Cannot go with that. We really should have a price for emitting CO@ into our atmosphere. Just because we have not adopted a way to do cap and trade does not mean it is not a viable solution. Frankly this is a great Republican idea that should be utilized. I am a capitalist and feel that it generally works if the government provides the proper framework. We have been subsidizing fossil fuels forever and that needs to stop, but it makes sense for some subsidy so mankind can inhabit this earth into the next century. A nudge is all I ask.
AZ recount
- Thread starter Rdcldad
- Start date
Is there any question why the U. S. average IQ is a paltry 98?
Sorry, 2012Bearcat. I don't believe our slow has a clue our election may have been fixed. Article II of our Constitution, with it's small words from the dominant West Germanic language, is likely completely beyond their ability to understand.
AC2020 Prior to China just passing other countries, what country led in greenhouse gas emissions? Also isn't China more that 3 x larger than the USA? Just because other countries are emitting does not mean that we should. Didn't your mother teach you that lesson?
We need to do better and demand that other countries do the same.
We need to do better and demand that other countries do the same.
Why are you worried?
If there's nothing to find, then there's nothing to find.
Good for all of us and we can move forward together as Americans.
I would recommend you read Robert Higgs’ great book, Crisis and Leviathan. Higgs is an economic historian and his book shows how authoritarianism gets ratcheted up one nudge at a time, using historical events as evidence. His book is a great addendum to Hayek’s masterpiece, The Road to Serfdom. If you read those books, and if you are a capitalist as you claim, you would realize small nudges from the police power of the state are policies counter to what you advocate.
It is very hard to take the “sky is falling” predictions seriously since they have almost universally not panned out. Even if there is man made climate change - and that is very much up for debate, there most certainly is not scientific consensus - it is unlikely that humans need to panic and willingly submit our liberty to governmental experts. The Covid events of 2020 ought to be all you need to know to understand government experts rarely are. If we let the marketplace sort things out the problem would be handled much more reliably than giving a group of government bureaucrats authority to resolve things by fiat.
Last edited:
To prohibit the use of certain poisonous substances, or to require special precautions in their use, to limit working hours or to require certain sanitary arrangements, is fully compatible with the preservation of competition. The only question here is whether in the particular instance the advantages gained are greater than the social costs they impose.
Nor can certain harmful effects of deforestation, of some methods of farming, or of the smoke and noise of factories, be confined to the owner of the property in question, or to those willing to submit to the damage for an agreed compensation.
There is no reason why, in a society which has reached the general level of wealth ours has, the first kind of security should not be guaranteed to all without endangering general freedom; that is: some minimum of food, shelter and clothing, sufficient to preserve health. Nor is there any reason why the state should not help to organize a comprehensive system of social insurance in providing for those common hazards of life against which few can make adequate provision.
I could not agree more, all those things are compatible with preserving competition in its true sense. Competition will go further, IMO, to "regulating" those things than allowing politically connected actors to persuade politicians to give them competitive advantages through government fiat. The question becomes who does the prohibiting, what degree of authority will they be granted, how will their authority be kept in check? Just saying it is a proper function of government is only the first of a long line of steps that should be taken before prohibition become law. And that's the problem: we jump from "there ought to be a law" to the existence of a law with nothing but emotional input.
I would say it all comes down to ownership of property. IMO the person that decides what can be done with the property is the owner. If I must submit to government edict or get government permission to do what I want with a piece of property, then I may be the technical owner, but in reality the government is. If there has to be a government then it's only proper role is to preserve ownership rights and eschew regulation. If I own a farm with forests on it and I want to chop down all the trees that should be my prerogative. And if I want to burn what I've cut down that is my business. But if the smoke from the burning impedes on your property then it is proper for the government to intervene because they would be protecting your property rights. There is a fundamental perversion of ownership in this country, and it has led to the government far overstepping its legitimate function.
You have to ask how our society reached the general level of wealth it currently has. And I would suggest it did not come about because government guaranteed anybody anything (except for the corruption that is indigenous to all government). So I would offer that we continue on the path of the comprehensive system that got our society to this point, because there is no limit to where it could take us. And the historical record of all other comprehensive systems is shoddy to say the least.
Yes, because so many americans think you're going to prove voter fraud by finding some bamboo fibers.
That's loony. They're loony. This is more Q-style, silly, fantasy. It's the kind of stuff that led to the Jan. 6 terrorism in D.C.
