"We forg...err...we *have* the defendant's computerized gun and ammo purchase receipts from our DHS/BATF records
how does microstamping make any difference to this little scenario you penned? If the 'homeland security' system is this corrupt, they don't need microstamping to end up at the same result. Hell, today they can just say "umm, national security would be compromised if we told you what we know about this guy, so just trust us, he's guilty"
Good point.
However...
Do you think this trend you point out will get better or worse if the government is successful in having the populace effectively disarmed?
Let me guess, you have a 'Nobama' sticker on your truck.
Let me guess, you have PETA, OWS, and "Yes We Can!" stickers on both your Chevy Volt and Segway, are a vegetarian, and you think that anyone that doesn't agree with your views isn't as smart as you.
Not sure that I agree. That said, part of the rationale behind this is to be able to trace the bullet to the gun via sales information without having to actually have the gun. So if the guy my wife was cheating with is found dead and the bullets at the scene are stamped with the serial number of a gun that I purchased shortly after finding out my wife was cheating on me, that might inspire some more investigation as to where I was the night of the murder.
Well, if I'm banging your wife and we plan to run away together, it's nice to know I can have the wife let me into your house one afternoon while you're at work, take your gun, (or otherwise secretly gain temporary possession of your gun) shoot a homeless guy along your route from work, and then put it back in your bedroom.
No more pesky hubby.
We'll enjoy Tahiti on your savings while I enjoy your wife, promise!
It also makes an ideal tool for government to frame dissenters.
"We forg...err...we *have* the defendant's computerized gun and ammo purchase receipts from our DHS/BATF records, and the firing-pin microstamp your Honor, the defendant has a history as a known troublemaker and radical, and has been observed by our domestic intelligence agencies at many protests, he is obviously guilty as charged!"
"Wait, I don't own a gun!"
"Oh, so we can add charges and prison time for lying about owning a gun as well?"
"I've never owned a gun in my life! I hate guns! I have a right to protest! This is a frame-up!"
It is the nature of humanity, due to our evolutionary psychology, that in a highly integrated, large scale society where tribal instincts do not suit us well, any power vacuum will be filled. If it's not by the government, it will be by the rise in power of other institutions--a libertarian society cannot be stable because of this.
What you fail to factor in are the people. They are the ones from which all power originates. It is the responsibility of the people to limit and direct government power and policies. When government ignores the people, it is then the people's responsibility to alter or abolish that government, preferably through the political process, or if that fails, by taking the bastards out and hanging them from a nearby tree.
As to Capitalism, it's terrible. Horrible. But yet, still the best system yet invented.
I have kids that will foot their incredible tax bill.
That's only *IF* they survive the coming collapse, the famines, the riots & violence, the government crackdowns, mass re-locations, and the "re-education" and forced-labor camps.
The EU example actually works directly against your argument. It is exactly because Eurozone members have no control of their currencies that this is happening. You cannot have a monetary union without a fiscal and economic union as well. The disaster in Europe was predicted by MMT from the moment the Euro was even considered as a concept.
This is apples-and-oranges. I don't think you're trying to build a strawman here, I think you simply confused "economy" with "currency". I never said a nation shouldn't control its' currency. A sovereign nation must have control of its' currency. That's the EU problem you referred to. This is totally different than a government having control of the domestic economy.
As for the US, there are multiple problems that have nothing to do with the control of currency. Problems include things such as bank capital ratios not being consistently applied across the board, due to lobbying and conflicts of interest between the financial industry and regulators and favoritism. Then the wrong fixes were applied, such as QE which does nothing to boost aggregate demand, instead of targeted deficit spending which does boost it. The point is, a tool is not wrong; misuse of a tool is wrong, but the misuse is never an argument to remove the tool itself.
This is the always-disastrous "government control of the economy" I spoke to in my OP. Governments never make the "right" choices, or at least, a high-enough percentage of "right" choices. Reasons for this vary somewhat, but this has historically been universally true.
I guess people learned their lesson from the Great Depression...
Yeah, they sure did! It's been *sooo* effective, too! I'm glad the EU and the US economies aren't in any danger of collapse, and that the US economy hasn't seen the highest sustained levels of unemployment since the Great Depression, or a massive reduction in the size of the US labor force.
Oh, wait...
If you think it's a bug, go somewhere else where government does not have the ability to seriously impact the economy. Oh, wait, no such place!
