What is the Libertarian view on...

[shanek]

This is not necessarily true.This too is not necessarily true. For some people it is not reasonable to expect them to ever become a responsible person because their mental disability is too severe.

You never know; there could be a medical breakthrough, or a spontaneous remission. We give them the benefit of the doubt because they're human and we know that humans are capable of responsibility. Show me an animal that's capable of personal responsibility and then we'll talk.

So I don't think the Chinese fossil trade is a very good example of Libertarian policy.

When did I say it was a Libertarian policy? Now you're putting words into my mouth! I said that the people who find fossils on their property have a financial incentive to turn them over to the scientists; it DOESN'T FARKING MATTER how they are or aren't allowed to go outside the country!!!

The problem is, doing it right does not yield higher prices. Quickly getting the biggest dinosaurs out of the ground and making a spectacular piece of it, if necessary forging most of it, does get the highest price.

Not at all. In the fossil in the Horizon episode, the hoaxers actually cut themselves out of tens of millions of dollars by hoaxing it, and even more by not properly documenting it.

Are you saying that markets can lead to imbalances.

Goods- or service-oriented markets seek out balances. But this would be permission-based, which is a whole different animal.

Which is an interesting idea, especially since you believe the military is a legimate government function, and I'm pretty sure it is the military that causes quite a lot of pollution.

But has no incentive to reduce it.

With all those diesel and airplane fuel powered craft they have...Interesting idea! Just let the politically connected companies buy the vast pieces of wilderness to pollute all they want.

Which would give them an incentive to pollute it as little as possible for fear of driving down the property value.

Obviously the semi-government organization watching over the emission rights system and that is designed to be not direct under political control. A sort of Environmental (European) Central Bank. Or something.

Well, given what the Federal Reserve has done with our money, that makes me very scared about a similar system handing out pollution credits. Pollution inflation doesn't seem like a very good thing for the environment any more than monetary inflation is good for the economy...

 

[shanek]

Let's give an example: Company ABC has a shoe making factory next to a river. The company HAS to pollute it's surroundings to produce shoes. It can: A) dump its waste in the river and get sued by the people downstream who drink that water. B) burn the waste and get sued by the people who own the air above their homes, or more likely: sued by a non-for-profit private agency who owns the air that is polluted. Or C) Dump the waste on its own land.

Or D) dispose of the waste in a way that doesn't pollute. That happens all the time. That's actually how it was with Love Canal until the government screwed it all up...

What I also fear is that pollution that must exist would become concentrated in "pollute for a fee" areas. Let's say I own a river. Having an eye for profit, I tell my factory owning buddies: come set up your factory near my river, you can pollute all you want, I won't sue you. We'll sign a contract: so much pollution for so much money. Again, all this is free market, free will, no government interference.

Why is that a fear? You would be in control of how much pollution goes on.

Or if companies chose Option C from above, we'd now then have concentration of factories in "pollution allowed" zones.

Why would there be "pollution allowed zones" if it's their own property?

 

[shanek]

I know several Libertarians who support animal rights. Most don't, but then most leftists -- socialists, anarchists, or communists -- don't support it either.

Yeah, well, I know Libertarians who are anti-abortion or pro-war as well—same with liberals. Libertarians are a diverse bunch. It's often said that if you ask ten different Libertarians you'll get twelve different opinions. I was asked for the general Libertarian view, which is what I gave. I doubt you'll find 100% of any group agreeing on a particular issue.

 

[CFLarsen]

If they ARE running it, then they are running it as a market. Get over yourself and quit obfuscating.

Yes, if. But what if they are not? Then your example falls flat. Get over yourself and start addressing that.

It's the government. The people in the government are just doing their jobs.

So, some faceless organization is to blame, but not the people who make up the organization? Not even those who make the policies that result in pollution? Or is it simply the fact that there is such an organization that pollution occurs?

Oh, come on! If they're part of a limited liability corporation, it's a group of people! If he's on his own, it's an individual! Are you even THINKING???

