Slashdot Mirror

The UDHR is not worth the paper it's writ on. For example notice the word "arbitrary". Any freshman lawyer could dive a truckload of bandwidth through that hole.

OTOH it's precursor, the Rights Of Man had a few more teeth but said diddly about privacy. See http://www.barvennon.com/~liberty/index.html for a comparison.

The first "petitio principii" is "coito ergo sum" (apologies to Descartes).

The second is "libertatum super omnes".

And "libertatum" as in article 4 of "the rights of man"

http://www.barvennon.com/~liberty/Declaration_of_rights_of_man.html

If somebody's words do you injury, then the right place to seek restitution is before a jury of peers. Not in legislation.

I am a Norton libertarian. http://www.barvennon.com/~liberty/index.html Rothbard (your citation) is not economical with words.

So far as I read he was concerned with pollution. CO2 aside, I suggest that governments should tax pollution to reduce it's incidence. Preferably at a rate that would cover the cost of cleanup. Regulation doesn't work: the miscreant just pays the fine and starts somewhere else.

As for grid parity. Read your electricity meter. Divide the billed amount by the KWH used. Look at the cost of a KW solar cell array. Divide the cost of that together with installation cost by the life expectancy of the solar array. If grid KWH > solar KWH then you have not reached grid parity.

"economics and politics" only affect the billed price (via CO2 taxes etc) or the solar cell price (via subsidies etc). If a greenie hand makes the electricity cost more (at taxpayer's expense) or subsidises solar arrays etc (again at taxpayer's expense) then they will cop the electoral judgement. CO2 pollution mostly excluded, I would not object to most other pollution taxes.

I found your comment on another question educational and have posted a copy on my blog.

I will remove or alter it at your request.

it's at http://barvennon.com/ozdiary/ozdiary12051.html

I started out thinking the alarmists owned "the heartland institute.. "The Heartland Institute is a lovely group of folks who take issue with mainstream climate science. "

Until I read to the end and realized the truth.

For those uninformed of the facts behind alarmism, read my blog of 2007 http://barvennon.com/ozdiary/ozdiary7071.html

The UN's IPCC and UK's Stern are shills for governments desperate to find new sources of revenue. And what tax could have a stronger moral backing than a

TAX TO SAVE THE WORLD??

"This guy is saying the sort of things that have been getting me downmodded here on slashdot for years.

Global Warming/Climate Change may or may not be happening. But if it is it ain't happening at anything like the rate that would justify dismantling civilization over, we still aren't sure whether it is us or a natural cycle we don't undertstand, etc. And he doesn't go there but I will: too many politicians with a preexisting anti-civilization (Western industrial captialism based ccivilization that is...) bias glommed onto AGW with the willing consent of a lot of brand name scientists, thereby (rightly) harming the public's trust of all science."

I also have been downmodded on slashdot. I blogged about the IPCC and how GW was not a problem back in 2005

http://www.barvennon.com/~spin/spin203.html

And just let me clear up the "dismantle". To not use Carbon Fuels we would have to dismantle our civilization. Without carbon fuels a few billion people would die by starvation etc. How else would we grow the food, transport it to cities, keep it refrigerated? Also what about shelter. Do you plan to live in wigwams or igloos? And clothes. Are you planning to have your wives use spinning wheels? How will you move medicine around,

And (in the absence of world peace brought about by a world dictator) how will you defend yourselves from invasion and genocide?

How will you defend ourselves from military attack by gangs of criminals?

So when John Howard banned guns what happened? A lot less people got killed by guns, but all of the people saved were suicides. What happened was the suicides just found another way to do it. On the other hand, lots of criminals now have guns, and are shooting them off in weekly "drive by" incidents.

A few years ago a home invader was shot dead by a pensioner in Queensland and got off scott free. Over the next few years home invasions in Australia increased in all states but (you guessed it) Queensland, I wonder why?

A bloke called John Lott wrote a research paper called "more guns less crime (see " http://www.barvennon.com/lott.pdf2 ) which proved that guns reduce most crimes. The best efforts of "liberals" in the last fifteen years have not disproved his evidence.