It doesn't make sense unless you want to abolish government, since government needs fiat currency to have serious impact on the economy.
Government should not have the ability "to have serious impact on the economy".
This is a bug, not a feature.
Governments that have the levers of a national economy at their disposal and try to manage an economy always end up screwing it up badly. This has always been true. Governments are notoriously and historically horrendous at managing national economies.
See: The US and the EU/PIGS for more recent examples.
Why? Will it be illegal to fire someone for their kid setting up a lemonade stand? If so, isn't that just a form of regulation?
It's simply fair labor practices. Smaller government does not mean no government or anarchy.
Why is a small government not susceptible to bribes?
You might try reading my previous posts. I explained this already. A smaller government makes it much harder to conceal corruption and much harder to obfuscate and hide guilt through layers upon layers of bureaucracy.
If the government doesn't have the power to regulate kids setting up lemonade stands, then BigDrink Corp can't buy influence to have them shut down.
But BigDrinkCorp can regulate. Said kid can not survive without parents, who cannot survive without a job. If that job is with BigDrinkCorp, it's easy for BigrinkCorp to fire the parents unless the kid shuts down the shop.
Since the government in this scenario is smaller, less corrupt, and more accountable, then BigDrink Corp and it's corporate officers and board members along with others involved would be led away in handcuffs and would be facing major multiple Federal criminal charges and prison time that they couldn't buy their way out of.
Unlike now, where the rich and powerful politically-connected criminals usually get away without significant consequences, and that's if they're even charged, never mind convicted.
There's a simple solution to US companies buying these minerals (and oil as well) from "conflict" regions and from those who are declared enemies of the US.
Mine/drill for it here in the US. The US has plenty of oil and the minerals being discussed to supply us for centuries even accounting for best growth estimates. The information is out there, do a Google search.
We've allowed the government to tie our own hands behind our backs with regulations and laws which make it extremely costly & difficult, if not impossible, to do. I guess the people who advocate for such policies & regulations are fine with getting all the benefits of electronics technology, as long as they can export the negatives to poor regions.
It's NIMBY-ism on a global scale and it's adding significantly to the domestic economic and global political mess the US is in.
Phil Jones deleted that data before 1995, back when computer storage was expensive. I'm sure if he'd known what a big deal it was going to turn into he would have found a way to keep it. "Climategate" is much ado about nothing. An exercise in quote mining without context.
I see, he had no idea, right?
You mean they didn't have scientific theories peer-reviewed way back then? He didn't think by presenting such scientific theories that some other scientists might, you know, kinda check up on it and try to reproduce his results?
Amazing. All those scientists back prior to the '90s didn't preserve their data for peer review and reproduction of results...
This "wealth" is an illusion - conjured up by the ponzi-scheme of debt, coerced with state violence.
Are you for real or am I being trolled?
Are you against barter as well? That's all "wealth" in currency is. It's a means to barter without carrying around chickens, cows, etc or fixing a computer or digging a ditch on the spot in order to exchange it to someone else who spent their time/effort/skill to make/grow/create/build something that you need or want. Wealth itself is simply goods, services, or other valuable/useful things you have earned through labor, created, or can provide.
People won't work for nothing or just hand over something they worked and put materials into creating/building/growing. Oh, unless one goes back to that old standard solution that's eventually been employed every time such utopian ideas have been tried through history, and to which I referred to in one of my previous posts: At the point of a gun/sword.
Just like the Soviet farms. Production was extremely poor until the farmers were offered a way to benefit from what the farm produced.
Capitalism is terrible. However, it's STILL the best, most successful system that's ever been created in all of history by any reasonable standard.
>Capitalism is the only system ever created where wealth is a renewable resource for everyone and anyone willing to work and/or come up with an idea, skill, or invention that is useful or valuable to another person that you can then trade with for something you need or want.
>Capitalism has raised more people from poverty and dramatically raised the standard of living of more people than any other system ever created.
>Capitalism has allowed more people to live in more freedom than any other system ever invented.
>Capitalism has allowed the US to provide more humanitarian assistance to those in need around the world than any other system or country in history.
Now, the second part about government-run Ponzi schemes, crushing debt, and coercion by the state through the threat of violence I agree with to a great degree.
