We have a scientifically verified problem. So in response we should just do the first damn thing that comes into our heads because science does not provide optimal solutions? Nevermind that the unintended consequences are not considered?
Where is the science and economics that tells us that the agreement is the optimal solution? That reducing CO2 emissions is the only possible response to the problem? That the cure won't be worse than the disease?
Massive witch-hunt expected, followed by piling on multiple charges, civil and criminal. Maybe some asset-forfeiture for good measure. Sliming in the media.
Few people appreciate this, but 50% of Americans are of below-average intelligence. And 50% have above-average lead levels, regardless of water source.
The only question is whether they are the same people.
BTW, when I immigrated to America, the average IQs of both my home country and that of the US increased!
I'd just like to see the science and economics that tells us that reducing carbon emissions is the optimal strategy. The lack of thought into this astounds me, that nobody is even considering other ideas, never mind conducting research.
But to people who like to hate Libertarians, it is useful to call him one, then point out that he is an idiot (which he is), and therefore all libertarians are stupid. Solid logic.
Standards do not need government action. There are numerous private bodies that issue standards, which are adopted freely by people, business and industry.
But your example is amusing, inasmuch that Congress long ago (Metric Act of 1866) decreed that the metric system is preferred and should be adopted. See where that got us!
Issues such as driving on the left/right - these are regulations to manage potential conflicts when people exercise their rights together. If you call this regulation (in the classic meaning of the word) a type of legislation, then I'll grant it is useful, if applied in a way that minimizes infringement on liberties. But today the creation of victimless crimes seems to be the highest priority.
Air pollution comes under the Common Law heading of "Public Nuisance". It is an offence against the rights of people as a group. Over time, American courts have made a complete mess of applying this doctrine, resulting in confusing precedents which in turn have resulted in legislation. Good try!
Please cite a situation, which was not caused by legislation, that has been permanently improved by legislation and where the unintended consequences have not made the situation worse overall..
Slashdot Mirror
We have a scientifically verified problem. So in response we should just do the first damn thing that comes into our heads because science does not provide optimal solutions? Nevermind that the unintended consequences are not considered?
Sounds like right-wing nutjobbery to me.
I'll settle for a solution. Any solution. Based on science.
Where is the science and economics that tells us that the agreement is the optimal solution? That reducing CO2 emissions is the only possible response to the problem? That the cure won't be worse than the disease?
...is more expensive than neither.
I thought this was about "engineers". My bad.
Oh, developers https://youtu.be/Vhh_GeBPOhs
The most eloquent and persuasive explanation may be found in Niall Ferguson's book "Civilization: The West and the Rest". I highly recommend it.
http://www.amazon.com/Civiliza...
http://www.pbs.org/show/civili...
Would prefer H1B holders working in the US, paying US taxes, or working in their country of origin, paying taxes there? That is your choice.
...and the middle lane.
If that were the only use, I would agree. But the CIA, NSA, FBI are using it against American citizens, in America.
Massive witch-hunt expected, followed by piling on multiple charges, civil and criminal. Maybe some asset-forfeiture for good measure. Sliming in the media.
I thought the Martians were coming here because they messed-up their planet?!
Please mod up the only sane post!
Few people appreciate this, but 50% of Americans are of below-average intelligence. And 50% have above-average lead levels, regardless of water source.
The only question is whether they are the same people.
BTW, when I immigrated to America, the average IQs of both my home country and that of the US increased!
I don't understand this. What is stopping any group of people from forming a "union" for any purpose? Why do they need permission from the government?
I am not a fan of workers' unions as we typically understand them, but I would never deny them the right to act collectively.
I'd just like to see the science and economics that tells us that reducing carbon emissions is the optimal strategy. The lack of thought into this astounds me, that nobody is even considering other ideas, never mind conducting research.
By the reasoning of Reich, Stiglitz and Krugman, employment will increase and the economy will take off.
[Not sure where the employment will increase, or whose economy, but yay!]
He's not a libertarian.
But to people who like to hate Libertarians, it is useful to call him one, then point out that he is an idiot (which he is), and therefore all libertarians are stupid. Solid logic.
Standards do not need government action. There are numerous private bodies that issue standards, which are adopted freely by people, business and industry.
But your example is amusing, inasmuch that Congress long ago (Metric Act of 1866) decreed that the metric system is preferred and should be adopted. See where that got us!
Issues such as driving on the left/right - these are regulations to manage potential conflicts when people exercise their rights together. If you call this regulation (in the classic meaning of the word) a type of legislation, then I'll grant it is useful, if applied in a way that minimizes infringement on liberties. But today the creation of victimless crimes seems to be the highest priority.
What will you do? Shout "There is legislation making this illegal !"
Air pollution comes under the Common Law heading of "Public Nuisance". It is an offence against the rights of people as a group. Over time, American courts have made a complete mess of applying this doctrine, resulting in confusing precedents which in turn have resulted in legislation. Good try!
Rights are not granted by legislation. Try again.
That is your inalienable right, not legislation. Try again.
Father Coughlin is the chaplain of the SJWs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Please cite a situation, which was not caused by legislation, that has been permanently improved by legislation and where the unintended consequences have not made the situation worse overall..
All Democrats.
All Republicans.