Many even help them suggest a specific place (Somalia) to go.
Funny thing. Somalia apparently is a better place now than when it had its own official government.
People have been telling libertarians this all the time.
Telling someone something is not the same as that thing being true. Being forced by The Man to get a haircut and a real job is one of those comfortable myths people love to believe in.
The transaction is coerced because the government is forcing you to choose the transaction over the alternative of a cardbox on the bus shelter.
You're not being forced to choose the transaction since you can always live somewhere else. I never understood the logic of posts like this. Needs aren't coercion. Just because I need food to survive doesn't mean that I am coerced into buying food. Just because I need to breathe in order to survive doesn't mean that I'm forced by someone to breathe air. Similarly, just because you're not allowed to live in a cardboard box doesn't mean that you are forced to rent in that city.
Why should we use price signals to determine knowledge and technology advancement?
Because it is better than the alternatives.
That kind of thinking led the government to stop investing in alternative fuel research when the price of oil dropped to $10/barrel in the 1990s. That is precisely the time government should have been funding more research into alternative fuels, as a hedge against market groupthink.
What has happened since to demonstrate that something bad happened in the 1990s? Sorry, I don't see any evidence that increasing investment in alternative fuels at that time was a good idea, and that's looking at it from twenty years in the future. Plus, we can always invest in alternate fuels when the pricing signal is higher, which is what we did.
The government is not a business and should create money for the General Welfare (as the private sector creates money on the order of tens or hundreds of trillions of dollars a year, for personal profit).
"Create money"? That's not even wrong.
How about the government do something useful instead? I think a huge part of this problem here is your screwed up sense of what is in the general welfare. I don't care about the allege motive for doing something as opposed to the outcome. If someone does something useful for society while attempting to make a buck, then that's good enough for me.
You don't seem to know much about free markets, beyond blind faith that All Will Be Well. Don't work like that, never has.
You don't seem to have actual experience with markets. The grandparent post actually lists valid market responses to housing shortages, such as buying cheap, low density homes and turning them into higher density apartment complexes. That increases the supply of rental real estate in that poster's area, which is both a response you would expect to a housing shortage from a market and a desirable outcome.
Wait...are you saying that if a drone hits you in the head there is no demonstrable harm?
Has to happen first.
It means 'evident" or "able to be proved".
Yes.
Be that as t may, you didn't clarify the second half of your post. It doesn't make sense to me. Could you please clarify?
When an authority has a predictable, but dangerous response to otherwise harmless behavior, that can be exploited For example, the militarization of the US's police has resulted in the ploy of "swatting" where law enforcement and emergency service response to a phone call can create a very dangerous situation. Similarly, you can now interfere with air based fire fighting merely by lofting a drone at an inopportune moment.
What is the market doing in response to this? Multi-state property management companies are buying up everything on the market. You can list your property and expect a solid offer at above-market pricing within 48 hours. Rental listings last for mere hours. Developers are building new apartments as fast as they can--luxury apartments that charge higher than market rates, further inflating the market.
That's quite a lot. Hope you see a drop in rent over the next years as a result.
I looked around a bit, but I don't see a treaty that sets Dutch obligations at -25% reduction. The Kyoto Treaty, which the Netherlands are not actually obligated to follow, only sets a -20% target.
They've actually been fairly accurate on several things: 1) near future rate of sea level rise, 2) nights warming more than days, and 3) that the greatest near future surface warming will be at the higher latitudes of the Northern hemisphere. It might be a scam without historical precedent, but that doesn't mean that there isn't some truth to it.
If eliminating serious, measurable threats to the global environment
Like poverty, misuse of resources, habitat destruction, human corruption, and overpopulation? Oh wait, those are insignificant compared to the destructive power of the Earth warmed by 2 C over a century./sarc
My view is that if you deal with the five problems I mentioned, then AGW is just a bother, even if the ice caps melt over the next few thousand years. But if you deal with AGW by making the above problems worse, which is the current strategy (minus the pink-hooved unicorns who will keep that from happening. of course), then you have massive human die-offs.
