4 ms·

I think it's antithetical to individual liberty to destroy our shared life support system. It's about as antithetical to liberty as you can get. You're creatin

I think it's antithetical to individual liberty to destroy our shared life support system. It's about as antithetical to liberty as you can get. You're creating a false choice - support action as you define it or be in favor of destroying Earth. Indeed, if action only comes in the form of massive taxation and central control then yes, I'm willing to take my chances. I believe any solutions that involve massive taxation and central control will result in massive warfare. Taxes and regulation might mitigate pollution in the first-world if you manage to get your way, but what about China? What about India? What about other emerging players? Are you prepared to force China to dismantle its coal plants? Are you prepared to force India to cripple its means of production? Are you prepared to force Iran and Russia and Saudi Arabia to stop using petroleum? And if you are, how much destruction will be wrought in the process? In summary I believe solutions that involve massive taxation, central control, and forcefully curbing human behavior will end in more misery than doing nothing at all. Given that, of all the possible solutions I've heard curbing human behavior is the least likely to succeed. If a savior is necessary, it will be technology or nothing.

esarbe 7y ago
You're setting up a strawman here. First, although it's besides the point, I never said that we're destroying the earth by inaction on the climate crisis. Earth will be fine. Life on earth will be fine. Earth has seen much worse and will see much worse in the future, so there's nothing to worry about when it comes to Earth. What I'm worried about is that we're destroying our life support system by willful neglect and even malice. But inaction on the climate crisis doesn't even necessarily have to damage the fundamental requirements for our own survival for a libertarian to be abhorred. Let me put it into a libertarian parable. Say we both own land, next to each other. We are both homesteading, can support ourselves and our families. Suddenly, one day, you build a shit house on my ground. Sure, it's far enough from my house so I don't have to smell it. But still; you are shitting on my land! You don't get to shit on my land! Even if you claim that it's not as bad as I make it out to be and and that I don't even have to face the stink; you don't get to shit on my land! It's the same with the atmosphere. It's a common good, so it belongs to all of us dependent on it. So you just don't get to dump CO2 into it. It's warming my planet, it's melting my antarctic, it's killing my corrals in my oceans. You just don't get to do that kind of things. As a libertarian I say; you must not infringe on my freedoms and my property. Next, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, China, India: hey, these are good questions worth discussing. First, let's point out that each signed on the Paris Agreement. To put that in other words; every country you list has made public commitments to action on the climate crisis. These commitments are not sufficient, by far. Put in contrast to say - the USA - whose administration made no such commitment and that is actively trying to undermine federal actions and scientific discourse on the topic (not very libertarian, btw.) Now, if for some weird reason the USA suddenly starts to take the climate crisis serious, there are many ways she could go about. Together with the EU it has the largest market for consumer goods. That's something we could leverage. Beyond that; it's good that we started talking about how to address the problem and start having a discussion about feasible approaches!
- trentnix 7y ago
  First, let's point out that each signed on the Paris Agreement. Mercy.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - esarbe 7y ago
    What for? The Paris Agreement is non-binding, has no enforcement clauses, it is voluntary and simply a statement of willingness to action. It is so primarily because the US was unwilling to sign anything binding.
  - esarbe 7y ago
    With regards to your question: "Whatabout whatabout?" Here's a map pointing out the parties responsibilities for anthropogenic atmospheric CO2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CO2_responsibility_1950-2000.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CO2_responsibility_1950-2... So, it looks like the ball is firmly in the USA/EU/Russland/Canada/Uk corner. Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, India; not so much.

esarbe 7y ago

You're setting up a strawman here. First, although it's besides the point, I never said that we're destroying the earth by inaction on the climate crisis. Earth will be fine. Life on earth will be fine. Earth has seen much worse and will see much worse in the future, so there's nothing to worry about when it comes to Earth. What I'm worried about is that we're destroying our life support system by willful neglect and even malice. But inaction on the climate crisis doesn't even necessarily have to damage the fundamental requirements for our own survival for a libertarian to be abhorred. Let me put it into a libertarian parable. Say we both own land, next to each other. We are both homesteading, can support ourselves and our families. Suddenly, one day, you build a shit house on my ground. Sure, it's far enough from my house so I don't have to smell it. But still; you are shitting on my land! You don't get to shit on my land! Even if you claim that it's not as bad as I make it out to be and and that I don't even have to face the stink; you don't get to shit on my land! It's the same with the atmosphere. It's a common good, so it belongs to all of us dependent on it. So you just don't get to dump CO2 into it. It's warming my planet, it's melting my antarctic, it's killing my corrals in my oceans. You just don't get to do that kind of things. As a libertarian I say; you must not infringe on my freedoms and my property. Next, Iran, Russia, Saudi Arabia, China, India: hey, these are good questions worth discussing. First, let's point out that each signed on the Paris Agreement. To put that in other words; every country you list has made public commitments to action on the climate crisis. These commitments are not sufficient, by far. Put in contrast to say - the USA - whose administration made no such commitment and that is actively trying to undermine federal actions and scientific discourse on the topic (not very libertarian, btw.) Now, if for some weird reason the USA suddenly starts to take the climate crisis serious, there are many ways she could go about. Together with the EU it has the largest market for consumer goods. That's something we could leverage. Beyond that; it's good that we started talking about how to address the problem and start having a discussion about feasible approaches!

trentnix 7y ago
First, let's point out that each signed on the Paris Agreement. Mercy.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- esarbe 7y ago
  What for? The Paris Agreement is non-binding, has no enforcement clauses, it is voluntary and simply a statement of willingness to action. It is so primarily because the US was unwilling to sign anything binding.
- esarbe 7y ago
  With regards to your question: "Whatabout whatabout?" Here's a map pointing out the parties responsibilities for anthropogenic atmospheric CO2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CO2_responsibility_1950-2000.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CO2_responsibility_1950-2... So, it looks like the ball is firmly in the USA/EU/Russland/Canada/Uk corner. Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, India; not so much.