Thanks.
11-26-2013 05:55 PM
#76
| |
Thanks. | |
11-26-2013 06:01 PM
#77
| |
11-26-2013 06:32 PM
#78
| |
A couple of points. First, I don't see an inherent problem with not buying 100% of the minarchist package. Second, even if I did believe 100% of it, I don't see an inherent problem in trying to push the more palatable parts of that agenda in a conversation like this. It's an utter waste of breath to convince someone like you (that is, a liberal or left leaning person) of immorality of taxation, even if I believed in such a thing. It would get us absolutely nowhere because its too extreme a position for you to meet me in the middle of. Whether the first point or the second point applies to this debate is pretty irrelevant because the objective of debate is to find common ground and persuade the other to come toward your side if only just a little bit. | |
Last edited by Renton; 11-26-2013 at 08:54 PM. | |
11-26-2013 06:46 PM
#79
| |
|
I'm unconvinced that fossil industries have done much to thwart renewable industry growth. That idea is thrown around a lot, but other forms of energy have been about as popular as they should be relative to their costs (solar tech) and public perception (nuclear). |
11-26-2013 06:49 PM
#80
| |
| |
11-26-2013 11:59 PM
#81
| |
Renton, idk.. like, what can I say when your only concern is the economy when discussing renewable energy policy? | |
Last edited by boost; 11-27-2013 at 12:09 AM. | |
11-27-2013 12:07 AM
#82
| |
| |
11-27-2013 12:32 AM
#83
| |
It's not really that it's my only concern, its just that sweeping changes aren't going to occur until the economics agree. Progressives believe that governments should push us in that direction but (IMO) governments don't really have the power and efficacy to do it. Subsidies just suck, even if they are well-intentioned subsidies. Selectively taxing industries that pollute more just kills jobs and impoverishes people. Can you imagine if China (the by-far biggest coal consumer) imposed a harsh carbon tax? Millions of people would fall into abject poverty. | |
11-27-2013 12:37 AM
#84
| |
|
Markets don't account for most externalities. Governments don't either even if they account for more. Attempts by governments to account for externalities are possibly important, but not without a host of unforeseen flaws. There is not a measure in existence that can adequately calculate the effects of most long run future costs. In the case you provide about the company, nobody has the right answer. Nobody. Our current answer involves a ton of legal work that can amount to a lot or a little. |
11-27-2013 12:40 AM
#85
| |
I'm not sure that the results would be any different than they are now. I guess it depends on the manner of the disaster. In real-world America, I'm pretty sure if a pharmaceutical company makes a bad batch of drugs that makes a lot of people sick, they just go bankrupt in a class action suit and thats the end of it. It isn't like there's extra remittance from the government to those sick people. In a pure anarchy, FEMA wouldn't exist so you've got me there. As far as the FDIC, in a pure anarchy any bank worth its salt would be privately insured, so that would be exactly the same as in the real world. | |
Last edited by Renton; 11-27-2013 at 12:42 AM. | |
11-27-2013 12:48 AM
#86
| |
I don't have anything bookmarked but its prevailing sentiment, and intuitively obvious in cases like paper, which should obviously never be recycled. It's just too abundant and cheap and its biodegradable anyway. Plastic is not as obvious since its tough to quantify the negative value of the pollution it causes (since it doesn't degrade). | |
11-27-2013 12:52 AM
#87
| |
|
Every white majority country on the planet could sink into the sea and it would do little to halt rapid ecological destruction. This battle will only be won through technology. Sadly the world will be a different place by the time that happens. Humans trying to better their lives cannot be stopped, and those in Brazil, China, and India have no choice but to basically destroy the environment to get that. For example, poverty in Brazil is largely due to its shitty geography, where its only good agricultural lands are cut off from its natural transportation avenues. It has millions of abject poor, stuck in favelas, whose only hope for a better life is to move inland to the farm areas. But this is destroying the environment and using more fossil energy anyways. There is nothing America can do to stop it, nor is there anything America would do to stop it. I have a hard time seeing how this problem can be solved this century. The technology that can provide for millions of poor in tight places is currently unheard of |
Last edited by wufwugy; 11-27-2013 at 12:55 AM. | |
12-01-2013 01:12 PM
#88
| |
|
I don't need much , an internet connection , some mac and cheese and proper fapping materials. As long as the market provides me with these things at a reasonable price no fucks given. just my 2 faps |
12-01-2013 02:08 PM
#89
| |
Boost be like I have this idea for other people to give shit up and save the Earth out of the goods of their hearts, and Renton be like I want people to actually save the Earth because that fluffy feel-good shit isn't going to happen. | |
| |
12-02-2013 04:46 PM
#90
| |
|
The thing about government is that it works great when people are smart about it, but it works terribly when people aren't. The ACA should have just been optional expansion of Medicare for all, and that's it. This would have created far fewer stupid regulations that the ACA did (like business incentives and website exchanges), while increasing competitiveness for everybody and insuring everybody at cheaper costs. But we can't have that because America is afraid of taxes. We have so many stupid fucking regulations because politicians can't be seen raising taxes, so they have to get revenues through convoluted means. In Washington state, for example, we have probably hundreds of different fees for most activities. These fees keep going up and they're organized through bureaucracies, which make them overall more expensive and are a boon to special interests. We have this because this stupid voters passed a stupid law that the legislature can't raise taxes with a majority vote. So now we pay more money in overall fees than if we simply let taxes be raised or lowered based on what the people/state want/need |