Wouldn't the time to negotiate that position been before the Dutch signed the treaty?
Which treaty is "the treaty"? None are mentioned! I note that the ordered reductions in emissions are greater than Netherlands's obligations under the Kyoto Treaty (-20% reduction versus the court-ordered -25%).
Wouldn't the time to negotiate that position been before the Dutch signed the treaty? That the Dutch may argue after the fact that "oh wait, we forgot to use this argument for leverage" doesn't absolve them of the commitments they signed up for.
And what happens if Netherlands happens to sign a trade agreement treaty that gives US corporations extraordinary power over internal Netherlands affairs? Is it still "doesn't absolve them of the commitments"? Or are onerous and/or fraudulent treaty conditions only a problem when you don't like them?
As I noted before, there's plenty of indication that this is not based on treaty or promises, but rather one jurist's opinion combined with an overstepping of authority and considerable economic ignorance.
A number of parties are yacking about how they're going to Mars. My view is that the first to actually put together a serious attempt will probably be the first to arrive. For example, Weir states:
A large international effort means large international politics, and you would not be able to be the United States at that table and say, "OK, here's what's going to happen. We need $500 billion among the countries at this table to make a manned mission happen. We'll put in $200 billion, you'll put in whatever. And then what's going to happen is all you guys give the money to us, and we'll turn around and give it to SpaceX to do it all.â No. They're just not going to do that. Each one of these countries is going to want their own businesses to be doing it, right?
That sounds like a typical clusterfuck not a serious attempt at a manned journey to Mars. If employing local business is a higher priority than a competently run mission, then I don't see how it's going to happen. It's not something you throw together in a few years. That makes such a trip well beyond the planning horizon for most politicians and business leaders these days. You'll just have a lot of people going after half a trillion dollars rather than focus on making the mission happen.
And demonstrate actual harm has occurred. I think that's the problem here. Just because you have a predictable and broken response to the flying of drones doesn't mean harm occurred. I imagine some enterprising black hats could clear select hillsides of human habitation by conveniently lofting long endurance drones at inopportune moments to stall fire fighting.
This isn't pulled out of the court's ass. The Dutch government made promises and then tried to back out of them.
What promises? I see nothing in the judgment or associated stories about these alleged promises.You would think, if they were so important, then you'd think someone would mention it. Sounds like a huge imposition by the courts on something that they just shouldn't be involved with.
Then there is the Orwellian ignoring of the harm of being one of the few countries to commit to CO2 reduction. The court has just greatly undermined the ability of the Dutch government by eliminating a key negotiation tactic, namely that the Netherlands will reduce their CO2 emissions if you do. By this judgment, not only does the Netherlands lose (assuming the ruling can stand up in a higher court of law) a significant negotiation tactic for protecting its citizens and suffer economic privation, it does so to the advantage of anyone who doesn't reduce their CO2 emissions - in other words, the ruling rewards defection and accordingly to the logic of the ruling harms the Dutch people.
This whole thing reeks of economic ignorance (surely, the judge has been exposed to situations where a policy or system rewards bad behavior) and the casual bending of law to support shortsighted political purposes (such as the concept of saving the village by burning it).
Probably not, but in this ruling the court explicitly pointed out that it will not allow the government to hide behind the inaction of other countries.
Even though that actively harms the country in question? I think historians will find it remarkable how much harm the developed world will do to itself over the next few decades due to issues like this and destructive, Orwellian policies which break the societies they allege to help.
Our experience with seat belt laws proves the opposite.
No, it doesn't. It's just another indication that personal safety isn't that important to many people.
The fact that you continue to conflate the ozone "hole" in the Antarctic with the broader ozone layer doesn't speak very well to your knowledge of the issues.
There has never been a problem with the broader ozone layer aside from the occasional unfounded assertion that it may be thinner than it used to be. The ozone hole has long been used as the principle demonstration that CFCs are having a substantial effect on the ozone layer.
The standard of proof required by scientists, industry, and governments has already been met. You apparently won't be convinced until the fauna and flora of the planet have been laid waste.