"I place economy among the first and most important of republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared." - Thomas Jefferson
"The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale." - Thomas Jefferson
"If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy." - Thomas Jefferson
The root of the government corruption and the power the big corporations and ultra-rich wield originates and is enforced by a too-large and powerful central government. Corporations and the rich don't have military or civilian police forces. They don't pass laws or regulations. It's the government that passes the corrupt laws and regulations and enforces them, sometimes quite selectively, to the benefit of those with power and influence. It's the government that will kick in your door, shoot your dog and terrorize and threaten you and your family at gunpoint.
Any power you give government, you give to those who have bought government influence. The only real protection is to keep government small and tightly restricted to only those few powers actually granted by a plain-language reading of the Constitution without "lawyering" the meaning of plain words to twist their meaning to suit a political agenda.
"How strangely will the Tools of the Tyrant pervert the Plain Meaning of Words." - Samuel Adams
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." - Thomas Jefferson
A large government makes hiding and/or obfuscating corruption and other improper behavior and guilt/blame easy.
First, they aren't the ones doing the labor to get those things, they are just the ones consuming the most benefit from them.
Second, taking away their ability would not take away our ability to use it, and distribute it in a more equitable form.
So, how do you intend to finance all the labor and materials to get something like a mine or oil field to a "producible" state without "the 1%" to finance it? Government cannot create wealth, it can only transfer it from one group to another, so when there's no "1%", there's very little capital for investment. How will you keep the workers working, keeping in mind that it may take years before the mine or oil field produces enough to even keep up with it's own costs, never mind pay workers?
Probably the same way people with similar collectivist mindsets have historically always done it:
And here you're quite wrong. Your comparison is a incorrect: those climatologists who study the trends and data regarding the changes in global temperature trends are in fact authorities since that is what they have studied and what they do. That you don't like or agree with them doesn't remove their authority on the discipline.
There have only been degreed global climate scientists for 10-15 years. Would you care to have your appendix operated on by "doctors" if the formal study of medicine just began 15 years ago?
Would they not be "authorities"?
Sure, they have no clue that bacteria exists and haven't developed anesthesia yet, but hey!...They're "Authorities"!
Being an "authority" in a field where even a basic understanding of the systems involved is decades or centuries away is not saying much. Particularly when actions taken based on the word of these "authorities" could cause humans to become extinct, and at the very least would cause large groups of people to endure starvation, death, economic collapse, and much lower standards of living.
That, and most of the historical climate data that climate scientists have to work with is from the same "massaged" pool of data from the CRU & Mann. Mann admitted he destroyed the original data. If that doesn't send up huge warning flares and red flags, then you're not being intellectually honest and are arguing purely from an ideological/political advocacy viewpoint.
Imagine if it was reversed, someone published a paper showing that what we are seeing is nothing more than natural variability and who then did exactly what Mann did, would anybody take anything they published seriously?
No, why should they? It's not the conclusions I'm arguing, it's the shoddy and suspect way in which the data was collected, handled, "massaged", the original datasets erased, etc etc etc. It's the horribly-bad science and then the ham-handed political agendas heaped upon it.
If one were being intellectually honest, there's no way any of that should be used to formulate massive policies and programs, regulations, restrictions, etc etc that could endanger countless lives and massively lower living standards, increase energy prices, and reduce employment in the West...and in the midst of the largest global economic plummet since the Great Depression in the US. Particularly when the "rising stars" of greenhouse-gas producing nations have and will continue to refuse to alter their footprints except in the most meaningless ways as a negotiating tactic.
This has become, whether or not the science is good or bunk, and whether you want to admit it or not, about transferring wealth, energy, and industrial capability away from the US and the West and attacking Capitalism. The science, AGW, the planet, all that, is now window-dressing for ideological struggle.
Even if the science and everything is valid, the "watermelons" (Socialists/Communists/Anarchists in the environmental movement for ideological purposes..."green" on the outside, "red" on the inside) among the environmental movement has destroyed it's credibility and that of AGW theories. They "jumped the shark" with most people who are paying attention.
But your statement is very troll-like in that, if you understand what makes one an authority but then say those climatologists aren't authorities, you're trolling this thread.
We're at the very beginning of a new field of science with regard to global climate. How long has there even been a degreed university/college level program in global climate science? 10-15 years?
Even given that these are "authorities", that doesn't mean much when only the very first initial scratchings at the mountain of knowledge & understanding involved in the field of global climate science have been made.
Its akin to citing Marie Curie as an authority in nuclear reactor design. Sure, she's an "authority", but from a time when our understanding was in it's infancy. Same here with global climate science and global climate scientists.
