L: I’m glad you are taking rights seriously, indeed pollution is a problem when it is a infringement of ones rights, polluting someones property is a tort. You are on your way to being a libertarian…
Lets talk about whether a monopolist/bureacratist/predatory organisation that would claim to provide for sollutions to issues of pollution is really the best way to tackle them… hey ever considered anarchy?
P: I suppose you would prefer some private means of rights protection, as well as adjudication and justice adminstration. So how exactly is a private entity preventing you from using that wasteful, polluting piece of technology different from a government doing so? The only difference I see would be your argument that the private entity would be infringing on your choices more efficiently.
L: yes the private entity would be infringing on my illegitimate choices to commit torts more efficiently. so going to change that P to an L now?
We need more role playing like this. It would probably really help people develop debate skills and a better understanding.
Very clever from Paul. I don’t believe the toilets in his house don’t work, but the choice thing was brilliant.
P: Why should I? You haven’t convinced me of anything. The only thing you’ve done is legitimized the government’s forcing you to use CFL’s whether you like them or not. So perhaps I should ask you…gonna shut your yap about the Dept. of Energy restricting your choices now?
I was mulling this over in my head because, like y’all, I thought it was really clever.
What a truly comitted liberal would say though is that child-rearing depends on all sorts of unquantifiable unaccessible things. It requires the parents’ cooperation, dedication, etc. Only they can make this judgement, therefore abortion is okay.
However, with lightbulbs, there is an “objectively” right choice. There’s an environmentally power-efficient lightbulb that gives off “enough” light and is cheap “enough”. Of course this is actually how our regulatory agencies think.
The two scenarios are fundamentally the same. The subjectivity of the former is just weighed more heavily by the liberal tinkerer. You will have a difficult time highlighting the subjectivity of lightbulbs, because it appears to be very simple. Its an incredibly boring path to take.
We need more role playing like this. It would probably really help people develop debate skills and a better understanding.- Liberty Student
I’m a 10th level DailyKos troll. You want to enslave blacks and force children to work in factories 10 hours a day. You drool for the days when women were beaten and treated as the property of their husbands. You have no regard for the environment and are nothing but lackeys for corporate America.
Why should I? You haven’t convinced me of anything. The only thing you’ve done is legitimized the government’s forcing you to use CFL’s whether you >>like them or not. So perhaps I should ask you…gonna shut your yap about the Dept. of Energy restricting your choices now?
I’ve convinced you that we are not worlds apart on issues of pollution; we agree that pollution can be a tort.
The issue of whether CFC in general constitute defacto pollution torts on particular people is one we havent even discussed…, so perhaps you are being too hasty with your conclusions.
ou have also completely avoided the challenge I suggested of performing comparative institutional analysis and have satisfied yourself with acknowledging that even stopped clocks are accurate twice a day and that a serial killer can perform acts of kindness.
I am disappoint (in your devils advocate character…)