4 ms·

Your question is fundamentally in bad faith, and it’s like asking, “What can individuals do to stay safe on roads without forcing others to abide by driving law

Your question is fundamentally in bad faith, and it’s like asking, “What can individuals do to stay safe on roads without forcing others to abide by driving laws?” Individuals can’t, by and large, make the minds of changes necessary to avert the oncoming climate disaster. A big part of the issue is that individual incentives are misaligned, which is exactly where government is supposed to step in: realign incentives such that the individually optimal choice is compatible with averting global catastrophe. Expecting billions of individuals to act against their own individual self-interest is lunacy.

tucaz 7y ago
It’s not in bad faith. I take as a premise, my only premise in life, that what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is yours. Anything that violates this premise is, according to my own opinion and set of values, wrong. By that value, I’m ok with life as we know it ending if that means that individuals liberties will be kept. On the other hand, it seems like you don’t mind if a few million people die when we force third world countries to reduce their carbon emission by asking them to shut down coal plants and other processes generating carbon.
- michaelmrose 7y ago
  Libertarianism is a philosophy only the wealthy and safe can afford because it is so ill suited for the survival of a nation due to the extreme stupidity of individual members of the human race. Please explicate how you believe millions of people will die by virtue of shutting down foreign coal plants?
- carapace 7y ago
  Your comment is literally explaining that you are asking "in bad faith".
- stouset 7y ago
  > I take as a premise, my only premise in life, that what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is yours. Anything that violates this premise is, according to my own opinion and set of values, wrong. What's yours is yours and what's mine is mine, but the planet and the presumption of a climate compatible with civilization are shared. It is owned neither by you nor me, and this necessitates an agreement where neither of us agree to exploit it for our own self-benefit at the detriment of others. Is it against your set of values that we both agree to drive on same side of the road? If one of of us fails to do so, the government will step in and deprive the offender of their property and freedoms. As a result, we both benefit from the increased reliability and safety of transportation afforded by us agreeing to abide by the same set of rules. > By that value, I’m ok with life as we know it ending if that means that individuals liberties will be kept. > > On the other hand, it seems like you don’t mind if a few million people die when we force third world countries to reduce their carbon emission by asking them to shut down coal plants and other processes generating carbon. You literally state you're okay with "life as we know it ending" as a result of your absurdly rigid philosophy, but somehow you project me as being okay with millions of people dying. As a sibling commenter said, your entire reply is essentially you clarifying that—yes—you are indeed arguing in bad faith. You've declared as ground rules a completely indefensible moral philosophy and have declared that anything opposing it is inherently wrong. This isn't a path to a productive conversation, and while I suspect you know that, it's a great way to make yourself feel superior and feel like you've "won" the argument when others don't agree to play by your rigged set of rules.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  Your liberty ends where it impacts others, which is where extreme libertarianism has to stop and we start creating laws. Your freedom to pollute ends when it poisons someone else, etc. As to your point about third world countries, as we saw from reporting of the COP25 the other week, it is the poor (third world) countries complaining not enough is being done. It is the wealthier nations who are being difficult.
- FussyZeus 7y ago
  You know I had this bouncing around in my head and I had to come back to say: How dare you. How dare you so flippantly cast an entire planet's worth of individuals for whom you claim it is so essential to preserve the liberties of, up to and including the extermination of those individuals on a biblical proportion, how dare you cast those lives into the proverbial fire to suit your narrow view of the world. It is a profound, disgusting, and offensive train of thought to say that "these are the ideas that matter, and if the whole planet dies because of them, so be it." HOW DARE YOU! Billions of lives that you're ready to march into a grinder to suit one individual-centered belief system that's barely been in proverbial charge for a couple of centuries. Thankfully, people who think like you are hopelessly outnumbered and their minds can change. But I must say this conversation has been a reminder of just how big the human ego can get, how assured of itself it can be, even as it marches itself to it's own demise, head held so high and proudly. Honestly, just, astonished at this level of arrogance. Well done sir. I sincerely hope that people better than you are able to save your life, since it is obvious you yourself will not.
  - dang 7y ago
    We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- dang 7y ago
  Please don't perpetuate flamewars on HN. You did a ton of that in this thread, and it's not cool here. Even if your questions are sincere, it became clear a long time ago that they were not contributing to a genuine conversation. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

