I have a question regarding the environment and libertarians?

Competitive Enterprise Institute

The libertarian Competitive Enterprise Institute has sponsored paid advertisements, op-eds, and blogs that misrepresent scientific research to downplay the threat of climate change. CEI's director of energy and global warming policy Myron Ebell shed light on their motivation to muddle the science on the PBS Frontline special "Climate of Doubt"

 

Peace brother I don't hate you.

 

It is very, very, very important to you to categorize everyone into a political affiliation isn't it?


How truly sad that is.

 

I believed gravity was merely a theory until I became a roofer and it was proven to me three times that it was very real. Same with getting a little too close to the results of combustion. Neither here nor there ,I guess. Empiricism is good stuff when it comes to the results of "theories" and political thought and actions. As are the results of same.

 

Cato Institute And Patrick Michaels

The Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, contributes to the climate confusion by amplifying the voice of Patrick Michaels, the only climate scientist on our list of prominent climate contrarians. Michaels, who previously estimated that "40 percent" of his funding comes from the oil industry, is Cato's sole climate change expert. He is frequently quoted by major media outlets and has a Forbes column that he uses to downplay the threat of climate change. Other scientists have criticized him for misrepresenting their work.

Cato was co-founded by Charles Koch and has received millions from the Koch family. Past corporate donors include ExxonMobil, General Motors and the American Petroleum Institute.

 

I have to agree that the multi-national corporations do indeed share a seat at the table from whence control originates.

 

The planets rotational speed has been slowing gradually since it was first created, and most change occurred long before humans first appeared.

There have even been some natural events which have had the opposite effect, but in general over time the Earths rotation is going to continue to diminish and I hope we don't try to make use of this fact looking to blame it on human activities that can be taxed. The environment in which life has formed has changed greatly since life first emerged on our planet, and will continue to do so regardless of what we do, although that does not mean we should not take care to protect our environment wherever or however we can.

 

libertarians.....LOL nuff said

 

No wonder you have a neg rep... here let me help you with that

 

Oh hell indie



You have to get out of this black and white mentality, them and us, NOTHING or ALL, fact or fiction.

As explained to you many times there are many types of right wing libertarianism and there is argument between them about how far the limiting of regulation should go.


In discussion with right wing libertarians I have found that while many seem enthusiastic about the ‘theory’ when it come to explaining their ideas and the implications in any rational way, they seem totally incapable.



It seems to me that a lot of right wing libertarianism is slogan politics its shouts about limited regulation and limited government being ‘freedom’ but when they are asked to explain what they actually mean they seem to become evasive, especially when the ideas seem to be more about increasing the power and influence of a few to the detriment of everyone else.

 

Indie

Here is something I only posted a few days ago-

One problem is that there are several differing views of right wing libertarian thought with some differing ideas as to the point at which the regulatory framework gets removed.

It seems to me that often right wing libertarian though thinks in terms of punishment as a deterrent rather than prevention as a way of lessening harm.

So it’s more about prosecuting the perpetrator afterwards for fraud or negligence rather than having the mechanisms in place to check and see if fraud or negligence is taking place.

So the ‘market’ is deregulated but if people act ‘fraudulently’ then they get prosecuted but if there is no regulation something that is detrimental to society may take place but which isn’t actually against the law.

And let us say a factory has no appropriate means of fighting a fire and the management has locked the exists (to prevent let’s say unauthorised breaks) and a fire happens and over a hundred people die.

Many right wing libertarians seemed to have the idea that the management would be severally punished to deter other owners from doing the same.
Of course in the Triangle Shirtwaist Factory case where 146 workers died the owners got off.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fire#Consequences_and_legacy

 

Letlovin

So how do you get rid of the loopholes?


There is talk of simple clear laws.

Let’s take one

They shall not kill

And let us continue with the simple theme as say the punishment for killing someone is to be killed.

But what if the death occurs by tragic accident?

What if someone kills in self defence?

What if someone orders someone else to kill but does not actually do it themselves?

