4 ms·

> You may be committing a tort or trespass, depending on how you do it. And if you know its a common tort or trespass, it is simpler to tax that tort/trespass

> You may be committing a tort or trespass, depending on how you do it. And if you know its a common tort or trespass, it is simpler to tax that tort/trespass rather than require every individual to sue every other individual. > If you are trying to 'catch me out', your rhetoric won't convince me, nor is it likely to convince anyone els I don't really care. I just find your doublethink curious and wanted to confirm it was what I thought it was. I find Doublethink in general a very interesting subject.

nickff 10y ago
What doublethink are you talking about? There is no internal inconsistency in my position, I just disagree with you.
- fweespeech 10y ago
  I assumed: A) You believe climate change and science by majority consensus on scientific facts exist. B) You believe pollution is grounds for a lawsuit (which is a form of tax in that you are charged a fee for violating the social contract) which is enforced by society due to the damage it represents. C) You believe carbon is pollution but is not grounds for a lawsuit (which is a form of tax in that you are charged a fee for violating the social contract) which is enforced by society due to the damage it represents.
  - nickff 10y ago
    Voluntary agreements, legal settlements, and damages awards are not equivalent to taxes. For example, if I were to set your car on fire, and you sued me for that tort, any payment I made to you would be compensation, not a tax. In addition, social contract theory is wrong, and I don't believe in it.[1] Pollution may be grounds for a lawsuit, or it may not, it depends on the circumstances, just like any other tort or trespass. [1] http://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil215/Huemer1.pdf http://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil215/Huemer1.pdf
    - fweespeech 10y ago
      Okay, so you just don't believe climate change exists.
      - nickff 10y ago
        You've changed this post at least two times since I first tried to respond to it; I can't write a coherent response if you keep on deleting your post and re-writing it. And I never said that I 'don't believe climate change exists'; as a matter of fact, I avoid the issue of consensus/reality entirely, as it has become a morass of tribal politics, where each side rejects the arguments of the other out of hand.
        fweespeech 10y ago
        > And I never said that I 'don't believe climate change exists' The only way you'd be consistent was if you had imo. YMMV. Now, all you've established is my original belief was correct. > You've changed this post at least two times since I first tried to respond to it; I can't write a coherent response if you keep on deleting your post and re-writing it. You rewrote your post after I posted the first one. Pot meet kettle.
        nickff 10y ago
        It is perfectly consistent to believe that damage is being caused, and that a tax is a bad reaction. It would also be consistent to believe that there is no damage being caused, and that a tax would be bad.
        fweespeech 10y ago
        > It is perfectly consistent to believe that damage is being caused, and that a tax is a bad reaction. It would also be consistent to believe that there is no damage being caused, and that a tax would be bad. You advocate for lawsuits by everyone against everyone else which could be simplified and applied consistently by a tax. The fact you don't understand that is, effectively, a very inefficient tax is confusing.

nickff 10y ago

What doublethink are you talking about? There is no internal inconsistency in my position, I just disagree with you.

fweespeech 10y ago
I assumed: A) You believe climate change and science by majority consensus on scientific facts exist. B) You believe pollution is grounds for a lawsuit (which is a form of tax in that you are charged a fee for violating the social contract) which is enforced by society due to the damage it represents. C) You believe carbon is pollution but is not grounds for a lawsuit (which is a form of tax in that you are charged a fee for violating the social contract) which is enforced by society due to the damage it represents.
- nickff 10y ago
  Voluntary agreements, legal settlements, and damages awards are not equivalent to taxes. For example, if I were to set your car on fire, and you sued me for that tort, any payment I made to you would be compensation, not a tax. In addition, social contract theory is wrong, and I don't believe in it.[1] Pollution may be grounds for a lawsuit, or it may not, it depends on the circumstances, just like any other tort or trespass. [1] http://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil215/Huemer1.pdf http://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil215/Huemer1.pdf
  - fweespeech 10y ago
    Okay, so you just don't believe climate change exists.
    - nickff 10y ago
      You've changed this post at least two times since I first tried to respond to it; I can't write a coherent response if you keep on deleting your post and re-writing it. And I never said that I 'don't believe climate change exists'; as a matter of fact, I avoid the issue of consensus/reality entirely, as it has become a morass of tribal politics, where each side rejects the arguments of the other out of hand.
      - fweespeech 10y ago
        > And I never said that I 'don't believe climate change exists' The only way you'd be consistent was if you had imo. YMMV. Now, all you've established is my original belief was correct. > You've changed this post at least two times since I first tried to respond to it; I can't write a coherent response if you keep on deleting your post and re-writing it. You rewrote your post after I posted the first one. Pot meet kettle.
        nickff 10y ago
        It is perfectly consistent to believe that damage is being caused, and that a tax is a bad reaction. It would also be consistent to believe that there is no damage being caused, and that a tax would be bad.
        fweespeech 10y ago
        > It is perfectly consistent to believe that damage is being caused, and that a tax is a bad reaction. It would also be consistent to believe that there is no damage being caused, and that a tax would be bad. You advocate for lawsuits by everyone against everyone else which could be simplified and applied consistently by a tax. The fact you don't understand that is, effectively, a very inefficient tax is confusing.