Tom, more power to you on any of those endeavors that don’t themselves infringe on liberty a whit.
I’ll let my peers judge me on that.
You’re not suggesting pragmatism. You’re suggesting collaboration with the state to further your personal concerns. Pointing the gun is not modesty.
How could any rational, intelligent, sensitive human being feel persecuted by a climate changer?
[Y]
[N]
[Y]
[Y]
[Y]
[N]
[N]
He’s sincere.
Conza88:
a clear cut distinction between the ultimate goal itself, and how to go about achieving it.
The goal, of course is more liberty; it has to be won by chiselling at it, including by persuading others of its efficacy.
Byzantine, you can play dumb all you want about CO2.
But I`m not here to talk about non-problems, but how to win more liberty.
Tom, more power to you on any of those endeavors that don’t themselves infringe on liberty a whit.
lilburne, thanks, but the consensus here is that those things all infringe on liberty, so I should just content myself to stand aside while things get worse.
There is nothing libertarian to come from perpetuating outright fraud. So not only are you willing to use a gun, but you’re also willing to lie to achieve your ends? I definitely hope this is not your sincere position, and take time to reflect the ramifications of this error.
To me the most meaningful point from this thread has been the identification of the treaty to create a world communist government. Any comments on that?
ls, you can dish it out, but don`t take it very well, I see.
- “You’re suggesting collaboration with the state to further your personal concerns.”
Um, I THINK I`m suggesting to OTHER people how they can modify their demands in ways that will help them with their goal and be far less destructiuve than their current propsals, while I can get what I want (more freedom + less climate pushing).
- “any rational, intelligent, sensitive human being”
Nice way to turn MY supposed victimization into your own. You`re bigger than this pity party, I think.
Non Sequitur.
Stephen, thanks for the actual feedback! I was starting to think that I had asked WAY too much.
But what are your thoughts about dealing with public utilities? And wouldn``t insisting that citizens get a per capita cut of royalties be a good step on the way to privatization?
What other people? What demands? What goals? What current proposals?
That is the opposite of my point. No one is your victim, and I think you will be hard pressed to find anyone who will admit to being a victim of CC or AGW in this forum.
Sounds good. Taxes should be abolished.
Shouldn’t you eliminate all anti-trust laws as opposed to immunity? All companies should be immune to anti-trust. Also, you should simultaneously remove restrictive regulations and licensing issues to increase competition.
In conjunction with removing all federal pollution laws.
Sounds good, you’d have to decrease several taxes as well, otherwise the cost could balloon for the consumer which could result in a big backlash.
Absolutely, but it should apply to all countries. I can’t think of any immediate issues that would arise in the U.S. (other than any angry farmers).
KCF, I think you got the wrong thread.
I`m asking for suggestions on incremental policy changes that might fly AND be desired by libertarians, but you guys, like liberty student, all “sincerely” set on the “modest” policy of hoping that the state will simply wink out of existence, your only contribution, it seems, being to castigate those who are willing to make the effort to explain anything to non-libertarians.
Angurse, thanks for the comments. You must hate liberty too!
While complete elimination of pollution laws in favor of enforcing property rights is desirable, and I have suggested elsewhere that many enviros would take in exhange for carbon taxes, it simply won`t happen, largely because INDUSTRY likes the barriers to entry and the dirtier plants like their grandfathering.
Ending energy subsidies wouldnt cause anything to balloon; I dont follow you.
Eliminating corporate welfare in agriculture we can do unilaterally; we`re better off even if there are subsidies elsewhere.
Anything with power and money flies in the empire.
Well, we are libertarians.
Strawman or lie? If it is the latter, your time here will be short.
Where are the non-libertarians?
Incremental environmental policy changes only enforce the argument that there even is a global warming/climate change problem. The correct response to global warming/climate change/ whatever hoax they want to call in next is direct 100% refutation. CO2 footprints are irrelevant. Cleaner engergy comes from a freer society based on libertarian capitalist principles. If you want to push for incremental freedom, by all means do so, but leave all the environmentalist crap out of it because you’re only empowering the other side to achieve their own objectives - which have absolutely nothing to do with the environment.
Saying it simply won’t happen because large companies don’t want it seems to counter previous examples you’ve given. The big companies like handouts, the big companies like anti-trust immunity.
Energy subsidies keep the prices below the market level, if you remove them the price (from the consumer POV) will rise. Of course, the current market price is much higher than it could/should be.
Agreed.
ls, Im afraid I dont really get whats with you. Ive really treated you rather nicely, but you seem to want to have an enemy. Sorry, but I don`t really want to play..
your time here will be short.
The snappy answer, of course, is that this is MY line, but then Im one of those rational, caring and sensitive people who doesnt hide his lack of self-confidence with threats. FYI, I`ve been commenting at LvMI for 5 1/2 years.
Where are the non-libertarians?
Um, the ones who read my blog. For REAL libertarians, their beliefs are not an echo chamber. Instead, they try to persuade other people. That seems to be beyond your ability to conceive.
if the state did enact what Stephen gave the thumbs up to, and did not justify other retrogressive acts by appeal to having past those progressive acts, then without endorsing the state, or its other retrogressive policies, i would look favourably upon the liberalization that took place, and I would hope for more until the state was gone