Or someone actually supports their "standard of proof" with evidence collected over a longer time frame than a few decades. Observation bias is an obvious problem when you haven't observed a system for very long.
As someone else noted, Du Pont has an obvious conflict of interest, their patents for the old CFC refrigerants had expired. I consider them relatively benign, but the Montreal Protocol was a nice chunk of change for them since it encouraged switching from the generic CFC market to new refrigerants that Du Pont had patents on.
So you think the rate of natural ozone creation/depletion changes the destructive effect of CFCs on ozone. Is that a joke? Where do you get this stuff?
It makes it less relevant, just like minor injuries are less relevant to us normally due to cellular regeneration.
I could just as easily claim that banning CFCs *improved* the economy, that CFC replacements *lowered* the cost of refrigeration equipment, and that individuals' choice of running their AC has *nothing* to do with the type of refrigerant in their systems. If you want your claims to carry more weight than mine, CITE SOME AUTHORITATIVE SOURCES.
I'll do better than that. I'll point out that it took these regulations to force people to switch. If things were going to be so good in the first place, then you wouldn't need to force anyone to do anything. I think that's what I find most annoying about these economic fantasy arguments.
And as to the pseudo-science argument of demanding "authoritative sources", you do realize that's just a huge argument from authority fallacy? It's not my fault that your authoritative sources have only been observing the ozone hole for 30 years.
My view is that we will find that the ozone hole is a natural phenomena that predates humanity by several million years. CFCs released by humanity may have made this problem considerably worse. In which case, we will figure that out as well.
Yet somehow the science of CFC impact on atmospheric ozone was conclusive enough for policy makers to act *without* having discovered the cyclical depletion of ozone over the Antarctic.
You do realize that is a ridiculously low threshold. They were in the midst of the environmentalism mania. No science was too little then.
Ozone is destroyed in the presence of CFCs.
It's also created. If there is a high rate of non-anthropogenic ozone creation and destruction then that greatly weakens the effect of CFCs.
Slashdot Mirror
Who got injured and when? What were they flying at the time?
Complete bullshit since communism is the obvious counterexample. And poverty has greatly declined under the current bout of globalism.
Many even help them suggest a specific place (Somalia) to go.
Funny thing. Somalia apparently is a better place now than when it had its own official government.
People have been telling libertarians this all the time.
Telling someone something is not the same as that thing being true. Being forced by The Man to get a haircut and a real job is one of those comfortable myths people love to believe in.
The transaction is coerced because the government is forcing you to choose the transaction over the alternative of a cardbox on the bus shelter.
You're not being forced to choose the transaction since you can always live somewhere else. I never understood the logic of posts like this. Needs aren't coercion. Just because I need food to survive doesn't mean that I am coerced into buying food. Just because I need to breathe in order to survive doesn't mean that I'm forced by someone to breathe air. Similarly, just because you're not allowed to live in a cardboard box doesn't mean that you are forced to rent in that city.
Why should we use price signals to determine knowledge and technology advancement?
Because it is better than the alternatives.
That kind of thinking led the government to stop investing in alternative fuel research when the price of oil dropped to $10/barrel in the 1990s. That is precisely the time government should have been funding more research into alternative fuels, as a hedge against market groupthink.
What has happened since to demonstrate that something bad happened in the 1990s? Sorry, I don't see any evidence that increasing investment in alternative fuels at that time was a good idea, and that's looking at it from twenty years in the future. Plus, we can always invest in alternate fuels when the pricing signal is higher, which is what we did.
The government is not a business and should create money for the General Welfare (as the private sector creates money on the order of tens or hundreds of trillions of dollars a year, for personal profit).
"Create money"? That's not even wrong.
How about the government do something useful instead? I think a huge part of this problem here is your screwed up sense of what is in the general welfare. I don't care about the allege motive for doing something as opposed to the outcome. If someone does something useful for society while attempting to make a buck, then that's good enough for me.
You don't seem to know much about free markets, beyond blind faith that All Will Be Well. Don't work like that, never has.
