I certainly DO NOT find "slave-like" conditions among any migrant workers. You should be judicious in your use of the term slavery, as it has a very specific meaning. In particular, slavery implies the absence of an individual's right to exist, think, and choose their actions for themselves.
I also do not think that people come to the US to be exploited. I believe they find their lot here in the US much better than it would have been in their native residence, and they are generally glad for the chances they have that they did not have where they came from.
I think you meant to say, "markets will naturally adjust and people will suffer and die"
I certainly did not - While worshipers of primitive nature decry the effects of modern civilization, there are still 1.6 billion people without electricity today. We need MORE energy, not less. MUCH more, as the potential comforts and ease of technology have barely even begun to manifest themselves. We do not need to impress government investors on an Al Gore powerpoint presentation, while the government strangulates the energy industry.
Yes, I believe there must first be a philosophic revolution, a la the American Revolution, but preferably peaceful, and before too many negative consequences manifest.
Just enforce property rights. If party A polluting can be proven to harm party B, the party can receive civil and possibly criminal penalties. (e.g. if I dump toxic sludge on your lawn.)
If the globe warms (or cools, or the problem de jour), markets will naturally adjust and people will move. Just as New Orleans is eroding into the Gulf of Mexico. In fact, anyone who lives in the gulf is taking a risk. Anyone who lives next to the ocean where sea levels can rise and fall, are taking a risk.
What prevents company X from maximizing its profits by burning as much coal as possible
Why, nothing at all prevents them - as long as they are respecting the rights of everyone else. More power to them.
Life should be about comfort, joy, and profit - not suffering, sacrifice and worship of the God of Nature.
Re:Engine damage due to cars that are not prepared
on
The Great Ethanol Scam
·
· Score: 1
The real question is how large the net energy gain from using ethanol actually is
I think the real question is: how much economic destruction is caused by the removal of economic freedoms.
And how close to totalitarianism do we have to get before we realize that people, left free with their rights protected, can use their own minds and dollars to solve problems, VOLUNTARILY, without government control and coercion
the American Ethanol Debacle is not a product of government, as much as it is a product of government corrupted by private interests, in this case the mid-western corn lobby.
The way to avoid government corruption by private interests is to have a complete separation of state and economics, just as - and for the same reason - as the separation of church and state.
Just because the government makes mistakes does not mean the free market doesn't
The difference is that the government coerces people to do things, using its (legal) monopoly on force. OTOH, the free market can't (legally) force people to do things at the point of a gun, like the government does.
There is a reason why it took government power to force ethanol into the market - people would not have (at this time) chosen to do it voluntarily (i.e. there was no market for it).
Reality is an absolute, existence is an absolute, a speck of dust is an absolute and so is a human life. Whether you live or die is an absolute. Whether you have a piece of bread or not, is an absolute. Whether you eat your bread or see it vanish into a looter's stomach, is an absolute. - Galt's Speech, For the New Intellectual, 173.
"There are no absolutes," they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute. -For the New Intellectual Galt's Speech, For the New Intellectual, 173.
I have told you several arguments for free will, such as the meaningless of words, contradictions in assuming no free will, and the fact that you keep debating with me. (Do you not have a choice?)
Do you believe criminals on trial should simply be set free? After all - if they don't have free will, how can they be responsible for their actions? Why should they be punished?
The problem with that is, what if the "oh we can't stick to the status quo" moment is actually a massive human extinction event?
Your family might cause a massive human extinction event.
Should we kill your family?
Just because something could happen doesn't mean it will happen. That is where science comes in, and there is plenty of debate on whether global warming is even happening at all - let alone whether people have any impact on it - and let alone what, if anything, should be done about it.
Capitalist companies have always been a small group of conspirators who view the population as sheep to be fleeced for their own benefit.
Capitalism is about voluntary trade in a society where individuals are protected from force and fraud, but are otherwise free to deal with others however they wish.
tape recorder, with the VCR, with the printing press.
These are valuable inventions that have brought counltess benefits to people. Why disparage them?
If I don't have free will, how can I engage in semantic games?
Are we talking about theory, or practice?
What good is a theory, if it doesn't hold in practice?
...I am talking about the way we actually think.
My only point is that: if you make a statment about how or what people think, then that statement applies to you, and it applies to the statement itself.
It is a useful tool for philosophic detection: whenever someone makes a claim, check the claim against itself. A common example would be: "Nobody can be certain of anything" - Really? Can you be certain of that?
Wanna bet CO2 still warms the atmosphere after they incorporate the new ocean current data?
Your premise: CO2 warms the atmosphere
Wanna bet that 1000's of individuals will gather in Washington DC this June for the 3rd time to hear 100's of scientists debunk your premise? 3rd International Conference on Climate Change
Wanna bet that a pro-human movement will rise to oppose the pro-environment movement?