Similarly, relying upon design direction from Marie Curie in building a nuclear reactor OR relying on climate scientists at the current level of understanding of global climate systems for taking action against a perceived warming trend are both likely to result in either catastrophe or a huge waste of money, or both.
Again, you're quite wrong. You seem to greatly misunderstand how science works then if you think conclusive data precludes any debate. Quite the contrary, science and the collected body of data requires constant debate in order to refine our knowledge and theories. It's part of how we skeptically interrogate the universe to learn about it (to paraphrase Sagan).
Why are you telling me this? *I'm* not attempting to shut down debate by moderating any opposing opinions "Troll". I'm questioning the validity of the data and the conclusions made from that questionable data, as well as the political/ideological motivations of many of those pushing the AGW agenda. When scientists like Mann at the CRU destroy original unaltered climate data rather than turn a copy over to someone else so that his and his colleague's research can be checked/duplicated, you'll forgive me if I am quite skeptical.
You want someone to blame for climate skeptics? Blame climate scientists like Mann that made it political and the politicians that took that political football and ran with it to bolster their own political ideologies and agendas. And blame people like yourself that refuse to acknowledge realities, and thus cause people to dismiss you as a religious zealot.
Disagreeing with something does not equate with "speak[ing] the truth".
Neither does disagreeing with something make it a "Troll" post.
You aren't an authority on the subject, so your lack of acceptance does not mean the body of knowledge is wrong.
There are no "authorities" on global climate science. That would be the equivalent of calling the first primitives to discover the wheel "authorities" on modern global transportation networks.
You provided no facts or arguments to support your dismissal of verified, objective scientific data.
There IS NO "verified, objective scientific data". That's the whole point. If there was, there wouldn't be any debate. It's that precise lack (and "massaging" of the data that existed) that's the issue.
If not a troll, you definite display troll-like tendencies.
"Troll-like tendencies" like disagreeing with the group-think and having critical-thinking abilities. Yes, Copernicus and Galileo were quite familiar. I'm in good company.
My ability to look past arguments that are simply appeals to "authority" and apply critical-thinking methods upsets the popular Progressive political narrative regarding climate and makes people uncomfortable because it forces them to examine their own thinking and motivations in a less-than-stellar light.
If that's now a "Troll", then I am a proud, undeterred, and unashamed "Troll".
"Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland."
No, he wouldn't have any vested interest, either financially-, career/academically-, or ideologically-wise in promulgating the religion of AGW. I mean, he's akin to what? A bishop, in the "Church of Global Warming"? It's like if a random Catholic, when asked how he knows there's a God, were to cite his priest and/or other church hierarchy official as authority.
At least cite to something a bit less obviously biased if you wish to have any credibility.
As it stands, I think you're *helping* to make my point, rather than making any rational argument against it.
Generally speaking, that's a reasonable position. The twist is that the US system is designed for consultation and compromise. So the Republicans want one thing, the Dems the other and they're suppose to split the difference.
What the Republicans have discovered is that compromises tend to make the President look good. So they've stopped compromising.
Compromise is all well and good, except when someone demands you compromise your basic principles.
Say, party 'A' wants to imprison the entire black population. Party 'B' says "NO!". Party 'A'' then proposes a compromise...just imprison half the black population. Party 'B' says "NO!" again, based on the same principle. Party 'A' then proclaims party 'B' is unreasonable and refuses to compromise.
This is basically what's been happening in Washington DC:
--- Obama & Progs - "Let me put this in your mouth"
TEA - "HELL NO!!"
Obama & Progs - "C'mon, let me!"
TEA - "HELL NO!!"
Obama & Progs - "Ok then, compromise with me...just the tip."
TEA - "HELL NO!!"
Obama & Progs - "SEE!?!? Those TEA Party Terrorists and Republicans are all inflexible Right-Wing nutcase fanatical ideologues that won't compromise even a tiny bit, and they're racist homophobe gay-bashers too!!!" ---
Slashdot Mirror
Good point.
However...
Do you think this trend you point out will get better or worse if the government is successful in having the populace effectively disarmed?
Strat
Let me guess, you have a 'Nobama' sticker on your truck.
Let me guess, you have PETA, OWS, and "Yes We Can!" stickers on both your Chevy Volt and Segway, are a vegetarian, and you think that anyone that doesn't agree with your views isn't as smart as you.