You don't seem to have actual experience with markets. The grandparent post actually lists valid market responses to housing shortages, such as buying cheap, low density homes and turning them into higher density apartment complexes. That increases the supply of rental real estate in that poster's area, which is both a response you would expect to a housing shortage from a market and a desirable outcome.
Wait...are you saying that if a drone hits you in the head there is no demonstrable harm?
Has to happen first.
It means 'evident" or "able to be proved".
Yes.
Be that as t may, you didn't clarify the second half of your post. It doesn't make sense to me. Could you please clarify?
When an authority has a predictable, but dangerous response to otherwise harmless behavior, that can be exploited For example, the militarization of the US's police has resulted in the ploy of "swatting" where law enforcement and emergency service response to a phone call can create a very dangerous situation. Similarly, you can now interfere with air based fire fighting merely by lofting a drone at an inopportune moment.
What is the market doing in response to this? Multi-state property management companies are buying up everything on the market. You can list your property and expect a solid offer at above-market pricing within 48 hours. Rental listings last for mere hours. Developers are building new apartments as fast as they can--luxury apartments that charge higher than market rates, further inflating the market.
That's quite a lot. Hope you see a drop in rent over the next years as a result.
Here you go.
I looked around a bit, but I don't see a treaty that sets Dutch obligations at -25% reduction. The Kyoto Treaty, which the Netherlands are not actually obligated to follow, only sets a -20% target.
They've actually been fairly accurate on several things: 1) near future rate of sea level rise, 2) nights warming more than days, and 3) that the greatest near future surface warming will be at the higher latitudes of the Northern hemisphere. It might be a scam without historical precedent, but that doesn't mean that there isn't some truth to it.
If eliminating serious, measurable threats to the global environment
Like poverty, misuse of resources, habitat destruction, human corruption, and overpopulation? Oh wait, those are insignificant compared to the destructive power of the Earth warmed by 2 C over a century./sarc
My view is that if you deal with the five problems I mentioned, then AGW is just a bother, even if the ice caps melt over the next few thousand years. But if you deal with AGW by making the above problems worse, which is the current strategy (minus the pink-hooved unicorns who will keep that from happening. of course), then you have massive human die-offs.
Delusion is also the big fucking lie which is globalization and trickle down economics.
A delusion which has saved more people from poverty than anything you will ever come up with.
They linked to the verdict in the Slashdot article.
Wouldn't the time to negotiate that position been before the Dutch signed the treaty?
Which treaty is "the treaty"? None are mentioned! I note that the ordered reductions in emissions are greater than Netherlands's obligations under the Kyoto Treaty (-20% reduction versus the court-ordered -25%).
Wouldn't the time to negotiate that position been before the Dutch signed the treaty? That the Dutch may argue after the fact that "oh wait, we forgot to use this argument for leverage" doesn't absolve them of the commitments they signed up for.
And what happens if Netherlands happens to sign a trade agreement treaty that gives US corporations extraordinary power over internal Netherlands affairs? Is it still "doesn't absolve them of the commitments"? Or are onerous and/or fraudulent treaty conditions only a problem when you don't like them?
As I noted before, there's plenty of indication that this is not based on treaty or promises, but rather one jurist's opinion combined with an overstepping of authority and considerable economic ignorance.
Demonstrable harm is implied.
But not demonstrated.
A large international effort means large international politics, and you would not be able to be the United States at that table and say, "OK, here's what's going to happen. We need $500 billion among the countries at this table to make a manned mission happen. We'll put in $200 billion, you'll put in whatever. And then what's going to happen is all you guys give the money to us, and we'll turn around and give it to SpaceX to do it all.â No. They're just not going to do that. Each one of these countries is going to want their own businesses to be doing it, right?
That sounds like a typical clusterfuck not a serious attempt at a manned journey to Mars. If employing local business is a higher priority than a competently run mission, then I don't see how it's going to happen. It's not something you throw together in a few years. That makes such a trip well beyond the planning horizon for most politicians and business leaders these days. You'll just have a lot of people going after half a trillion dollars rather than focus on making the mission happen.
