3 ms·

Make sure you don't have children or anything selfish like that.

hackerlight 4y ago
There's no substitute for pragmatism when it comes to enforcing limits to misuse of the commons. Should someone with the common cold be allowed participate normally in society? Probably yes, even though they may do slight harm others. Should someone with Ebola be allowed to do the same? Probably not. This is pragmatic line drawing. There is no alternative. We let people generate a little pollution because we accept some is necessary for normal life. But beyond that should be regulated.
- version_five 4y ago
  "We let people" This belies a clear misunderstanding of the rights granted to government and its role
  - hackerlight 4y ago
    That's your subjective prescriptive notion of what government ought to be about. I want my government to protect me from my fellow man who sometimes wishes to harm me. If someone punches me or spews leaded petrol in my face, the government should intervene under the enforcement of the non-aggression principle. Even minarchist conceptions of government understand this basic idea. It seems that yours doesn't.
    - josephcsible 4y ago
      Emitting pollution is not equivalent to punching you in the face.
      - hackerlight 4y ago
        If my IQ is 3 points lower because car owners exposed me to leaded petrol, that is worse than punching me in the face. If my home is consumed by a fire that wouldn't have otherwise happened without global warming, that's also worse. It's person A aggressing on person B without person B's permission. It's a more dilute and hard-to-attribute aggression than directly punching someone, but I don't think that should change how we look at it.
        vdqtp3 4y ago
        "The government should use force to compel everyone to live a life I find unobjectionable no matter how far removed cause and effect are, and I'm going to call that adhering to the non-aggression principle"
        hackerlight 4y ago
        That's a strawman. I never said I was the one to decide, that's up to the democratic process. Also the cause and effect isn't far removed. It's direct, just dilute. Person A is directly harming person B (and persons C, D, E, F, etc) by spewing leaded petrol into the air that person B uses. There is no important difference between this and assaulting someone. One person is significantly harming another person (by giving them brain damage) without consent from that other person. That's the crux of it.
        paulryanrogers 4y ago
        To steel man the opposition, I think the harms are more clearly measured. Your face is bruised by a punch. Everyone near a lead-emitter getting dumber is harder to notice. That said, I agree both harms need attention and the latter is more insidious.

There's no substitute for pragmatism when it comes to enforcing limits to misuse of the commons. Should someone with the common cold be allowed participate normally in society? Probably yes, even though they may do slight harm others. Should someone with Ebola be allowed to do the same? Probably not. This is pragmatic line drawing. There is no alternative. We let people generate a little pollution because we accept some is necessary for normal life. But beyond that should be regulated.

version_five 4y ago
"We let people" This belies a clear misunderstanding of the rights granted to government and its role
- hackerlight 4y ago
  That's your subjective prescriptive notion of what government ought to be about. I want my government to protect me from my fellow man who sometimes wishes to harm me. If someone punches me or spews leaded petrol in my face, the government should intervene under the enforcement of the non-aggression principle. Even minarchist conceptions of government understand this basic idea. It seems that yours doesn't.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    Emitting pollution is not equivalent to punching you in the face.
    - hackerlight 4y ago
      If my IQ is 3 points lower because car owners exposed me to leaded petrol, that is worse than punching me in the face. If my home is consumed by a fire that wouldn't have otherwise happened without global warming, that's also worse. It's person A aggressing on person B without person B's permission. It's a more dilute and hard-to-attribute aggression than directly punching someone, but I don't think that should change how we look at it.
      - vdqtp3 4y ago
        "The government should use force to compel everyone to live a life I find unobjectionable no matter how far removed cause and effect are, and I'm going to call that adhering to the non-aggression principle"
        hackerlight 4y ago
        That's a strawman. I never said I was the one to decide, that's up to the democratic process. Also the cause and effect isn't far removed. It's direct, just dilute. Person A is directly harming person B (and persons C, D, E, F, etc) by spewing leaded petrol into the air that person B uses. There is no important difference between this and assaulting someone. One person is significantly harming another person (by giving them brain damage) without consent from that other person. That's the crux of it.
        paulryanrogers 4y ago
        To steel man the opposition, I think the harms are more clearly measured. Your face is bruised by a punch. Everyone near a lead-emitter getting dumber is harder to notice. That said, I agree both harms need attention and the latter is more insidious.