Dan those were all quotes from Hayek in Road to Serfdom
And if the CO2 from your property makes it so that I have to run the AC ten months and decreases the productivity of my land and causes the species (that I like) native to my land to migrate north and causes species that I don't like (scorpions) to migrate north to my land, what then? What about my property rights?
In this scenario have the right to exclude your pollution from my land, or at least charge you for it.
In reality since property rights are a legal construct, my rights are as determined by the legislatures and courts of my jurisdiction.
A right is an irreducible primary. A right is a condition of existence required by mans' nature for his proper survival. The three primary rights are life, liberty and property (the ownership thereof). So from a purely philosophical standpoint the right to property is a legal construct only in the legal sense (I know that sounds corny, but I can't think of a better way to put it).
A person has a right to unfettered access to his property in the condition he chooses, whether it be to keep it the way he found it or completely change it to his liking. If one person violates another's property in any fashion, then he is violating that person's right to ownership, and it is appropriate to make him stop. If I'm emitting so much CO2 that it harms you or your property then I should be stopped. But I should be free to emit as much CO2 on my property as I want. It is up to me to see it does not escape my property.
When looked at from this perspective we both get what we want, Pilt, because I don't think I could keep my CO2 emissions on my property. But if I could figure out how to capture my CO2 emissions so they don't wander into your territory you should not be allowed to use the government to stop me from emitting CO2. My liberty remains unscathed, and you get to keep your property CO2 free.
Dan how is something that requires a deed and title a natural right? How do you establish ownership of land? How do you establish a property right over anything for that matter?
I am glad we agree. Discussion over.
We agree on everything but the solution. At least that's the impression I have. I don't want government intervening until it has to. You want it to take a more aggressive proactive approach, issuing edicts ahead of time and insinuating long well armed legal ramifications (threats) of "do what you're told, or else!" If I am misunderstanding you I apologize. I never thought we were that far apart on anything else.
Oh, sorry, I just realized I didn't respond to the first part of your reply. Ownership of property does not require a deed or title. They're nice to have, but they are part of a political construct, not a metaphysical one.
Dan:
I am a capitalist. I think that the government's role is to put side rails on business. As we learned in our first economics course that the business only objective is to maximize stockholder wealth. As a business owner I do not want to compete with companies that will screw over the world for a profit. Believe it or not the market is not punitive to misbehavior. I will be on the look out for "Crisis and Leviathan". Most of what I get from this forum is just BS. I appreciate your reasonable debate.
I recommend watching Fareed Zacharia's "Global Public Square" and any book written by Thomas Friedman. They are both moderates and point out flaws for both the left and the right.
I am a capitalist. I think that the government's role is to put side rails on business. As we learned in our first economics course that the business only objective is to maximize stockholder wealth. As a business owner I do not want to compete with companies that will screw over the world for a profit. Believe it or not the market is not punitive to misbehavior. I will be on the look out for "Crisis and Leviathan". Most of what I get from this forum is just BS. I appreciate your reasonable debate.
I recommend watching Fareed Zacharia's "Global Public Square" and any book written by Thomas Friedman. They are both moderates and point out flaws for both the left and the right.
AC2020
You do realize that both parties agree that the Russians did interfere with the 2016 election. The Mueller report confirmed that. They just did not have enough evidence to convict for Trump's people colluding with the Russians. There was proof there, but not enough to convict. Trump was never exonerated.
You do realize that both parties agree that the Russians did interfere with the 2016 election. The Mueller report confirmed that. They just did not have enough evidence to convict for Trump's people colluding with the Russians. There was proof there, but not enough to convict. Trump was never exonerated.
So the correlation does exist!
I don't think the government should be sitting idly while my property rights are being violated
Smoking Gun Emails Reveal How Milwaukee Shared Government Election Data with Far Left Groups - Prove Existence of Massive Ballot Harvesting Operation --WITH UPDATE
Dan O’Donnell told his audience on Thursday he has obtained emails from the City of Milwaukee and several cities across the state in conjunction with members of the “Grant Team” for the Center of Tech and Civic Life (CTCL) that show that in Milwaukee there were daily reports that provided to...
www.thegatewaypundit.com
Bug but glflyer & others assured us that there was no dimm cheating ! Shocking
Emoluments, Pee Pee Tape, Muh Russia, SDNY, Mueller Time, Stormy Daniels, Avenatti for President, Lemon Jussie, Stormy Daniels, WW3, Quid Pro Quo, Peachmints 1 and part deux.
How soon they forget.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
Canton Ohio Black Man dies while handcuffed on floor. Here we go again
- Latest: iasooner2000
-
-