Yes, I am thinking. You're not answering: How many people are we talking about?

No, you don't pretend to do it...you actually do it, with annoying regularity!

No, I don't even actually do it, either.

You're just lying now. I specifically said it was OK to take water coming onto your property to use, sell, whatever.

But that wasn't my point. You didn't answer my questions.

[more pathetic obfuscation deleted—I've already explained my point more than sufficiently for any reasonable individual, and I'm sick of playing Claus's little games...]

No games. Please address the questions:

• How much water are you allowed to take from those downstream?
• What if the source of the water was on your property? The river sprang from your land? Then, according to your argument, you could screw those downstream, because you wouldn't "owe" anybody anything.
• Or are we going to see yet another amendment?

If you want to argue Libertarianism, you have to address these dilemmas. If, OTOH, you want to preach Libertarianism, just continue to close your eyes and ears to them.

 

[shanek]

It doesn't. Your example I mean. Your basically saying that a greengrocer who demands $1 for an orange is going to sell his oranges to someone who only offers to pay 50 cents. In your example, THI is not going to sell.

I think you've got it backwards. If I read him right, it's like having a car you value at $2000 and having someone offer you $4000 for it. OF COURSE you're going to sell! And if the buyer really does value the car at $4000, why not?

 

[shanek]

No, artifact is the right word. If something is found, e.g. during an entrepreneural dig, they have to stop and await evaluation from archeologists. Not all artifacts are saved, but if something of historical value is found, it is excavated and saved.

So, if I'm digging a hole in my front yard, and I unearth a Britney Spears coffee cup (which is technically an artifact), are you REALLY saying I have to alert the authorities?

 

[shanek]

Tell that to Siegfried and Roy...

Excellent if tragic example. Notice how Roy has always maintained that it was NOT the tiger's fault. The tiger was not responsible for his actions.

 

[shanek]

Yes, if. But what if they are not?

Then it's still being run the same way anyway and the example still stands. You're just looking for excuses to dismiss it. Bottom line: farmers have a financial incentive to turn over any fossils they find. And since they really need the money, they are more than willing to do so. The Horizon episode mentioned how much knowledge was opened up from China once they started doing that.

So, some faceless organization is to blame, but not the people who make up the organization? Not even those who make the policies that result in pollution? Or is it simply the fact that there is such an organization that pollution occurs?

It's the fact that they have no incentive to reduce the pollution, as I've sayd about fifty times now...

Yes, I am thinking. You're not answering: How many people are we talking about?

Then READ!!! If it's a limited liability corporation, then it's the corporation itself! Otherwise, it's the individuals!

No, I don't even actually do it, either.

You just did above!!!

But that wasn't my point. You didn't answer my questions.

• How much water are you allowed to take from those downstream?

• 
  
  Invalid question. You aren't taking water from people downstream. You're taking water that flows on your own land.
  
  

  [*]What if the source of the water was on your property?

  
  Same thing.
  
  

  [*]Or are we going to see yet another amendment?
  

No amendments, none necessary. Your questions were already answered!

 

[Earthborn]

Re: Re: What is the Libertarian view on...

Why Animals Have No Rights

From the article:

A right, properly understood, is a claim, or potential claim, that one party may exercise against another.

(snip)

We must not infer, therefore, that a live being has, simply in being alive, a "right" to its life.

Now, how does this fit in with the libertarian concept of 'natural rights', where a human has rights simply by being alive?

Remember, I am not arguing that animals should have rights, I am asking how the concept of natural rights can be limited only to humans.

 

[Earthborn]

Show me an animal that's capable of personal responsibility and then we'll talk.

Then you'll have to define personal responsibility a lot better than you have been doing up until now.

I said that the people who find fossils on their property have a financial incentive to turn them over to the scientists;

They have a much greater incentive to turn them over to the smuglers. I doubt the Chinese government pays people much for reporting their fossils. But you might show me wrong.

Goods- or service-oriented markets seek out balances. But this would be permission-based, which is a whole different animal.

You keep saying that. What is the difference according to you?