And demonstrate actual harm has occurred. I think that's the problem here. Just because you have a predictable and broken response to the flying of drones doesn't mean harm occurred. I imagine some enterprising black hats could clear select hillsides of human habitation by conveniently lofting long endurance drones at inopportune moments to stall fire fighting.
This isn't pulled out of the court's ass. The Dutch government made promises and then tried to back out of them.
What promises? I see nothing in the judgment or associated stories about these alleged promises.You would think, if they were so important, then you'd think someone would mention it. Sounds like a huge imposition by the courts on something that they just shouldn't be involved with.
Then there is the Orwellian ignoring of the harm of being one of the few countries to commit to CO2 reduction. The court has just greatly undermined the ability of the Dutch government by eliminating a key negotiation tactic, namely that the Netherlands will reduce their CO2 emissions if you do. By this judgment, not only does the Netherlands lose (assuming the ruling can stand up in a higher court of law) a significant negotiation tactic for protecting its citizens and suffer economic privation, it does so to the advantage of anyone who doesn't reduce their CO2 emissions - in other words, the ruling rewards defection and accordingly to the logic of the ruling harms the Dutch people.
This whole thing reeks of economic ignorance (surely, the judge has been exposed to situations where a policy or system rewards bad behavior) and the casual bending of law to support shortsighted political purposes (such as the concept of saving the village by burning it).
Probably not, but in this ruling the court explicitly pointed out that it will not allow the government to hide behind the inaction of other countries.
Even though that actively harms the country in question? I think historians will find it remarkable how much harm the developed world will do to itself over the next few decades due to issues like this and destructive, Orwellian policies which break the societies they allege to help.
Our experience with seat belt laws proves the opposite.
No, it doesn't. It's just another indication that personal safety isn't that important to many people.
The fact that you continue to conflate the ozone "hole" in the Antarctic with the broader ozone layer doesn't speak very well to your knowledge of the issues.
There has never been a problem with the broader ozone layer aside from the occasional unfounded assertion that it may be thinner than it used to be. The ozone hole has long been used as the principle demonstration that CFCs are having a substantial effect on the ozone layer.
The standard of proof required by scientists, industry, and governments has already been met. You apparently won't be convinced until the fauna and flora of the planet have been laid waste.
Or someone actually supports their "standard of proof" with evidence collected over a longer time frame than a few decades. Observation bias is an obvious problem when you haven't observed a system for very long.
The gates have been opened and now I'm playing the ignorance card all over this thread. Deal with it.
So you think the rate of natural ozone creation/depletion changes the destructive effect of CFCs on ozone. Is that a joke? Where do you get this stuff?
It makes it less relevant, just like minor injuries are less relevant to us normally due to cellular regeneration.
I could just as easily claim that banning CFCs *improved* the economy, that CFC replacements *lowered* the cost of refrigeration equipment, and that individuals' choice of running their AC has *nothing* to do with the type of refrigerant in their systems. If you want your claims to carry more weight than mine, CITE SOME AUTHORITATIVE SOURCES.
I'll do better than that. I'll point out that it took these regulations to force people to switch. If things were going to be so good in the first place, then you wouldn't need to force anyone to do anything. I think that's what I find most annoying about these economic fantasy arguments.
And as to the pseudo-science argument of demanding "authoritative sources", you do realize that's just a huge argument from authority fallacy? It's not my fault that your authoritative sources have only been observing the ozone hole for 30 years.
My view is that we will find that the ozone hole is a natural phenomena that predates humanity by several million years. CFCs released by humanity may have made this problem considerably worse. In which case, we will figure that out as well.
Yet somehow the science of CFC impact on atmospheric ozone was conclusive enough for policy makers to act *without* having discovered the cyclical depletion of ozone over the Antarctic.
You do realize that is a ridiculously low threshold. They were in the midst of the environmentalism mania. No science was too little then.
Ozone is destroyed in the presence of CFCs.
It's also created. If there is a high rate of non-anthropogenic ozone creation and destruction then that greatly weakens the effect of CFCs.