Strat
Not sure that I agree. That said, part of the rationale behind this is to be able to trace the bullet to the gun via sales information without having to actually have the gun. So if the guy my wife was cheating with is found dead and the bullets at the scene are stamped with the serial number of a gun that I purchased shortly after finding out my wife was cheating on me, that might inspire some more investigation as to where I was the night of the murder.
Well, if I'm banging your wife and we plan to run away together, it's nice to know I can have the wife let me into your house one afternoon while you're at work, take your gun, (or otherwise secretly gain temporary possession of your gun) shoot a homeless guy along your route from work, and then put it back in your bedroom.
No more pesky hubby.
We'll enjoy Tahiti on your savings while I enjoy your wife, promise!
It also makes an ideal tool for government to frame dissenters.
"We forg...err...we *have* the defendant's computerized gun and ammo purchase receipts from our DHS/BATF records, and the firing-pin microstamp your Honor, the defendant has a history as a known troublemaker and radical, and has been observed by our domestic intelligence agencies at many protests, he is obviously guilty as charged!"
"Wait, I don't own a gun!"
"Oh, so we can add charges and prison time for lying about owning a gun as well?"
"I've never owned a gun in my life! I hate guns! I have a right to protest! This is a frame-up!"
"Tell it to your cellmate, prisoner!"
Strat
It is the nature of humanity, due to our evolutionary psychology, that in a highly integrated, large scale society where tribal instincts do not suit us well, any power vacuum will be filled. If it's not by the government, it will be by the rise in power of other institutions--a libertarian society cannot be stable because of this.
What you fail to factor in are the people. They are the ones from which all power originates. It is the responsibility of the people to limit and direct government power and policies. When government ignores the people, it is then the people's responsibility to alter or abolish that government, preferably through the political process, or if that fails, by taking the bastards out and hanging them from a nearby tree.
As to Capitalism, it's terrible. Horrible. But yet, still the best system yet invented.
See my post here on Capitalism and government power: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2902323&cid=40254219
Strat
I have kids that will foot their incredible tax bill.
That's only *IF* they survive the coming collapse, the famines, the riots & violence, the government crackdowns, mass re-locations, and the "re-education" and forced-labor camps.
Strat
The EU example actually works directly against your argument. It is exactly because Eurozone members have no control of their currencies that this is happening. You cannot have a monetary union without a fiscal and economic union as well. The disaster in Europe was predicted by MMT from the moment the Euro was even considered as a concept.
This is apples-and-oranges. I don't think you're trying to build a strawman here, I think you simply confused "economy" with "currency". I never said a nation shouldn't control its' currency. A sovereign nation must have control of its' currency. That's the EU problem you referred to. This is totally different than a government having control of the domestic economy.
As for the US, there are multiple problems that have nothing to do with the control of currency. Problems include things such as bank capital ratios not being consistently applied across the board, due to lobbying and conflicts of interest between the financial industry and regulators and favoritism. Then the wrong fixes were applied, such as QE which does nothing to boost aggregate demand, instead of targeted deficit spending which does boost it. The point is, a tool is not wrong; misuse of a tool is wrong, but the misuse is never an argument to remove the tool itself.
This is the always-disastrous "government control of the economy" I spoke to in my OP. Governments never make the "right" choices, or at least, a high-enough percentage of "right" choices. Reasons for this vary somewhat, but this has historically been universally true.
Strat
I guess people learned their lesson from the Great Depression...
Yeah, they sure did! It's been *sooo* effective, too! I'm glad the EU and the US economies aren't in any danger of collapse, and that the US economy hasn't seen the highest sustained levels of unemployment since the Great Depression, or a massive reduction in the size of the US labor force.
Oh, wait...
If you think it's a bug, go somewhere else where government does not have the ability to seriously impact the economy. Oh, wait, no such place!
Well, at least you identified another bug.
Strat
It doesn't make sense unless you want to abolish government, since government needs fiat currency to have serious impact on the economy.
Government should not have the ability "to have serious impact on the economy".
This is a bug, not a feature.
Governments that have the levers of a national economy at their disposal and try to manage an economy always end up screwing it up badly. This has always been true. Governments are notoriously and historically horrendous at managing national economies.
See: The US and the EU/PIGS for more recent examples.
Strat
Why? Will it be illegal to fire someone for their kid setting up a lemonade stand? If so, isn't that just a form of regulation?
