> 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

> 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.