Stereotypes associated with Libertarianism and Ron Paul

Are you suggesting we need 100% agreement in the scientific community to justify regulation of a pollutant? There isn't even 100% agreement on whether or not the Earth is round, that doesn't mean we ignore the vast, vast majority of data and assessments.

edited 12th Oct '11 9:33:38 AM by Ratix

Even if you classify something as a pollutant, to sue you have to say you were damaged in some way by it.

So if my child is poisoned with mercury (which accumulates in the system) I can't sue until he demonstrates signs of mercury poisoning, which would require continued exposure? It's about pre-emptive compensation or correction for future damages.

No, you just need a doctor to testify that x number of mercury is in his system with a blood test. Any metal-toxin can be seen in blood work like Lead, Antimony, or any other poison for that matter.

Also, with future damages, how do we know said future damages will actually happen?

The majority of peer-reviewed scientific study, as has already been stated.

Actually their predictions for what the temperature should be right now were proven wrong as the temperature is lower than what was previously projected, so how do you know said projections will actually come true?

Also, Climategate was about scientist fudging the numbers to meet their gw agenda rather than actually reporting the facts.

If you're referring to the Climactic Research Unit Email Controversy, you would also see it was a manufactured scandal born of taking (easily) misconstrued correspondence statements out of context.

Anyway, whether or not carbon emissions qualifies as a polluter or isn't the issue; given the current consensus that it IS a pollutant, what role if any does the government have to regulate it, since by the Libertarian philosophy, we shouldn't have the government regulate obvious pollutants like Mercury since people can just sue, or threaten suit, for damages, which would be reason enough for manufacturers to "go green" on their own. Allegedly.

Speaking of that, do you have an answer to my previous question of law/policy that is satisfactory for Libertarians, as opposed to the apparent position of abolishing law and policy?

I have read several papers on the topics. [1] [2] [3] [4]

Examples like modifying a flat line into a hockey stick.

edited 12th Oct '11 1:06:35 PM by secretist

Stop it.

Stop trying to argue with climate chang.

It's 2011.

Libertarians reject the initiation of physical force as a means to their ends. Restitution is the remedy when someone harms another, takes their property, or damages it. While punishment is intended to hurt the aggressor, restitution restores the victim to the fullest extent possible. Restitution is "punishment" that fits the crime and therefore provides a more effective deterrent.

For example, if your neighbors dumped garbage on your lawn, you would expect them to clean it up. If they didn't do so when asked, you'd call the local law enforcement. When your neighbor finally did restore your lawn, you'd expect them to compensate you for whatever additional costs were incurred in the enforcement of your claim. Obviously, the expense and hassle of cleaning up your lawn far outweighs the benefits that your neighbors might get from dumping garbage on your lawn in the first place. Thus, if they knew that you were likely to seek restitution, your neighbors would not pollute your property.

Environmental restoration is costly and difficult. Restitution therefore becomes an incredibly onerous punishment and the most effective deterrent known. Let's examine a real-life example of how restitution, coupled with privatization, can protect our waterways.

In Britain, individuals have property rights in the rivers that run through their land. If someone upstream pollutes the water and harms the fish, the downstream owners don't have to wait for a bureaucratic commission to study the issue. Instead, they immediately sue the polluters to protect their valuable property and claim restitution for damages. As a result, would-be polluters are effectively deterred from damaging the environment.

Waterways that don't have a private protector fare much worse. A citizen's action group recently contacted me because they were concerned about businesses dumping toxic chemicals into the neighboring Ohio River. Because the government claims stewardship of this waterway, individuals have no ownership rights on which to base a suit. They must wait until bureaucrats decide to take action. If the businesses contribute to the campaign chests of powerful politicians, nothing may ever happen, even if local authorities are truly protective of the environment.

Even when the government does decide to move against a corporate polluter, restitution is seldom required. Instead, the business usually pays a fine. Sometimes the fine is small enough that the business finds it cheaper to pollute and pay. Private owners would seldom be willing to let their property polluted for a small sum, because the decrease in property value would be a devastating financial blow.

Even ocean beds can be protected from pollution when private ownership of fishing rights is coupled with restitution. In some states, homesteading of oyster beds is permitted. Private oyster beds are more prolific and profitable than public ones. The owners have incentive to invest money in caring for the beds and harvesting them sustainably.

In the early part of this century, shrimp fishers along the Gulf of Mexico collectively claimed "homesteading" property rights in the coastal waters. Their association regulated the harvest of shrimp sustainably to maximize long term profit. The U.S. government refused to recognize the property rights of the shrimp fishers and outlawed their organization. Not surprisingly, too many shrimp were taken and the population has dropped.

Our air can be protected from pollution with restitution and private ownership as well. For example, in a libertarian society, the roadways would be privately owned. If neighbors complained of pollution, the road company might offer monetary compensation. Most likely, however, the neighbors would want the pollution to stop. Since 80% of emissions' pollution is caused by 20% of the cars, the road company might deny access or charge much higher user fees to polluting vehicles. Given these alternatives, most of the owners would probably buy a newer car or get their emission system upgraded. Such measures would reduce pollution until the neighbors were no longer bothered by it.

Similarly, if a product polluted the air, victims could sue the product maker, who in turn would pass the costs of restitution onto the consumer. Higher prices would discourage use and decrease pollution.

Instead of using restitution to alter the usage of potentially damaging products, government today simply bans them. For example, the insecticide DDT eradicated insects that carried malaria, yellow fever, sleeping sickness, typhus, and encephalitis, especially in Third World countries. Pressured by the ban placed on this chemical by the U.S. government, Sri Lanka (then Ceylon) abandoned spraying DDT in 1964. Malaria rose from less than two dozen cases per year to over 2 million. The victims had no recourse because governments have sovereign immunity.