It's simply fair labor practices. Smaller government does not mean no government or anarchy.
Why is a small government not susceptible to bribes?
You might try reading my previous posts. I explained this already. A smaller government makes it much harder to conceal corruption and much harder to obfuscate and hide guilt through layers upon layers of bureaucracy.
Strat
Since the government in this scenario is smaller, less corrupt, and more accountable, then BigDrink Corp and it's corporate officers and board members along with others involved would be led away in handcuffs and would be facing major multiple Federal criminal charges and prison time that they couldn't buy their way out of.
Unlike now, where the rich and powerful politically-connected criminals usually get away without significant consequences, and that's if they're even charged, never mind convicted.
Strat
There's a simple solution to US companies buying these minerals (and oil as well) from "conflict" regions and from those who are declared enemies of the US.
Mine/drill for it here in the US. The US has plenty of oil and the minerals being discussed to supply us for centuries even accounting for best growth estimates. The information is out there, do a Google search.
We've allowed the government to tie our own hands behind our backs with regulations and laws which make it extremely costly & difficult, if not impossible, to do. I guess the people who advocate for such policies & regulations are fine with getting all the benefits of electronics technology, as long as they can export the negatives to poor regions.
It's NIMBY-ism on a global scale and it's adding significantly to the domestic economic and global political mess the US is in.
Strat
Mann admitted he destroyed the original data.
Oops, that's Phil Jones that destroyed the original climate data, not Mann. Hard to keep all the guilty sorted without a program, it seems.
Strat
Phil Jones deleted that data before 1995, back when computer storage was expensive. I'm sure if he'd known what a big deal it was going to turn into he would have found a way to keep it. "Climategate" is much ado about nothing. An exercise in quote mining without context.
I see, he had no idea, right?
You mean they didn't have scientific theories peer-reviewed way back then? He didn't think by presenting such scientific theories that some other scientists might, you know, kinda check up on it and try to reproduce his results?
Amazing. All those scientists back prior to the '90s didn't preserve their data for peer review and reproduction of results...
Oh, wait...they did and you're an apologist.
Strat
This "wealth" is an illusion - conjured up by the ponzi-scheme of debt, coerced with state violence.
Are you for real or am I being trolled?
Are you against barter as well? That's all "wealth" in currency is. It's a means to barter without carrying around chickens, cows, etc or fixing a computer or digging a ditch on the spot in order to exchange it to someone else who spent their time/effort/skill to make/grow/create/build something that you need or want. Wealth itself is simply goods, services, or other valuable/useful things you have earned through labor, created, or can provide.
People won't work for nothing or just hand over something they worked and put materials into creating/building/growing. Oh, unless one goes back to that old standard solution that's eventually been employed every time such utopian ideas have been tried through history, and to which I referred to in one of my previous posts: At the point of a gun/sword.
Just like the Soviet farms. Production was extremely poor until the farmers were offered a way to benefit from what the farm produced.
Capitalism is terrible. However, it's STILL the best, most successful system that's ever been created in all of history by any reasonable standard.
>Capitalism is the only system ever created where wealth is a renewable resource for everyone and anyone willing to work and/or come up with an idea, skill, or invention that is useful or valuable to another person that you can then trade with for something you need or want.
>Capitalism has raised more people from poverty and dramatically raised the standard of living of more people than any other system ever created.
>Capitalism has allowed more people to live in more freedom than any other system ever invented.
>Capitalism has allowed the US to provide more humanitarian assistance to those in need around the world than any other system or country in history.
Now, the second part about government-run Ponzi schemes, crushing debt, and coercion by the state through the threat of violence I agree with to a great degree.
"I place economy among the first and most important of republican virtues, and public debt as the greatest of the dangers to be feared." - Thomas Jefferson
"The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale." - Thomas Jefferson
"If we can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people, under the pretense of taking care of them, they must become happy." - Thomas Jefferson
The root of the government corruption and the power the big corporations and ultra-rich wield originates and is enforced by a too-large and powerful central government. Corporations and the rich don't have military or civilian police forces. They don't pass laws or regulations. It's the government that passes the corrupt laws and regulations and enforces them, sometimes quite selectively, to the benefit of those with power and influence. It's the government that will kick in your door, shoot your dog and terrorize and threaten you and your family at gunpoint.