Which would give them an incentive to pollute it as little as possible for fear of driving down the property value.

That would assume the property value of land will still be high enough to care, even if large sections of the United States are up for sale. There would be an enormous supply of land.

Well, given what the Federal Reserve has done with our money, that makes me very scared about a similar system handing out pollution credits. Pollution inflation doesn't seem like a very good thing for the environment any more than monetary inflation is good for the economy...

That's why I compared it with the European Central Bank, an entity that is independent from political control and designed to reduce inflation.

 

[CFLarsen]

So, if I'm digging a hole in my front yard, and I unearth a Britney Spears coffee cup (which is technically an artifact), are you REALLY saying I have to alert the authorities?

I am talking about archeological artifacts.

Excellent if tragic example. Notice how Roy has always maintained that it was NOT the tiger's fault. The tiger was not responsible for his actions.

Who is responsible, then?

Then it's still being run the same way anyway and the example still stands. You're just looking for excuses to dismiss it. Bottom line: farmers have a financial incentive to turn over any fossils they find. And since they really need the money, they are more than willing to do so. The Horizon episode mentioned how much knowledge was opened up from China once they started doing that.

I am not looking for excuses, I am looking at the examples you give. If the Chinese government does not run the markets, then you cannot point to China as as example.

It's the fact that they have no incentive to reduce the pollution, as I've sayd about fifty times now...

Why not? Because they work in an organization, they immediately become mindless drones?

Then READ!!! If it's a limited liability corporation, then it's the corporation itself! Otherwise, it's the individuals!

OK. I cannot get you to say a number. Fine.

You just did above!!!

Stop acting like a petulant child.

Invalid question. You aren't taking water from people downstream. You're taking water that flows on your own land.

Yes, if I use all of it. That was the premise of the question. The question is perfectly valid. Please answer it.

Same thing.

But, according to your logic, I can use all the water. What about the downstream people?

No amendments, none necessary. Your questions were already answered!

Not.

 

[Earthborn]

No, I am not. If THI sells its credits to TWC, then THI gets to enjoy clean air. THI values clean air more than TWC, so THI values its credits less than does TWC, becuase using them would decrease the amount of clean air. The exact price and number that TWC and THI negotiate is irrelvant; the net result is that TWC is selling my clean air to THI.

You are forgetting that TWC has a financial incentive to reduce emissions itself. If it is polluting a lot it is easy for TWC to reduce that pollution and make some money by selling credits. It is only difficult to reduce pollution if it is already pretty clean and can't reduce much further. TWC may make the air a bit dirtier by buying emission rights, but only if it is already environmentally friendly.

Originally posted by Shanek
I think you've got it backwards. If I read him right, it's like having a car you value at $2000 and having someone offer you $4000 for it.

Yes, I noticed that in his later explanation. I got confused because he put a monetary value on something that isn't for sale - clean air - instead of the thing that is for sale: emission rights.

 

[Kodiak]

Re: Re: Re: What is the Libertarian view on...

Now, how does this fit in with the libertarian concept of 'natural rights', where a human has rights simply by being alive?

Remember, I am not arguing that animals should have rights, I am asking how the concept of natural rights can be limited only to humans.

Animals and the Natural Right to Life

 

[shanek]

Then you'll have to define personal responsibility a lot better than you have been doing up until now.

Well, this is hardly what I'd consider definitive, but for the time being let's say it means that 1) you can understand that your actions have consequences and 2) you can choose to act a different way to avoid those consequences.

You keep saying that. What is the difference according to you?

I explained that already! If what you're trading in is permission to do something, then imbalance always results! That's one big reason our health care system is so screwed up.

That would assume the property value of land will still be high enough to care,

Even if it's a low property value, they still don't want to take the hit because it affects the bottom line. In fact, they'll most likely take every effort to improve the land as much as possible and get every bit of potential value out of it.

even if large sections of the United States are up for sale. There would be an enormous supply of land.

Well, even Harry Browne said that it should be spread out over a period of at least 5 years to avoid deflating the value.