What if you are a soldier in a war?

What if people die because of negligence?

And so on and so on – from simple it can become complicated

Then there are the regulations that are needed to investigate and prosecute offenders and so on…

But - They shall not kill - is ‘simple’ and you have a dead body - things can get a lot more complicated when you step into the realms of health and safety or environmental laws.

Again slogan politics just seems to falls down when confronted with the real world.

 

Letlovin

Can you give examples of this? Has it happened? Could it actually happen?

In the UK it wouldn’t get anywhere near to court .

According to the legal dictionary -

What actual provisions were you thinking about in the case of the Grandfather?

There are plenty of pre-fifteen year olds that out of poverty have entered into prostitution. They may have done it because they did not want to starve and they didn’t have many choices but it is their choice, if people they to stop that by law and giving them assistance is that taking away from their human rights by saying they shouldn’t do such work

That is an extreme case but it was the reason for bringing legislation to safeguard children. It was often poverty with its accompanying lack of choice that drove children into ‘bad’ work with their parents support (more money coming into the house). Those further up the social scale didn’t have to do that to their children but was often those classes that praised the practice in the poor.

 

We're talking about the Environment in this thread, not murder. Would it kill you to stay on topic in just one thread?

That's a bad example anyway, the laws are pretty clear about murder and death.

 

You missed the point and I assume didn't read the linked articles.
Because humans have essentially stockpiled water with dams and reservoirs, most of which are in the northern hemisphere of the planet, the weight imbalance has effected the rotational speed of the Earth. The net effect of this has been to speed up the rotational spin, not slow it down.
Actually the man-made effect has reduced the amount of natural slowing that you mention.

Not to mention the local climate changes such water stockpiling and river diversions have caused.
Look it up.

My point being that human activity has and does have an effect on the environment, to claim otherwise is foolish.
The alteration of the Earth's rotational speed is a rather good and dramatic example of how much human activity can and does effect the planet.

 

But if we stick to the environment, the thread can't be transformed into one his anti-gun spiels.
But bringing up murder opens that door.

 

Letlovin

I’m sure I’m not the only one that noticed you didn’t answer the questions.

*

If you read the post you’d understand I was pointing was that ‘simple’ can become complicated – even the straight forward – they shall not kill – when looked into becomes more complex

As I end the post - They shall not kill - is ‘simple’ and you have a dead body - things can get a lot more complicated when you step into the realms of health and safety or environmental laws.

They shall not kill - is ‘simple’ and you have a dead body - things can get a lot more complicated when you step into the realms of health and safety or environmental laws.

 

Examples of what? Has what happened? Could what actually happen? You're not being clear.

Legal age minumum for non agricultural jobs. Kids under 14 can work on a farm, but nowhere else. Including jobs that are much safer than farm work.

Nobody here is advocating child prostitution. Not sure of the relevance

 

What questions? I only had a couple min to post so I could only respond to one thing at a time. Refer to above post.

I agree that environmental laws are going to be more complex than murder laws. What's your point?

 

Letlovin

Hey man we’ve talked before and I know you’re smart so why are you pretending differently
You said –

I asked - Can you give examples of this? Has it happened? Could it actually happen?

In the UK it wouldn’t get anywhere near to court .

Your reply –

Come on man it’s just there in your statement!

**

So is your argument that the grandfather would be charged under that law? Again I ask do you think that would happen?

I mean you’ve seem to be saying he wouldn’t so what is your argument?

**

The relevance is in the paragraphs - I wrote –

There are plenty of pre-fifteen year olds that out of poverty have entered into prostitution. They may have done it because they did not want to starve and they didn’t have many choices but it is their choice, if people they to stop that by law and giving them assistance is that taking away from their human rights by saying they shouldn’t do such work

That is an extreme case but it was the reason for bringing legislation to safeguard children. It was often poverty with its accompanying lack of choice that drove children into ‘bad’ work with their parents support (more money coming into the house). Those further up the social scale didn’t have to do that to their children but was often those classes that praised the practice in the poor.