by liberal japonicus
The open thread is still merrily rolling along, but I thought I'd toss another log on the fire. This article, about the lack of a J-shaped recovery in Japan hits me where I live, and I wonder what folks who actually understand economics think about it.
The article mentions in passing something that really hits me where I eat and drink, which is:
Yet the recovery’s lopsidedly domestic base leaves it in a potentially precarious state, experts say, particularly given an impending increase in Japan’s national sales tax.
The rise, from 5 to 8 per cent, is likely to hurt consumption after it takes effect in April, and though most economists think Japan will avoid a recession – its fate after the tax was raised the last time, in 1997 – the lack of a cushion from exports is a concern.
Actually, the tax rise is 5 to 8 to 10, with the 10% supposed to take effect in October. Ouch! At least that's what I understand from the Japanese commentary, though the English commentary emphasizes things like Abe's statement that it is not set and 'Government to ponder 10% sales tax increase, will analyze economic activity first' (that word 'ponder' reminds me of Eudora Welty's novella Ponder Heart, which seems particularly apropos)
This afternoon, I bought some chocolate that a lot of people have been raving about and was surprised to find that it was from Brazil. I suspect that the trade deficit is being drive by the fact that Japanese are still buying imports, but they are getting things from places where they can get more for their yen, so perhaps some commentators can tell me if that is the case.
If you look at the government's economic plans, which have been termed 'Abenomics', they emphasize 'three arrows': fiscal stimulus, monetary easing and structural reforms. Some have talked about the '4th arrow', which is the spending that will accompany the 2020 Olympics. I actually think there is another arrow in the quiver, which is nationalism.
Now, some commentators suggest that Abe has toned down on his nationalism from his last time as Prime Minister to pursue economic reform, while others note a resurgence of nationalism coupled with concrete changes in Japan's military stance, along with a secrecy bill that was rammed through the Diet, and argue that Japan is still at the beck and call of the US, which shows Abe's true colors (it is often noted that he is the grandson of Nobusuke Kishi, whose post war career is checkered, to say the least).
So, the narrative is that Abe may have the right idea about economics, as long as he doesn't let his nationalist tendencies trip him up. I, on the other hand, think that Japan has looked at China and seen how they play with the open flame of nationalism, and stifle dissent and are able to manage economic expectations much better than the US, such that nationalism is actually one of the arrows of Abenomics.
What is really interesting (at least to me) is how this push to nationalism incorporates a good measure of emperor worship, while the emperor has made his liberal leanings well known, so right wing politicians like Shintaro Ishihara make a fetish of the position of the emperor, but don't even speak of the actual person. That's probably because the emperor has often mentioned that he feels close to the Korea because he feels that his ancestors are from there, which is a rather heretical notion and this anecdote,
Shogi player Kunio Yonenaga, a member of the Tokyo municipal government’s educational committee at the time, proudly told the Emperor that it was his job to make sure all public schools sing the national anthem and raise the flag. The Emperor responded — and everyone heard it clearly — that he hoped Yonenaga wasn’t forcing them to do it.
from this article seems telling. There was also his anti-nuclear speech, discussed here, which was not transmitted by NHK and his 4 visits to Okinawa as Emperor. These things may seem like very small things but over here, they take on a huge significance.
Of course, most economists argue that Japan's difficulty in accepting immigrants, which gives it negative population growth, and it's insularity, which makes change more difficult, is something to avoid rather than to embrace, so the idea of stoking up nationalism, which exacerbates those trends, seems to be opposite of what needs to be done, which is why I think you have the notion of Abe rethinking his nationalism versus Abe as a puppet of the US. However, both of those views are looking through the lens of western economists, and if you don't have bad feelings about nationalism (as Abe clearly doesn't), keeping it around as a way to deal with problematic economic expectations might seem like just the ticket.
So, the link being behind a paywall, what in the world is a “J-shaped” recovery?
So, the link being behind a paywall, what in the world is a “J-shaped” recovery?
Not sure why it is behind a paywall, I was able to see it and I’m sure not going to pay for that, though sure enough, now, when I look at it, it’s locked down. But the title of the piece is “J-curve recovery eludes Shinzo Abe as trade deficits balloon’ and it is from the Financial Times Asia.
As for what a J shaped recovery is, I was hoping one of the econ literate commentators might be able to enlighten me.
Not sure why it is behind a paywall, I was able to see it and I’m sure not going to pay for that, though sure enough, now, when I look at it, it’s locked down. But the title of the piece is “J-curve recovery eludes Shinzo Abe as trade deficits balloon’ and it is from the Financial Times Asia.
As for what a J shaped recovery is, I was hoping one of the econ literate commentators might be able to enlighten me.
A quick stroll thru wikipedia suggests that it should have been a ‘J curve’ rather than a ‘J shaped recovery’ (this is what happens when you are processing a lot of vocabulary that you don’t know, I guess). That is described here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-curve
A quick stroll thru wikipedia suggests that it should have been a ‘J curve’ rather than a ‘J shaped recovery’ (this is what happens when you are processing a lot of vocabulary that you don’t know, I guess). That is described here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J-curve
Here’s a link to the original article in the Financial Times. (No pay wall, although it did ask for a survey question in order to read it.)
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a0015918-99dc-11e3-91cd-00144feab7de.html#axzz2uNnDzOA9
Here’s a link to the original article in the Financial Times. (No pay wall, although it did ask for a survey question in order to read it.)
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/a0015918-99dc-11e3-91cd-00144feab7de.html#axzz2uNnDzOA9
Ok, looking it up, I guess a “J shaped recovery” is one where the economy dips a little, and then takes off like a rocket. It’s basically a mythical entity, like unicorns, it doesn’t happen in the real world.
Though it does find it’s way into official economic projections once in a while, in much the same way unicorns find their way into other varieties of fantasy.
