I specifically said that they should be prosecuted for 200,000 cases of felony assault. But the government doesn't want to. I further said they should be sued for damages, and allow the market to decide whether they are a net good or not. Arbitrarily shutting down an entire behemoth company is clearly not a good precedent.
And yes, when they make money through a voluntary exchange, they are doing good by definition. Sorry if that offends your socialist indoctrination.
But it can save others from such a fate, especially when it hangs over the company like the Sword of Damocles, forcing them to be SURE that they don't cause an eruption.
Sorry, which ecosystem was DESTROYED? None. Sure, there was damage, but it will and has healed with time.
In the case of Union Carbide, you can blame government corruption for failure to prosecute 200,000 cases of felony assault. But that is different from cases of simple pollution. Further, who is to say how many lives were SAVED by the products that Union Carbide produces? That must be accounted for in the lawsuit that accompanies the prosecution of those responsible, and the money they have gained from sales is a good indicator of the amount of good they have done.
What "use" taxes? The use tax for the roads is paid for by the shipping company. The seller has nothing to do with the buyer's state, unless they are in the same state. Further, these types of businesses use much MUCH less infrastructure than a brick and mortar business. Warehouses don't need nearly as much police protection as B&M.
Face it, there is no justification for these taxes, except "I'm the state, gimme gimme gimme".
You know, they got along just fine without that revenue before. Why do they need it now? Police, roads, and schools aren't really THAT expensive.
But of course, that money isn't really for those types of things. It goes to fund bureaucracy. And the bureaucrats always threaten to axe those essential services LONG before they would ever THINK about cutting down on their own workforce.
The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.
But you fail to consider the fact that we CONTINUOUSLY pump MASSIVE AMOUNTS into the air ALL AROUND THE WORLD. Reducing the amount of humidity around major cities by 1% would have a significant effect.
Hell, installing a curve with a small heat exchanger in the mufflers of new cars could probably cancel out the effect of 100 years worth of CO2.
If you want to effect change, you have to focus on the things you can change, not the things you can't. Calling for CO2 reduction is tilting at windmills, and I think you know it.
I thank you for the first ever non-troll, non-stupid response. I will have to examine the spectra of the two and see if that really is the case or not.
Increased water vapor content in the atmosphere would account for "global dimming" as well, so it makes much more sense than the simplistic answers I have gotten in the past.
Actually, they do. It's not hard to modify car exhausts so that most of the water refluxes out. The lifetime in the atmosphere is the point. You could fix any warming within a few days rather than having to suppress CO2 for hundreds of years.
And the atmosphere does not always hold all the water it can handle. If it did, all the hot deserts of the world would be rainforests.
Climate skeptics come in all shapes and sizes. I see the logic in many of their positions, and generally take the position that the best path forward is to refrain from attempting to choke human industry with CO2 caps, which applies across ALL eventualities, both pro and anti AGW.
I have yet to see an actual physical argument as to why CO2 contributes more to global warming than does the rest of the atmosphere, as CO2's absorbance spectrum, and thus heat capacity, and thus heat forcing ability is actually LOWER (very slightly) than the average for the rest of the atmosphere, and that the likely reality is that if there is anthropomorphic climate change going on, it is much more likely the result of additional water vapor being pumped into the atmosphere, something that is much more easily fixed.
If such a thing were to happen, it isn't that hard to move. In fact, it has been done in the past repeatedly. Numerous ancient Roman ports have been excavated well inland.
Further, if warming trends were to continue, the grain belt of the midwestern US would stretch up into Canada, potentially doubling the population support capacity of the farms of North America, to say nothing of those of Russia.
You think EVERYONE should live in cities? How about those who value big city amenities and don't produce enough economic gain to bring them out to their own area? You know, like farmers, ranchers, oil guys, etc. Or even just retired people. I'm not sure why you feel the need to encourage people to waste resources for no reason. Have you even considered the environmental ramifications of such actions?
Police are a natural function of government. Not sure why you are citing them. Perhaps you are insane? Or are you merely trying to utilize reductio ad absurdum?
Hospitals are supposed to be private. You really think that having a bunch of slave doctors is good for your country? You think your government knows how many doctors are needed, or exactly what kind of training each one needs? You don't want to let the people decide that? You love long wait times and poor service?
Pensions? Wait until your country seizes them, like Argentina did. You've created a class of people who are TOTALLY dependent, and are often among the first targeted when money gets tight. Congratulations. Too bad they didn't, I don't know, save the money that went into those pension funds themselves in diverse places where it was unlikely they would all lose their money at once, no matter how hard of straights the government was in.
Parents get subsidized? LOL, get ready for a baby boom in your welfare class.
Unemployed? You know it's called unemployment "insurance" right? The private sector could handle it easily, and you don't wind up with situations like we have in the US right now, where you have to keep extending benefits because the government has screwed the economy so badly that there are no jobs, and people go for three years without getting a new job, causing a destructive cycle where the government seizes more and more money from the private economy to give to people without jobs to stop them from rioting and kicking their asses to the curb.