 

[shanek]

I am talking about archeological artifacts.

Then, as you were asked, what's the criteria? When does an artifact become an "archaeological artifact"? 100 years old? 1000?

Who is responsible, then?

From what I've read, Roy maintains that it was his fault.

I am not looking for excuses, I am looking at the examples you give. If the Chinese government does not run the markets, then you cannot point to China as as example.

Not at all. You're just using this as an excuse. The point I made was that farmers in China who find fossils on their own land have a financian incentive to turn them over. And they do. Case closed.

Why not? Because they work in an organization, they immediately become mindless drones?

No, because you have policies in place that MUST be followed.

OK. I cannot get you to say a number. Fine.

Don't need to. The numbers are irrelevant.

Stop acting like a petulant child.

Stop name-calling and accept responsibility for your own words.

Yes, if I use all of it. That was the premise of the question.

No, it wasn't. There's a difference between taking water from a river and taking the river itself. You're redefining the question to try and push me into a corner, as is your usual tactic.

Not.

Yes, TWICE. Deny all you want, but they were answered.

 

[shanek]

You are forgetting that TWC has a financial incentive to reduce emissions itself. If it is polluting a lot it is easy for TWC to reduce that pollution and make some money by selling credits. It is only difficult to reduce pollution if it is already pretty clean and can't reduce much further. TWC may make the air a bit dirtier by buying emission rights, but only if it is already environmentally friendly.

What system of price fluctuation and equilibrium is in place here?

Yes, I noticed that in his later explanation. I got confused because he put a monetary value on something that isn't for sale - clean air - instead of the thing that is for sale: emission rights.

But the value of the emissions rights would be tied to the amount that people value clean air, would it not?

 

[CFLarsen]

Re: Re: Re: Re: What is the Libertarian view on...

Animals and the Natural Right to Life

From the essay:

Insects

Again, no brain is present and thus insects are unlikely to be able to feel physical pain.

Insects don't have brains?

 

[Kodiak]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What is the Libertarian view on...

From the essay:



Insects don't have brains?

Ummm...

Not as we define them, apparently...so Yes and No?

From the link:

Question - I am a parent trying desparately to find the answer to this question, do fly maggots or larvae have brains? If not, what motivates and directs them to the adult stage. I would really appreciate an answer to this.

Answer - Insects do not have brains as we define them, but they do have groups of nerve cells in several locations that basically act as brains. I believe the biggest one is in the insect's head, so it's actually not too wrong to conclude that insects do have brains.

Brains do not direct the development of an insect's body any more than a brain directs the development of a human body. As the larval insect grows, small groups of cells form in several locations. When the insect pupates, that is, ceases activity so that it can metamorphose from a larva to an adult, these groups of cells grow, divide, and ultimately consume most of the larval cells, eventually becoming the adult.

Richard E. Barrans Jr., Ph.D.
Assistant Director
PG Research Foundation, Darien, Illinois

 

[CFLarsen]

Ummm...

Yes, then. And no. Good answer!

But....(from the essay):

Plants and Vegetable

The same statements can be made for plants and vegetables as made above for bacteria and viruses. They too are devoid of central nervous systems, nerve endings and brains and can be fairly safely said to feel no pain.

Hmmm.....but insects do?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

No, it wasn't. There's a difference between taking water from a river and taking the river itself. You're redefining the question to try and push me into a corner, as is your usual tactic.

Yes, but every bit that you take reduces the amount available for the next guy. Not being allowed to divert any for your own use is unfair to you as a property owner, taking it all is unfair to everyone downstream, but there is a lot of middle ground and the question boils down to: how much is your fair share? Due to the scarcity of water in my state, we currently have a complex system of water rights (based on intended use of the water, age of the claim, and other factors). A complex set of laws telling property owners what they can do with water on their property does not sound like a libertarian solution to me, so Claus' question seems to be "how would Libertarians determine how much you are allowed to take before you begin to be considered intruding on the next guys rights?", it strikes me as a fair question.