I have a question regarding the environment and libertarians?

If I remember correctly, I stated only that it 'seemed' to be a problem to me, allowing you an opportunity to either confirm that it is, or correct me by explaining why it is not.

I was basing that on the assumption that if 1 human produces 'x' amount of pollution then billion of humans would produce billions time 'x' amount of pollution. Perhaps billions time 'x' is not a problem worth worrying about?

 

Seems like once again, a thread on this subject has Libertarians utterly failing to come up with workable ideas for protecting the environment. It's a shame, since I am sympathetic to many of their other ideas, but this is a no-go.

 

Dont lie! you're a liberal to the core! That's why you support government programs that do nothing like the EPA, over the Libertarian idea of liability.

It was even posted here, all the loopholes for the oil industry. At Least Libertarians don't use the envoirment to rob ppl like Liberals do!

 

I am not lying. I am not a liberal. For instance, I am against abortion-on-demand and affirmative action. I think for myself. Your idea of ending loopholes is simplistic and just a tiny part of the solution. Yes, of course I support the EPA, because I see no workable alternative. The Federal Government must enforce strict environmental laws.

 

You see STP, here is your response.
You seem unable to conduct any conversation with anyone without putting them into some political box of your own devising.
My post earlier had absofuckinglutely nothing to do with my political beliefs, affiliations or any such nonsense. All I posted was about the science and that humans have always had an impact on the enviroment.

You took that as my siding with some particular political philosophy and starting hurling insults my way based on YOUR naive assumptions about me.

May I remind you that I never stated anything in regards to my political affiliations, YOU made that assumption and then proceeded to "construct" who I am in your mind based on practically NO information regarding me, but based almost entirely on your weak and erroneous assumptions.

That is why you are a sad and pathetic individual, because you can't see past your own prejudice and assumptions so you can actually learn something.


Don't know why any of you even bother conversing with STP, he is right, always has been right, always will be right, regardless of what all the facts may report, STPLSD25 is supremely right.

 

Indie

Your don’t have to wonder just go back and have a look like the bit I quoted and well you seemed pretty emphatic to me but there you go…and now you are not so sure – again I’d ask what changed your mind?

And again its not black and white, correct or incorrect.

How are these people producing this pollution?

 

Okay, bal, you obviously have no intent at all to discuss anything rationally or reasonably at all. Your sole purpose seems to be to attack the persons who have views that differ from your own, regardless of the issues.

I won't bother wasting my time any further with you, and simply place you on my personal ignore list.

 

a

I'm gonna be the bigger man, and ignore your insults. You act like I've not tried to converse with you; I've asked you numerous times what you support. As first, you were very protective over the president, then very defensive when I said the word Liberal. But you're right, I assumed you were a certain way, and for that I am genuinely sorry.

But to say I'm not willing to converse, or I don't take any other opinion into account is a bald-faced lie. The whole reason I sit out here and type up sometimes 3-4 pages of responses is because conversing is good for the future of our country, especially in such crazy political times.

Furthermore, you act like facts are biased against me. I state facts as well; it's people's normalcy bias that says "everything is fine, don't question authority, STP is some businessman who's trying to make me believe in this propaganda so he can pollute the enviorment " I'm kidding.

But I do try to politely converse as I said before. I just see a lot less need for government, than left-leaning individuals. (And there's a lot on this site.) and please if you want to contest me politically, step up and debate don't just throw rude names around, because you don't know me either.

All you know is my philosophy and what is that again?

Freedom for the Individual, from force.

The Bill of Rights, under which our country was founded.

Government disallowed to violate Human Rights or kill citizens.

So please, if my views are so horrible, I'm willing to hear you out. Why is government force better than volunteerism? Why am I so wrong?

I'm not being obnoxious, I'm all ears.

 

Indie

I only asked you two questions both rational and reasonable in the context of this discussion

The first question

1 Why did you change your mind over the importance of human population growth?

This is important as it would show your thinking on the subject and the reasons for it to change. Did arguments presented here or some other research help to change your mind?

 

Indie

The second question

2 In what way are people producing the pollution you are talking about?

Here is what you said you were basing your ideas on before they changed -

The first thing to understand here is that there are different types of pollutants, for simplicities sake let use call them ‘natural’ and ‘artificial’ pollution –
An individual human being as any other animal produces urine and faeces and those can pollute (especially in large quantities) but humans unlike most animals can also, through artificial means, produce artificial pollutants, but these are not usually individually produced, they are usually the result of industrial processes.

Industrial process can produce pollution. But it is too simplistic to say that 1 human produces 'x' amount of such pollution and so an increase of one person will double such pollution because to one degree or other pollution distribution is not uniform.

Societies with a mainly and un-intensive agricultural economy are likely to produce less ‘artificial’ pollution than those with an industrial one, and within industrial societies there are going to different degrees of pollution and differing types according to resources and technology. And then people within any society are going to bring about differing degrees of pollution.

But then it gets more complicated because there can be social and economic difference between regions that can have an impact on pollution production. For example a consumerist capitalist system that pushes consumption is likely to produce more artificial pollutants and a laissez-faire attitude to regulation can allow such pollution to enter the environment.