Disabled? I have disability insurance, privately provided. Costs less than ten bucks a month. But you would rather create an entire bureaucracy to deal with it.
All the banks pay the same rate for government deposit insurance, encouraging them to take on the greatest amount of risk possible. This is why bank failures are common now, but were practically unheard of during any of the various free banking eras.
The point is that your view is disastrously narrow, and has made you, and the rest of your population a bunch of adult babies suckling at the teat of a tapeworm growing from your own stomachs. Thing is, governments don't last forever. Only until they run out of other people's money. That day moves ever closer as you create more and more programs that spend more and more money in a closed, monopolistic fashion.
Uh-huh. You are using a bunch of made up theory to justify government imposition of monopolies. Funny how the results of such meddling always wind up being blamed on capitalism. I wonder if you really think that that is capitalism?
**Double facepalm**
I'm sure you will never see that the "service" your government is providing is nothing but theft from the taxpayers. Those people CHOSE to live out in the country. If they wanted cheap internet, or electricity, or any number of other goods or services, they could move closer to town. But the government subsidizes their choice to live out in the country, and in so doing increases costs for everyone. If they really wanted internet, there is nothing to stop them from pointing a dish at a satellite, nor is there anything stopping anyone from installing wireless internet in the area IF there were demand for such a thing.
Not really. You can sign a contract saying that you will do some set of tasks at the discretion of the other party, but you are free to walk away from them (which comes with the natural consequence of losing any future payment). Further, even if you made a contract selling "yourself", the buyer would also own any payment he made to you, making the contract one sided and therefore invalid.
Rights are not assigned, they EXIST. They come from the fundamental building blocks of our very existence. You can build a system to encode those rights which spring from the basics of our existence, but the rights don't come from the code, they simply exist. To claim otherwise is to attempt to change reality by editing a photograph.
Slashdot Mirror
I live in Texas. No, the entire gulf is not "DESTROYED".
Fail. Read the rest of the comment. Christ.
I specifically said that they should be prosecuted for 200,000 cases of felony assault. But the government doesn't want to. I further said they should be sued for damages, and allow the market to decide whether they are a net good or not. Arbitrarily shutting down an entire behemoth company is clearly not a good precedent.
And yes, when they make money through a voluntary exchange, they are doing good by definition. Sorry if that offends your socialist indoctrination.
Except you're not. That heat is being transferred anyways. It's just not doing any work right now.
Might as well claim that a waterwheel makes a river flow faster.
But it can save others from such a fate, especially when it hangs over the company like the Sword of Damocles, forcing them to be SURE that they don't cause an eruption.
Sorry, which ecosystem was DESTROYED? None. Sure, there was damage, but it will and has healed with time.
In the case of Union Carbide, you can blame government corruption for failure to prosecute 200,000 cases of felony assault. But that is different from cases of simple pollution. Further, who is to say how many lives were SAVED by the products that Union Carbide produces? That must be accounted for in the lawsuit that accompanies the prosecution of those responsible, and the money they have gained from sales is a good indicator of the amount of good they have done.
Again, that heat is costly to get to. Sadly, we can't all be Dr. Evil.
Yeah, sure, we "chose" it, therefore we are obligated to do whatever our masters say without protest.
What "use" taxes? The use tax for the roads is paid for by the shipping company. The seller has nothing to do with the buyer's state, unless they are in the same state. Further, these types of businesses use much MUCH less infrastructure than a brick and mortar business. Warehouses don't need nearly as much police protection as B&M.
Face it, there is no justification for these taxes, except "I'm the state, gimme gimme gimme".
You know, they got along just fine without that revenue before. Why do they need it now? Police, roads, and schools aren't really THAT expensive.
But of course, that money isn't really for those types of things. It goes to fund bureaucracy. And the bureaucrats always threaten to axe those essential services LONG before they would ever THINK about cutting down on their own workforce.
The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.
-1 disagree, and can't articulate a response.
That is only the case if the entire surface of the Earth is at 100% humidity at all times, which it isn't.
Sorry, Maldives, but you aren't worth more than the economies of the rest of the world combined.
But you fail to consider the fact that we CONTINUOUSLY pump MASSIVE AMOUNTS into the air ALL AROUND THE WORLD. Reducing the amount of humidity around major cities by 1% would have a significant effect.
Hell, installing a curve with a small heat exchanger in the mufflers of new cars could probably cancel out the effect of 100 years worth of CO2.
If you want to effect change, you have to focus on the things you can change, not the things you can't. Calling for CO2 reduction is tilting at windmills, and I think you know it.
I thank you for the first ever non-troll, non-stupid response. I will have to examine the spectra of the two and see if that really is the case or not.
Increased water vapor content in the atmosphere would account for "global dimming" as well, so it makes much more sense than the simplistic answers I have gotten in the past.
