4 ms·

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

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
        I didn't "advocate for lawsuits by everyone against everyone else". I said that one might be subject to a tort or trespass lawsuit "if [one] reduce[s] the value of your land by rendering it a desert over a period of years..."

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
        I didn't "advocate for lawsuits by everyone against everyone else". I said that one might be subject to a tort or trespass lawsuit "if [one] reduce[s] the value of your land by rendering it a desert over a period of years..."