Most advanced industrialised societies learnt lessons through bitter experience – they have learnt to deal with ‘natural’ pollution through regulation and sewage systems. And they have learnt that allowing ‘artificial’ pollutants into the environment can have unforeseen and disastrous effects and have again regulated to try and limit such impacts.

So we now have the knowhow and technology to vastly limit the polluting effect of processes if only the regulation is in place to make sure they are used.

I suppose you could average out the pollution rates equally across the world population but to me that only clouds the issue because it only hides those that are more to blame from those that are not

 

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.

 

I totally refute that argument. I don't think much can be worse about the EPA taking bribes for dumping toxic waste, nor how CEOs of companies control these programs, and give certain companies a pass.

I believe the citizens would be less forgiving. Furthermore there is a third option which is don't support business practices you see as immoral!

CokeCola hires africans for pennies on a dollar, to get a cheap product Americans are willing to buy. If I think that's wrong for whatever reason, I don't have to drink Coke (that's why I don't shop at walmart etc. They don't pay there women as much as men) But the government hasn't prevented that either.

In fact, I think these regulations are meant to take care of a few industries competitors. Although Liberals defend their policies, these are the same policies that oversaw the biggest transfer of wealth from the bottom 80% to the top 1%. (So obviously JUST government benefit and regulations haven't been effective in helping the poor.) All we have done in fact, is shrink our middle class substantailly.

I think your last paragraph is nonsense. The current system is one which has legalized bribery. Allowing EVERY citizen to keep most of their earnings is not JUST good for the rich; but for everyone!

In just about any given state, a single person pays more than 1/5th of their whole paycheck to government. Moreover, 90 cents out of every dollar printed is going to our government.

So is it any wonder that the Revolution brewing in our country is one of SMALL/Limited government, less taxes and, the founding principles of our country?


Believe it or not. Part of our country is being rewarded for your hard work. The last thing I want to see for my country is for us to turn like Brittan. I was watching "Worlds strictist parents" last night, and I realized how willingly Brittish teenagers rely on the tax payer for benefits, and actually spend their government money on reefer and alcohol!

(Don't get me wrong, I love cannibas as much as the next guy, but it shouldn't be MY responsibility to bust my ass, for lazy people who want to sit on their butt, and collect benefits their whole life. And I would argue that benefits do not encourage people to try. Rather, if they do try to get a job or something, they're immediately booted from foodstamps even though Minimum wage in America is not enough to survive.

This countries getting bad. I used to be really leftist and think "what's wrong with the rich giving a little more?" But then I realized it's propaganda really; It's not "only" rich people who have to pay more, but the middle class and working class too! We're being way too overtaxed already, and I know that from working!

However, the people who don't pay taxes, is the same 1% that has been stealing our money. They find ways for tax exempt status, and to hide their money. You think the Rockefellers or Rothechilds are paying into the pot? I highly doubt that!


So in conclusion, Libertarian ideals wouldn't just help businesses. It would help the working class/middle class individuals, who are currently struggling to live day-by-day. But it would help businesses by not helping them. In other words, no special government benefits, no bailouts, no buddies in congress to pass laws you want.

Some libertarians are not totally against money in politics; they believe people should stay informed and be aware where money is coming from. I sort of differ on that, I'd like to see large donations at least taken out of politics. But honestly, liberals rely on government to regulate business and I think it's a show. Really businesses are regulating the government and that's why they added 6 boxes of regulations this year alone; as I said, businesses are pushing for regulation to stop smaller businesses from competing.

 

Really???
I don't recall being "protective over the president", that is your skewed perception again, nor do I recall becoming defensive over your use of the word "liberal". LOL

You ASSUME I protect the pres or whatever crap because I don't automatically agree with your position. You have followed the same MO in all these political threads. If someone isn't in complete agreement with you, you label them "enemy" in your mind and from that point forward filter all communications with that person through your internal filters that are based on nothing more than your assumptions about their political affiliations.

When you are presented with overwhelming evidence contrary to your viewpoint, as has been done in this thread, you adopt a position reminiscent of Jerry Falwell, "20 scientists are enough", what an ignorant statement. You are more interested in maintaining your position rather than the facts.
So no, from my perspective you are NOT interested in conversing with others, you're just interested in screaming "the sky is falling!, the sky is falling!...and it's all Obama's fault"

You may very well have some good, valid points, but they get overshadowed by your "over the top" manner of discussing these topics.

I wasn't making insults, I genuinely think you lead a sad and pathetic existence because you have imprisoned yourself in a cage of political ideals of your own making.
You make yourself miserable, it isn't Obama doing it.
You seem incapable of having any relationships without having to assess the other person based mainly on their political beliefs, at least based on all your communications at HF.
How sad.

Politically I have no set affiliations, I consider each topic based on the merits of the ideas, not what political party the person(s)in question is a member of.
Some days I might agree with Dems, others Reps, and some days even YOU.:2thumbsup:

 

I've tried to be very nice to you! For some reason, I rub you the wrong way, and you don't like me! There's nothing I'm obviously gonna change about that overnight so why try? don't get me wrong though-I don't label anyone as my enemy.