Any power you give government, you give to those who have bought government influence. The only real protection is to keep government small and tightly restricted to only those few powers actually granted by a plain-language reading of the Constitution without "lawyering" the meaning of plain words to twist their meaning to suit a political agenda.
"How strangely will the Tools of the Tyrant pervert the Plain Meaning of Words." - Samuel Adams
"The two enemies of the people are criminals and government, so let us tie the second down with the chains of the Constitution so the second will not become the legalized version of the first." - Thomas Jefferson
A large government makes hiding and/or obfuscating corruption and other improper behavior and guilt/blame easy.
If the government doesn't have the power to r
First, they aren't the ones doing the labor to get those things, they are just the ones consuming the most benefit from them.
Second, taking away their ability would not take away our ability to use it, and distribute it in a more equitable form.
So, how do you intend to finance all the labor and materials to get something like a mine or oil field to a "producible" state without "the 1%" to finance it? Government cannot create wealth, it can only transfer it from one group to another, so when there's no "1%", there's very little capital for investment. How will you keep the workers working, keeping in mind that it may take years before the mine or oil field produces enough to even keep up with it's own costs, never mind pay workers?
Probably the same way people with similar collectivist mindsets have historically always done it:
At the point of a gun/sword.
Strat
And here you're quite wrong. Your comparison is a incorrect: those climatologists who study the trends and data regarding the changes in global temperature trends are in fact authorities since that is what they have studied and what they do. That you don't like or agree with them doesn't remove their authority on the discipline.
There have only been degreed global climate scientists for 10-15 years. Would you care to have your appendix operated on by "doctors" if the formal study of medicine just began 15 years ago?
Would they not be "authorities"?
Sure, they have no clue that bacteria exists and haven't developed anesthesia yet, but hey!...They're "Authorities"!
Being an "authority" in a field where even a basic understanding of the systems involved is decades or centuries away is not saying much. Particularly when actions taken based on the word of these "authorities" could cause humans to become extinct, and at the very least would cause large groups of people to endure starvation, death, economic collapse, and much lower standards of living.
That, and most of the historical climate data that climate scientists have to work with is from the same "massaged" pool of data from the CRU & Mann. Mann admitted he destroyed the original data. If that doesn't send up huge warning flares and red flags, then you're not being intellectually honest and are arguing purely from an ideological/political advocacy viewpoint.
Strat
Imagine if it was reversed, someone published a paper showing that what we are seeing is nothing more than natural variability and who then did exactly what Mann did, would anybody take anything they published seriously?
No, why should they? It's not the conclusions I'm arguing, it's the shoddy and suspect way in which the data was collected, handled, "massaged", the original datasets erased, etc etc etc. It's the horribly-bad science and then the ham-handed political agendas heaped upon it.
If one were being intellectually honest, there's no way any of that should be used to formulate massive policies and programs, regulations, restrictions, etc etc that could endanger countless lives and massively lower living standards, increase energy prices, and reduce employment in the West...and in the midst of the largest global economic plummet since the Great Depression in the US. Particularly when the "rising stars" of greenhouse-gas producing nations have and will continue to refuse to alter their footprints except in the most meaningless ways as a negotiating tactic.
This has become, whether or not the science is good or bunk, and whether you want to admit it or not, about transferring wealth, energy, and industrial capability away from the US and the West and attacking Capitalism. The science, AGW, the planet, all that, is now window-dressing for ideological struggle.
Even if the science and everything is valid, the "watermelons" (Socialists/Communists/Anarchists in the environmental movement for ideological purposes..."green" on the outside, "red" on the inside) among the environmental movement has destroyed it's credibility and that of AGW theories. They "jumped the shark" with most people who are paying attention.
Strat
But your statement is very troll-like in that, if you understand what makes one an authority but then say those climatologists aren't authorities, you're trolling this thread.
We're at the very beginning of a new field of science with regard to global climate. How long has there even been a degreed university/college level program in global climate science? 10-15 years?
Even given that these are "authorities", that doesn't mean much when only the very first initial scratchings at the mountain of knowledge & understanding involved in the field of global climate science have been made.
Its akin to citing Marie Curie as an authority in nuclear reactor design. Sure, she's an "authority", but from a time when our understanding was in it's infancy. Same here with global climate science and global climate scientists.
Similarly, relying upon design direction from Marie Curie in building a nuclear reactor OR relying on climate scientists at the current level of understanding of global climate systems for taking action against a perceived warming trend are both likely to result in either catastrophe or a huge waste of money, or both.