Ultimately the issue is: are people free to think, trade, and act in their best interest? Or should people kneel, steal, and sacrifice each other
To protect you: your health, property, family, etc. - one does not need the government (i.e. those with power), to manage our lives. All one needs is to enforce a simple idea: that you, the individual have a right to your life and property. Then nobody can damage your life and property, and if they do, they are liable.
Environmental regulation is not about protecting your life, property or happiness. If it were, all that would be required is to demonstrate in court that the actions of party X are damaging party Y, and then party X is liable, must stop harming you and your property, make restitution, etc.
Instead, the environmentalist movement is not pro-human. No matter what you do, you will exhale carbon. You will emit pollution. You will alter the environment to make your life better. Environmentalism regards all of these as evil. Why? There is no reason. It is a mystical belief system.
I think a lot of people implicitly accept environmentalism as a form of Original Sin. They regard themselves as inherently guilty. Why? Because they exist. Just like in Original Sin, every human is stained at birth. If people didn't exist, the Earth could exist in it's pristine, unstained form. But the existence of man stains the Earth, makes it fall from grace. Technology is the forbidden fruit that damns man and Earth.
If we shed our guilt and shed our mysticism, we could proceed down a different path, where we lived proud, happy, guilt-free lives, where comfort and joy is the picture, the Earth is our paint, and our mind is the paint brush.
I agree with your statement about it being a matter of risk-assessment. Unfortunately what most people miss in the debate is that all the things man does to impact the environment are generally life-enhancing, allowing people to live longer, healthier, safer, happier lives.
So the biggest risk of environmental regulation is that it will make people live shorter, less healthy, less safe, and less happy lives.
Slashdot Mirror
Prosecuted religions typically thrive as the "community" comes together against the perceived threat, see: Christianity, Judaism, Mormonism.
You forgot one: Environmentalism
I certainly DO NOT find "slave-like" conditions among any migrant workers. You should be judicious in your use of the term slavery, as it has a very specific meaning. In particular, slavery implies the absence of an individual's right to exist, think, and choose their actions for themselves.
I also do not think that people come to the US to be exploited. I believe they find their lot here in the US much better than it would have been in their native residence, and they are generally glad for the chances they have that they did not have where they came from.
I think you meant to say, "markets will naturally adjust and people will suffer and die"
I certainly did not - While worshipers of primitive nature decry the effects of modern civilization, there are still 1.6 billion people without electricity today. We need MORE energy, not less. MUCH more, as the potential comforts and ease of technology have barely even begun to manifest themselves. We do not need to impress government investors on an Al Gore powerpoint presentation, while the government strangulates the energy industry.
Yes, I believe there must first be a philosophic revolution, a la the American Revolution, but preferably peaceful, and before too many negative consequences manifest.
I like Ayn Rand's ideas as a starting point.
Just enforce property rights. If party A polluting can be proven to harm party B, the party can receive civil and possibly criminal penalties. (e.g. if I dump toxic sludge on your lawn.)
If the globe warms (or cools, or the problem de jour), markets will naturally adjust and people will move. Just as New Orleans is eroding into the Gulf of Mexico. In fact, anyone who lives in the gulf is taking a risk. Anyone who lives next to the ocean where sea levels can rise and fall, are taking a risk.
What prevents company X from maximizing its profits by burning as much coal as possible
Why, nothing at all prevents them - as long as they are respecting the rights of everyone else. More power to them.
Life should be about comfort, joy, and profit - not suffering, sacrifice and worship of the God of Nature.
The real question is how large the net energy gain from using ethanol actually is
I think the real question is: how much economic destruction is caused by the removal of economic freedoms.
And how close to totalitarianism do we have to get before we realize that people, left free with their rights protected, can use their own minds and dollars to solve problems, VOLUNTARILY, without government control and coercion
not sugar cane. Let it die. It's just a way for the the country semi feudal elite to keep exploiting poor people
Do you really believe that sugar cane promotes feudalism?
How about the non-existent concept of "individual rights", maybe THAT is more relevant to the continued existence of your feudalistic repression.
Clean coal and clean air is the real solution
A free market, and protection of property rights is the REAL solution.
We certainly don't need yet another round of bureaucrats and lobbyists vying for more power, control, and your money.
the American Ethanol Debacle is not a product of government, as much as it is a product of government corrupted by private interests, in this case the mid-western corn lobby.
The way to avoid government corruption by private interests is to have a complete separation of state and economics, just as - and for the same reason - as the separation of church and state.
Just because the government makes mistakes does not mean the free market doesn't
The difference is that the government coerces people to do things, using its (legal) monopoly on force. OTOH, the free market can't (legally) force people to do things at the point of a gun, like the government does.
There is a reason why it took government power to force ethanol into the market - people would not have (at this time) chosen to do it voluntarily (i.e. there was no market for it).