tucaz 7y ago

It’s not in bad faith. I take as a premise, my only premise in life, that what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is yours. Anything that violates this premise is, according to my own opinion and set of values, wrong. By that value, I’m ok with life as we know it ending if that means that individuals liberties will be kept. On the other hand, it seems like you don’t mind if a few million people die when we force third world countries to reduce their carbon emission by asking them to shut down coal plants and other processes generating carbon.

michaelmrose 7y ago
Libertarianism is a philosophy only the wealthy and safe can afford because it is so ill suited for the survival of a nation due to the extreme stupidity of individual members of the human race. Please explicate how you believe millions of people will die by virtue of shutting down foreign coal plants?
carapace 7y ago
Your comment is literally explaining that you are asking "in bad faith".
stouset 7y ago
> I take as a premise, my only premise in life, that what’s mine is mine and what’s yours is yours. Anything that violates this premise is, according to my own opinion and set of values, wrong. What's yours is yours and what's mine is mine, but the planet and the presumption of a climate compatible with civilization are shared. It is owned neither by you nor me, and this necessitates an agreement where neither of us agree to exploit it for our own self-benefit at the detriment of others. Is it against your set of values that we both agree to drive on same side of the road? If one of of us fails to do so, the government will step in and deprive the offender of their property and freedoms. As a result, we both benefit from the increased reliability and safety of transportation afforded by us agreeing to abide by the same set of rules. > By that value, I’m ok with life as we know it ending if that means that individuals liberties will be kept. > > On the other hand, it seems like you don’t mind if a few million people die when we force third world countries to reduce their carbon emission by asking them to shut down coal plants and other processes generating carbon. You literally state you're okay with "life as we know it ending" as a result of your absurdly rigid philosophy, but somehow you project me as being okay with millions of people dying. As a sibling commenter said, your entire reply is essentially you clarifying that—yes—you are indeed arguing in bad faith. You've declared as ground rules a completely indefensible moral philosophy and have declared that anything opposing it is inherently wrong. This isn't a path to a productive conversation, and while I suspect you know that, it's a great way to make yourself feel superior and feel like you've "won" the argument when others don't agree to play by your rigged set of rules.
NeedMoreTea 7y ago
Your liberty ends where it impacts others, which is where extreme libertarianism has to stop and we start creating laws. Your freedom to pollute ends when it poisons someone else, etc. As to your point about third world countries, as we saw from reporting of the COP25 the other week, it is the poor (third world) countries complaining not enough is being done. It is the wealthier nations who are being difficult.
FussyZeus 7y ago
You know I had this bouncing around in my head and I had to come back to say: How dare you. How dare you so flippantly cast an entire planet's worth of individuals for whom you claim it is so essential to preserve the liberties of, up to and including the extermination of those individuals on a biblical proportion, how dare you cast those lives into the proverbial fire to suit your narrow view of the world. It is a profound, disgusting, and offensive train of thought to say that "these are the ideas that matter, and if the whole planet dies because of them, so be it." HOW DARE YOU! Billions of lives that you're ready to march into a grinder to suit one individual-centered belief system that's barely been in proverbial charge for a couple of centuries. Thankfully, people who think like you are hopelessly outnumbered and their minds can change. But I must say this conversation has been a reminder of just how big the human ego can get, how assured of itself it can be, even as it marches itself to it's own demise, head held so high and proudly. Honestly, just, astonished at this level of arrogance. Well done sir. I sincerely hope that people better than you are able to save your life, since it is obvious you yourself will not.
- dang 7y ago
  We've banned this account for repeatedly breaking the site guidelines and ignoring our requests to stop. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
dang 7y ago
Please don't perpetuate flamewars on HN. You did a ton of that in this thread, and it's not cool here. Even if your questions are sincere, it became clear a long time ago that they were not contributing to a genuine conversation. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html