Without sovereign immunity, victims of bans or harmful laws could sue for restitution. The threat of such suit would encourage lawmakers to consider the adverse effects of their actions. Today, because of sovereign immunity, our politicians literally get away with murder.

In today's society, polluters might simply declare bankruptcy and walk away. However, in a libertarian society, a creditor could not be forced by government to give up their claims for damages. Polluters who couldn't pay immediately would most likely have to make monthly payments until their debt and the interest on that debt was paid in full. If they refused to make such payments, they would most likely end up in a work prison where the additional costs of incarceration would be added to their tab. Rather than lose their freedom and incur additional costs, most polluters would chose to keep up their payments.

In some cases, the damage might exceed whatever the polluters could pay even with a life time of trying to make things right. Restitution can't bring back the dead or easily reclaim a poisoned well. However, by privitizing land and beast, bad political policy won't be able to destroy the 40% of our nation's land and wildlife now controlled by the government. By instituting restitution, polluters will face a formidable deterrent. By eliminating sovereign immunity, our bureaucrats will no longer be able to get away with the murder of millions.

For example, in a libertarian society, the roadways would be privately owned. If neighbors complained of pollution, the road company might offer monetary compensation. Most likely, however, the neighbors would want the pollution to stop. Since 80% of emissions' pollution is caused by 20% of the cars, the road company might deny access or charge much higher user fees to polluting vehicles. Given these alternatives, most of the owners would probably buy a newer car or get their emission system upgraded. Such measures would reduce pollution until the neighbors were no longer bothered by it.

You assume way too much about the human nature.

There are a lot of dicks out there, and if you don't use a certain amount of force these dicks will fuck everyone.

Believing in liberterianmism requires ignboring history and the current situation.

Also, a liberterian society has never showna success, if there has been one.

edited 12th Oct '11 1:41:07 PM by Erock

I disagree, but I like the dirty joke.

edited 12th Oct '11 1:38:21 PM by secretist

I didn't do the Team America World Police joke 100%. Too dirty for OTC.

Anyways, a more detailed description of my views on liberterians:

1) I agree on social rights. Sex, drug usage, and gay marriage, yeah, I'll argre with you.

2) I dislike the economic side of their platform greatly. I don't want to explain this.

3) I don't like how some of them use their rhetoric.

Can you give examples of rhetoric you don't like?

Namely the holier than thou attitude some of them have and ads like this:

Namely "pushing his liberal values". Why yes. He was running with values he (and other people)!) believe in.

Also, anyone with suffciently extreme views worries me.

edited 12th Oct '11 1:59:44 PM by Erock

I'm pretty immune to rhetoric form all sides I guess?

You just copied and pasted..right?

edited 14th Oct '11 11:20:28 AM by rosemaryblood

...secretist believes Rousseau Was Right?

...

That explains why he's(/she's?) a libertarian and, perhaps, an Objectivist(?).

News flash: He was wrong.

Not to say that Hobbes was really right, either. It's somewhere in between...

While I'm pretty sure there are decent libertarians, all the ones I've conversed with are pure, disgusting sociopaths

As long as we continue to call each other names and create assumptions based on the groups we've named, we're really not as far along as we think we are, in other words we never will be. Or something like that, it's just more of the same anyhow. We need to get to the point were people aren't trying to pass of things they want to spend their time on as rights, they're just indulgences, and the government should spend less time trying to force people's actions. we can have a right to pursue happiness or we can have a right to happiness, which just sounds silly and pointless?

edited 6th Jan '12 12:25:50 AM by iphobos

[The people running saying they're defending freedom when they want to control what you do with your life are about as hypocritical as the people saying that they have a right to government subsidies are misinformed about what a right is. The government should not be stopping consenting adults, and if it's wrong then they'll get theirs just like the rest of us when it's all over, but it's not anyone's place to stop them. However, what marriage means to the state is paperwork and government subsidies, not a right, not symbolism, nothing else. We should do away with that part on both sides for a minute, and instead have the conversation as a society about if building families is a good thing should be encouraged by the state, and if homosexuals raising families is a good thing that we want to encouraged by the state. Until then why should the state force us to recognize some random people's marriage? How is that someones right?] Everything in the brackets is what I gathered from a diner with a University of Michigan political science professor, a libertarian. That's not exactly what he said, and that's not exactly what I think.

... what?

Holy Wall of Text, Batman.

Anyone care to translate that?

I want to say that he's saying of gays can't adopt and raise a family then they shouldn't have their marriage rights respected? Or something. And also, we shouldn't have to recognize someone's marriage even when they have all the paperwork and shit done.

I don't know, but I think that guy went kind of off topic.

I have lots of Libertarian values, but I also believe some things must be Federally regulated. We could survive as an amalgamation of states that operate as their own little country with the USA as our collective organization without a federal government, but that would open secession to many states as a possibility, and also expand the gap for state corruption. Not to mention it would make us absolutely uncompetitive against our federalized rival countries with a central government. I don't want our country to survive, I want it to thrive, and living in the shadow of other first world countries is not thriving on the global scale.

Checks and balances with proper oversight are necessary in some things. I feel the federal government controls too much in some areas, too little in others.

Oh, and most libertarians I've spoken to harp way too much about drugs. I don't like one issue voters, and "OMG MAN WEED BEING ILLEGAL IS THE SINGLE GREATEST EVIL IN THIS COUNTRY, MAN" is the most stupid ass assessment for supporting a political party ever. It's ok for legalization to be in your political portfolio, but for fucks sake, at least talk about other shit every now and again.

edited 6th Jan '12 9:22:09 PM by Barkey