Again, you're quite wrong. You seem to greatly misunderstand how science works then if you think conclusive data precludes any debate. Quite the contrary, science and the collected body of data requires constant debate in order to refine our knowledge and theories. It's part of how we skeptically interrogate the universe to learn about it (to paraphrase Sagan).
Why are you telling me this? *I'm* not attempting to shut down debate by moderating any opposing opinions "Troll". I'm questioning the validity of the data and the conclusions made from that questionable data, as well as the political/ideological motivations of many of those pushing the AGW agenda. When scientists like Mann at the CRU destroy original unaltered climate data rather than turn a copy over to someone else so that his and his colleague's research can be checked/duplicated, you'll forgive me if I am quite skeptical.
You want someone to blame for climate skeptics? Blame climate scientists like Mann that made it political and the politicians that took that political football and ran with it to bolster their own political ideologies and agendas. And blame people like yourself that refuse to acknowledge realities, and thus cause people to dismiss you as a religious zealot.
Strat
Disagreeing with something does not equate with "speak[ing] the truth".
Neither does disagreeing with something make it a "Troll" post.
You aren't an authority on the subject, so your lack of acceptance does not mean the body of knowledge is wrong.
There are no "authorities" on global climate science. That would be the equivalent of calling the first primitives to discover the wheel "authorities" on modern global transportation networks.
You provided no facts or arguments to support your dismissal of verified, objective scientific data.
There IS NO "verified, objective scientific data". That's the whole point. If there was, there wouldn't be any debate. It's that precise lack (and "massaging" of the data that existed) that's the issue.
If not a troll, you definite display troll-like tendencies.
"Troll-like tendencies" like disagreeing with the group-think and having critical-thinking abilities. Yes, Copernicus and Galileo were quite familiar. I'm in good company.
My ability to look past arguments that are simply appeals to "authority" and apply critical-thinking methods upsets the popular Progressive political narrative regarding climate and makes people uncomfortable because it forces them to examine their own thinking and motivations in a less-than-stellar light.
If that's now a "Troll", then I am a proud, undeterred, and unashamed "Troll".
Strat
And, once again, I'm modded "Troll" for being an AGW heretic and daring to speak the truth.
I suppose when you have no facts or arguments behind your views, a "Troll" mod is about the only option.
Sad, really.
Strat
[skepticalscience.com]
I stopped reading right there.
From the skepticalscience.com "About" page:
"Skeptical Science is maintained by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at the University of Queensland."
No, he wouldn't have any vested interest, either financially-, career/academically-, or ideologically-wise in promulgating the religion of AGW. I mean, he's akin to what? A bishop, in the "Church of Global Warming"? It's like if a random Catholic, when asked how he knows there's a God, were to cite his priest and/or other church hierarchy official as authority.
At least cite to something a bit less obviously biased if you wish to have any credibility.
As it stands, I think you're *helping* to make my point, rather than making any rational argument against it.
Strat
Then fight those people who're trying to push religion in the classroom under the guise of "science".
I agree.
The religion of AGW has no place in a science class.
Strat
Stubby Hubble. . . . .Heh, heh, heh. . . . . . Get it?
Stubble?
Apologies...it had to be said.
Strat
u mad?
Strat :D
Generally speaking, that's a reasonable position. The twist is that the US system is designed for consultation and compromise. So the Republicans want one thing, the Dems the other and they're suppose to split the difference.
What the Republicans have discovered is that compromises tend to make the President look good. So they've stopped compromising.
Compromise is all well and good, except when someone demands you compromise your basic principles.
Say, party 'A' wants to imprison the entire black population. Party 'B' says "NO!". Party 'A'' then proposes a compromise...just imprison half the black population. Party 'B' says "NO!" again, based on the same principle. Party 'A' then proclaims party 'B' is unreasonable and refuses to compromise.
This is basically what's been happening in Washington DC:
---
Obama & Progs - "Let me put this in your mouth"
TEA - "HELL NO!!"
Obama & Progs - "C'mon, let me!"
TEA - "HELL NO!!"
Obama & Progs - "Ok then, compromise with me...just the tip."
TEA - "HELL NO!!"
Obama & Progs - "SEE!?!? Those TEA Party Terrorists and Republicans are all inflexible Right-Wing nutcase fanatical ideologues that won't compromise even a tiny bit, and they're racist homophobe gay-bashers too!!!"
---
Strat