4 ms·

> Every government on the planet is ALREADY determining what weather you and others have. I agree that they are determining the weather already, and I don't li

> Every government on the planet is ALREADY determining what weather you and others have. I agree that they are determining the weather already, and I don't like it. I don't want government to force cold weather on me. Do I get a choice on that? No. Neither do you. All we get is the governance structure attempting to convince us of the validity and righteousness of their actions. If they do a good job, you will agree with what they say. That is propaganda. I do not recognise that government can be righteous. All I see is forcible fine extraction from the citizens it purports to help. Climate change + technology will be an excuse to take away more freedoms (of travel, life style), levy more fines and licenses, while also justifying government intrusion and micro-management (how much water, electrity, travel credits). Greater gifts and power to those that already have power. Its a wheeze. The trick is to make you think you want it.

formerkrogemp 5y ago
I wonder how libertarian philosophy handles a worldwide crisis such as climate change? Laissez faire capitalism? Or laissez faire catastrophe? I don't understand what'll it'll take to convince people that dire action is necessary? More wildfires? More crop failures from drought and invasive species? More tornadoes, flooding, and hurricanes? How much could you want?
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  There is no problem from the libertarian perspective. Preventing damage and paying restitution is entirely compatible with the philosophy. Same as if you were dumping toxic waste on someone's elses property.
  - formerkrogemp 5y ago
    What I don't understand is how someone so often identifies as libertarian in these climate change discussions and immediately dismisses the existence of climate change as a government conspiracy or denies any realistic solution that by necessity will involve governments. Of course, I agree capitalism is probably the least worst economic system and that companies will have a role to play in combating climate change, but I don't see how libertarian philosophy as employed in the 'small government' sense is compatible with global or climate catastrophes.
    - s1artibartfast 5y ago
      Who is the someone you mention? > I don't see how libertarian philosophy as employed in the 'small government' sense is compatible with global or climate catastrophes. You might be conflating anarchists or anarcho-capitalists with Libertarians. Libertarians do believe in a government (with limited scope) that protects individual and property rights. If you believe in CO2 mediated climate change. having to deal with the damage of someone else's pollution falls squarely within those property rights. It is no different then if someone dumps a pile of toxic waste on your land or upriver. The libertarian solution would be more along the lines of cap and trade and civil damages opposed to sin taxes and a Green New Deal.
      - formerkrogemp 5y ago
        Specifically I'm referring to an earlier commenter that represents this view: > I do not recognise that government can be righteous. All I see is forcible fine extraction from the citizens it purports to help. Climate change + technology will be an excuse to take away more freedoms (of travel, life style), levy more fines and licenses, while also justifying government intrusion and micro-management (how much water, electrity, travel credits). How would a carbon cap and trade be much different or more effective than a carbon 'sin' tax? I don't know if you've heard, but the SEC is planning on requiring publicly traded companies to disclose their risks to climate change and to report emissions. I see this sort of action as moving in a positive direction for once, but it feels too little too late. > If you believe in CO2 mediated climate change. It's a little beyond time for that, now isn't it?
        s1artibartfast 5y ago
        >How would a carbon cap and trade be much different or more effective than a carbon 'sin' tax? Sin taxes dont necessarily solve any problems, but raise revenue that officials can spend on pet projects and caviar. They aren't morally or financially based in the damage done, and don't compensate those harmed. Money from Cap and trade doesn't have to go to the government. Private manufacturers buy them, and individuals can sell them. one example is every American gets a 1 carbon credit and they can sell it on an exchange to manufacturers (or not). >It's a little beyond time for that, now isn't it? Take that up with people who don't believe in climate change. perhaps the "someone" upthread, not me.

formerkrogemp 5y ago

I wonder how libertarian philosophy handles a worldwide crisis such as climate change? Laissez faire capitalism? Or laissez faire catastrophe? I don't understand what'll it'll take to convince people that dire action is necessary? More wildfires? More crop failures from drought and invasive species? More tornadoes, flooding, and hurricanes? How much could you want?

s1artibartfast 5y ago
There is no problem from the libertarian perspective. Preventing damage and paying restitution is entirely compatible with the philosophy. Same as if you were dumping toxic waste on someone's elses property.
- formerkrogemp 5y ago
  What I don't understand is how someone so often identifies as libertarian in these climate change discussions and immediately dismisses the existence of climate change as a government conspiracy or denies any realistic solution that by necessity will involve governments. Of course, I agree capitalism is probably the least worst economic system and that companies will have a role to play in combating climate change, but I don't see how libertarian philosophy as employed in the 'small government' sense is compatible with global or climate catastrophes.
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    Who is the someone you mention? > I don't see how libertarian philosophy as employed in the 'small government' sense is compatible with global or climate catastrophes. You might be conflating anarchists or anarcho-capitalists with Libertarians. Libertarians do believe in a government (with limited scope) that protects individual and property rights. If you believe in CO2 mediated climate change. having to deal with the damage of someone else's pollution falls squarely within those property rights. It is no different then if someone dumps a pile of toxic waste on your land or upriver. The libertarian solution would be more along the lines of cap and trade and civil damages opposed to sin taxes and a Green New Deal.
    - formerkrogemp 5y ago
      Specifically I'm referring to an earlier commenter that represents this view: > I do not recognise that government can be righteous. All I see is forcible fine extraction from the citizens it purports to help. Climate change + technology will be an excuse to take away more freedoms (of travel, life style), levy more fines and licenses, while also justifying government intrusion and micro-management (how much water, electrity, travel credits). How would a carbon cap and trade be much different or more effective than a carbon 'sin' tax? I don't know if you've heard, but the SEC is planning on requiring publicly traded companies to disclose their risks to climate change and to report emissions. I see this sort of action as moving in a positive direction for once, but it feels too little too late. > If you believe in CO2 mediated climate change. It's a little beyond time for that, now isn't it?
      - s1artibartfast 5y ago
        >How would a carbon cap and trade be much different or more effective than a carbon 'sin' tax? Sin taxes dont necessarily solve any problems, but raise revenue that officials can spend on pet projects and caviar. They aren't morally or financially based in the damage done, and don't compensate those harmed. Money from Cap and trade doesn't have to go to the government. Private manufacturers buy them, and individuals can sell them. one example is every American gets a 1 carbon credit and they can sell it on an exchange to manufacturers (or not). >It's a little beyond time for that, now isn't it? Take that up with people who don't believe in climate change. perhaps the "someone" upthread, not me.