Actually, they do. It's not hard to modify car exhausts so that most of the water refluxes out. The lifetime in the atmosphere is the point. You could fix any warming within a few days rather than having to suppress CO2 for hundreds of years.
And the atmosphere does not always hold all the water it can handle. If it did, all the hot deserts of the world would be rainforests.
Climate skeptics come in all shapes and sizes. I see the logic in many of their positions, and generally take the position that the best path forward is to refrain from attempting to choke human industry with CO2 caps, which applies across ALL eventualities, both pro and anti AGW.
I have yet to see an actual physical argument as to why CO2 contributes more to global warming than does the rest of the atmosphere, as CO2's absorbance spectrum, and thus heat capacity, and thus heat forcing ability is actually LOWER (very slightly) than the average for the rest of the atmosphere, and that the likely reality is that if there is anthropomorphic climate change going on, it is much more likely the result of additional water vapor being pumped into the atmosphere, something that is much more easily fixed.
If such a thing were to happen, it isn't that hard to move. In fact, it has been done in the past repeatedly. Numerous ancient Roman ports have been excavated well inland.
Further, if warming trends were to continue, the grain belt of the midwestern US would stretch up into Canada, potentially doubling the population support capacity of the farms of North America, to say nothing of those of Russia.
Sometimes the law is unjust. We used to be able to complain about such things and get them changed.
Pretty much. File this under "the Streisand Effect".
Maybe, maybe not, but you can't say for certain until get some good images of it.
And you know this HOW exactly? They could put anything into that cargo bay.
You think EVERYONE should live in cities? How about those who value big city amenities and don't produce enough economic gain to bring them out to their own area? You know, like farmers, ranchers, oil guys, etc. Or even just retired people. I'm not sure why you feel the need to encourage people to waste resources for no reason. Have you even considered the environmental ramifications of such actions?
Police are a natural function of government. Not sure why you are citing them. Perhaps you are insane? Or are you merely trying to utilize reductio ad absurdum?
Hospitals are supposed to be private. You really think that having a bunch of slave doctors is good for your country? You think your government knows how many doctors are needed, or exactly what kind of training each one needs? You don't want to let the people decide that? You love long wait times and poor service?
Pensions? Wait until your country seizes them, like Argentina did. You've created a class of people who are TOTALLY dependent, and are often among the first targeted when money gets tight. Congratulations. Too bad they didn't, I don't know, save the money that went into those pension funds themselves in diverse places where it was unlikely they would all lose their money at once, no matter how hard of straights the government was in.
Parents get subsidized? LOL, get ready for a baby boom in your welfare class.
Unemployed? You know it's called unemployment "insurance" right? The private sector could handle it easily, and you don't wind up with situations like we have in the US right now, where you have to keep extending benefits because the government has screwed the economy so badly that there are no jobs, and people go for three years without getting a new job, causing a destructive cycle where the government seizes more and more money from the private economy to give to people without jobs to stop them from rioting and kicking their asses to the curb.
Disabled? I have disability insurance, privately provided. Costs less than ten bucks a month. But you would rather create an entire bureaucracy to deal with it. All the banks pay the same rate for government deposit insurance, encouraging them to take on the greatest amount of risk possible. This is why bank failures are common now, but were practically unheard of during any of the various free banking eras.
The point is that your view is disastrously narrow, and has made you, and the rest of your population a bunch of adult babies suckling at the teat of a tapeworm growing from your own stomachs. Thing is, governments don't last forever. Only until they run out of other people's money. That day moves ever closer as you create more and more programs that spend more and more money in a closed, monopolistic fashion.
Uh-huh. You are using a bunch of made up theory to justify government imposition of monopolies. Funny how the results of such meddling always wind up being blamed on capitalism. I wonder if you really think that that is capitalism?
**Double facepalm**
I'm sure you will never see that the "service" your government is providing is nothing but theft from the taxpayers. Those people CHOSE to live out in the country. If they wanted cheap internet, or electricity, or any number of other goods or services, they could move closer to town. But the government subsidizes their choice to live out in the country, and in so doing increases costs for everyone. If they really wanted internet, there is nothing to stop them from pointing a dish at a satellite, nor is there anything stopping anyone from installing wireless internet in the area IF there were demand for such a thing.
The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
Not really. You can sign a contract saying that you will do some set of tasks at the discretion of the other party, but you are free to walk away from them (which comes with the natural consequence of losing any future payment). Further, even if you made a contract selling "yourself", the buyer would also own any payment he made to you, making the contract one sided and therefore invalid.
Rights are not assigned, they EXIST. They come from the fundamental building blocks of our very existence. You can build a system to encode those rights which spring from the basics of our existence, but the rights don't come from the code, they simply exist. To claim otherwise is to attempt to change reality by editing a photograph.
Right, I'm sure you don't have an underclass that lives off of the free shit train, and will never develop one.
Enjoy the delusion of infinite free shit while it lasts.