to cast one vote but others could cast 2 or 3 etc.

In my view the US political system is not working properly, in a functioning democracy the interests of wealth should be balanced by the interests of the rest, to me (and many others) it seems that wealth has gained too much power and influence. There seem to be many factors involved in that, including free market propaganda, a political system dominated by two right wing parties and certain ingrained attitudes that hamper change.

Try reading – Free market = plutocratic tyranny
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353336&f=36