I was making a point! I went on to say "everything in science is theory" Then in the VERY next post I quoted NASA saying the earth is on a natural cycle that we don't understand yet! I'm not the one saying the sky is falling and I totally resent that- you're thinking of the Democrats in Washington who say their #1 concern is to spend our money on global warming, when the world "global warming" inplys we're just frying up, when "climate change" is more accurate because that's what it is! If you look at the roots of Global Warming and Al Gores push for it, and now how they're spending well over 1 billion a year to allegedly combat it. I also explained how it isn't safe the way they do that either; they're spraying chemicals and metal particles in our air and water/food supply. How would that be safe?

I think people who support this government is cheering for the bad guy, while the rob the rest of us blind. Already, the middle class is gone, Detroit is bankrupt, the dollar is in a constant decline and the envoirment really isn't being helped by these criminals!

I've not "caged" myself into anything. I believe in a government that doesn't use force against non violent people. People who are truly caged are those who falsely believe they are free. The people who are sad and pathetic are the ones who fight tooth and nail, to defend an illegitimate government, who can't follow it's own silly laws.

Btw I hope for your sake you can kill that monsterous ego one day. I'm obviously not the only one who judges without knowing anything about the person; so I guess we're even.


I am not miserable, yall are miserable because you have a philosophy of evil; Government was started by evil.

I am happy because I believe in a philosophy of non violence, the foundation of which is love, not hate my friend. It is not me who believes in theft, murder, warrantless wiretapping, Unconstitutional Wars, enhanced interrogation etc.

Once upon a time I was a Liberal; Today, I am ashamed of them. They've giving up there fight for civil liberties and actually seem like they support the war on terror, and all other human rights violations they opposed under Bush. That's why I dislike Liberals today. (not why I gave up on liberalism) In contrast though I see how very hypocritical they can be.


"Obama's supporters hate his policies"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Skw-0jv9kts"]Obama Supporters Actually Hate Obama's Policies - YouTube

 

STP, I'm curious, do you believe an economy is best organized when the greatest possible number of economic decisions are made by individuals (and not by collective institutions or organizations)?

 

How do you mean economic decisions? Value of a dollar, prices of goods and services or general business decisions?

I'm generally just against the government picking winners and losers, IE bailouts, specials benefits and the ability to bribe government officials to get around so called "regulations" people love so much.

 

Yes, all three of those types of decisions as well as broader decisions such as "what type of economy shall we have? and "is it okay to sacrifice the environment as long as a non-governmental organization is making profit?

Me too and I'd guess everyone else who is posting in this thread. I don't see people loving regulations as much as seeing them as necessary for order. I just don't think order without law is possible among humans.

You say you dislike Liberals but (to me) you sound like a liberal capitalist. Would you call yourself that kind of liberal?

 

25

I think you mean you dispute the argument because you certainly don’t refute it in fact you seem to be backing it up.

You have evidence of a crime? I mean you are claiming that a crime has been committed that you know has taken place and you have full details.

And the power and influence of companies and wealth would only grow if right wing libertarian ideas were adopted as has been explained many times and at length, criticisms that still remain outstanding.

Most people have not got the time, inclination or knowledge to act, there are things going on all over the place that if people knew about them would make the angry BUT most people have enough problems just getting by. And there are others who are so ill informed or blinked that they come to believe in ideas that would make things worse.

 

25

Empty slogans

Why not seek good governance?

Reductions in tax have just increased the power and influence of wealth
just look at the history of the US since the end of WWII.

If you look at the beginning of the US, it was oligarchal and slave owning.

OH hell man pleeeeease don’t tell me you base your view on the world from cheap ‘reality’ shows - sorry you lose all credibility.

That’s like someone basing their idea of all Americans on just what they’ve seen on re-runs of Jerry Springer.

Another slogan can you back it up?

Back this up please?

Let’s see you want people to be booted off benefits or have benefits fixed below even the minimum wage but you know the minimum wage is not enough to survive on?

I’d be rich if I had a penny for every right winger that claimed they were once ‘really left wing’ until they saw the light.

And again over and over with the tax cutting thing – it has only increased the power and influence of wealth just look at the history.

But it is the same right wing neo-liberal ideas that seem to be supported by many right wing libertarians that allow avoidance of tax, because while we have globalised wealth we have not globalised the regulation of wealth (opposed as it is by many wealth sponsored free market and neo-liberal lobbyists).

Google, Amazon etc are international companies using international accounting techniques to circumvent paying taxes in individual nation states. Many of us have been calling for international taxing and the closing of tax havens

The power of wealth needs to be hemmed in and controlled the best way to do this, as has been done in the past is through taxation and regulation. But since wealth has gone global this means the solutions must be global, international agreements, bodies and institutions need to be established for it to be effective.

A good first step would be the closing down of all tax havens.

http://www.taxjustice.net/cms/front_content.php?idcat=2
Kicking global wealth out of the driving seat.
http://www.hipforums.com/newforums/showthread.php?t=353922