How can you "discourage" someone who does not have free will? Discourage implies they have a choice.
Reality is an absolute, existence is an absolute, a speck of dust is an absolute and so is a human life. Whether you live or die is an absolute. Whether you have a piece of bread or not, is an absolute. Whether you eat your bread or see it vanish into a looter's stomach, is an absolute. - Galt's Speech, For the New Intellectual, 173.
"There are no absolutes," they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute. -For the New Intellectual Galt's Speech, For the New Intellectual, 173.
I have told you several arguments for free will, such as the meaningless of words, contradictions in assuming no free will, and the fact that you keep debating with me. (Do you not have a choice?)
Do you believe criminals on trial should simply be set free? After all - if they don't have free will, how can they be responsible for their actions? Why should they be punished?
The problem with that is, what if the "oh we can't stick to the status quo" moment is actually a massive human extinction event?
Your family might cause a massive human extinction event.
Should we kill your family?
Just because something could happen doesn't mean it will happen. That is where science comes in, and there is plenty of debate on whether global warming is even happening at all - let alone whether people have any impact on it - and let alone what, if anything, should be done about it.
Capitalist companies have always been a small group of conspirators who view the population as sheep to be fleeced for their own benefit.
Capitalism is about voluntary trade in a society where individuals are protected from force and fraud, but are otherwise free to deal with others however they wish.
tape recorder, with the VCR, with the printing press.
These are valuable inventions that have brought counltess benefits to people. Why disparage them?
Semantic games.
If I don't have free will, how can I engage in semantic games?
Are we talking about theory, or practice?
What good is a theory, if it doesn't hold in practice?
...I am talking about the way we actually think.
My only point is that: if you make a statment about how or what people think, then that statement applies to you, and it applies to the statement itself.
It is a useful tool for philosophic detection: whenever someone makes a claim, check the claim against itself. A common example would be: "Nobody can be certain of anything" - Really? Can you be certain of that?
For someone who doesn't believe in free-will, you sure spend a lot of time trying to change my mind!
Wanna bet CO2 still warms the atmosphere after they incorporate the new ocean current data?
Your premise: CO2 warms the atmosphere
Wanna bet that 1000's of individuals will gather in Washington DC this June for the 3rd time to hear 100's of scientists debunk your premise? 3rd International Conference on Climate Change
Wanna bet that a pro-human movement will rise to oppose the pro-environment movement?
I agree that CO2 isn't the issue.
Ultimately the issue is: are people free to think, trade, and act in their best interest? Or should people kneel, steal, and sacrifice each other
To protect you: your health, property, family, etc. - one does not need the government (i.e. those with power), to manage our lives. All one needs is to enforce a simple idea: that you, the individual have a right to your life and property. Then nobody can damage your life and property, and if they do, they are liable.
Environmental regulation is not about protecting your life, property or happiness. If it were, all that would be required is to demonstrate in court that the actions of party X are damaging party Y, and then party X is liable, must stop harming you and your property, make restitution, etc.
Instead, the environmentalist movement is not pro-human. No matter what you do, you will exhale carbon. You will emit pollution. You will alter the environment to make your life better. Environmentalism regards all of these as evil. Why? There is no reason. It is a mystical belief system.
I think a lot of people implicitly accept environmentalism as a form of Original Sin. They regard themselves as inherently guilty. Why? Because they exist. Just like in Original Sin, every human is stained at birth. If people didn't exist, the Earth could exist in it's pristine, unstained form. But the existence of man stains the Earth, makes it fall from grace. Technology is the forbidden fruit that damns man and Earth.
If we shed our guilt and shed our mysticism, we could proceed down a different path, where we lived proud, happy, guilt-free lives, where comfort and joy is the picture, the Earth is our paint, and our mind is the paint brush.
dfger rth wtrj rtyjw6ri7i4
That's what words mean if you don't have free will.
Sdfasd awe4 q3g qw5h et4;rlkerg t2 54h;kg 23lgbksewrgerg
We are model makers. We make a model of reality.
Is that a model? Could it be wrong?
You can reason irrationally.
Got Logic?
Maybe you mean you can attempt to reason poorly, say by neglecting key information, or misapplying logic, but irrational means: not rational
The laws of thermodynamics also don't say we can't enslave each other, or torture children. Should we do those things, too?
I agree with your statement about it being a matter of risk-assessment. Unfortunately what most people miss in the debate is that all the things man does to impact the environment are generally life-enhancing, allowing people to live longer, healthier, safer, happier lives.
So the biggest risk of environmental regulation is that it will make people live shorter, less healthy, less safe, and less happy lives.
we're *still* mucking with our climate.
Being alive requires that we impact the environment.
Being comfortable requires even more impact.
I, for one, have no guilt about being alive, and comfortable.