Why would anybody not in a 3rd world country take China as an example of how to manage an economy? Sure, they have achieved some impressive numbers, some of which might even be true. But the cost in environmental damage and human rights has been horrific, and so far China has had it easy, in that all they’ve really had to do is follow where others have led. Soon they’ll have to do new things, and that’s not where command economies excel.
Neither, of course, would I advise anybody to emulate the modern US, with it’s classic “L” shaped recoveries.
Perhaps Japan should look to the pre-handover Hong Kong. Or the US before the regulatory state went metastatic.
But neither China nor the modern US seem to me to provide good models for a healthy economy.
Ok, looking it up, I guess a “J shaped recovery” is one where the economy dips a little, and then takes off like a rocket. It’s basically a mythical entity, like unicorns, it doesn’t happen in the real world.
Though it does find it’s way into official economic projections once in a while, in much the same way unicorns find their way into other varieties of fantasy.
Why would anybody not in a 3rd world country take China as an example of how to manage an economy? Sure, they have achieved some impressive numbers, some of which might even be true. But the cost in environmental damage and human rights has been horrific, and so far China has had it easy, in that all they’ve really had to do is follow where others have led. Soon they’ll have to do new things, and that’s not where command economies excel.
Neither, of course, would I advise anybody to emulate the modern US, with it’s classic “L” shaped recoveries.
Perhaps Japan should look to the pre-handover Hong Kong. Or the US before the regulatory state went metastatic.
But neither China nor the modern US seem to me to provide good models for a healthy economy.
What I would like to know: Is the UK having a “pear-shaped” recovery?
What I would like to know: Is the UK having a “pear-shaped” recovery?
But the cost in environmental damage and human rights has been horrific, and so far China has had it easy, in that all they’ve really had to do is follow where others have led.
In light of recent events, I want to take the opportunity to agree with Brett, at least on the first part. I’m not as sure about the second part, but, on the first part, I concur.
Or the US before the regulatory state went metastatic.
See – I would have said cheap labor in developing countries, like China, and technology have gutted industrial labor demand, which was the life’s blood of the American economy. (But I would add that the regulatory state going metastatic, if taken to mean that the FIRE sector has been allowed to write its own rules, is a big problem recently, though I would imagine that wasn’t the intended meaning.)
But the cost in environmental damage and human rights has been horrific, and so far China has had it easy, in that all they’ve really had to do is follow where others have led.
In light of recent events, I want to take the opportunity to agree with Brett, at least on the first part. I’m not as sure about the second part, but, on the first part, I concur.
Or the US before the regulatory state went metastatic.
See – I would have said cheap labor in developing countries, like China, and technology have gutted industrial labor demand, which was the life’s blood of the American economy. (But I would add that the regulatory state going metastatic, if taken to mean that the FIRE sector has been allowed to write its own rules, is a big problem recently, though I would imagine that wasn’t the intended meaning.)
Or the US before the regulatory state went metastatic.
In your opinion, when did that happen?
We could be talking about the turn of the 20th C., or the 30’s, or the early 60’s, or the 70’s. Or, maybe even some other time.
What are you thinking of when you say this?
Or the US before the regulatory state went metastatic.
In your opinion, when did that happen?
We could be talking about the turn of the 20th C., or the 30’s, or the early 60’s, or the 70’s. Or, maybe even some other time.
What are you thinking of when you say this?
A great deal of it happen during 2000-2008.
A great deal of it happen during 2000-2008.
Charles is right, I think. It’s been getting worse for decades, but the Bush administration really sucked. (The convenient thing about saying that, is that you don’t have to say WHICH Bush administration, since they both did.)
There’s a complex dynamic going on in the area of regulation, that you see in the financial as well as other sectors. Larger players like regulation, because the cost of compliance is not so great for them compared to the smaller players, so it keeps out the riff-raff.
While government can extort by threatening badly written regulations, and then allowing them to be rewritten to be less damaging, in return for some quid pro quo, such as compliance with rules the agency isn’t technically entitled to impose. (This is why, IMO, so many stupid laws are proposed and then dropped in Congress: They’re the visible part of extortion thra
So the line between regulatory capture and regulatory extortion can be hard to identify, without detailed examination of the merits of each particular case. From high altitude, they look the same!
But, generally, I think we’ve got too much of both sorts of regulatory abuse going on, because we’ve delegated too much of the legislative authority to quasi-independent Executive branch agencies, and si
In general, I think there’s a recipe out there for good, sustainable economic growth. Like the “Eat less and exercise more” prescription, it is difficult to implement, because it tells people to do things they don’t want to do: Compete in the marketplace instead of by getting regulators to shut down the competition, don’t use regulatory legislative power for rent seeking.
No fun for anybody in a position to impliment it, IOW.
Charles is right, I think. It’s been getting worse for decades, but the Bush administration really sucked. (The convenient thing about saying that, is that you don’t have to say WHICH Bush administration, since they both did.)
There’s a complex dynamic going on in the area of regulation, that you see in the financial as well as other sectors. Larger players like regulation, because the cost of compliance is not so great for them compared to the smaller players, so it keeps out the riff-raff.
While government can extort by threatening badly written regulations, and then allowing them to be rewritten to be less damaging, in return for some quid pro quo, such as compliance with rules the agency isn’t technically entitled to impose. (This is why, IMO, so many stupid laws are proposed and then dropped in Congress: They’re the visible part of extortion thra
So the line between regulatory capture and regulatory extortion can be hard to identify, without detailed examination of the merits of each particular case. From high altitude, they look the same!
But, generally, I think we’ve got too much of both sorts of regulatory abuse going on, because we’ve delegated too much of the legislative authority to quasi-independent Executive branch agencies, and si
In general, I think there’s a recipe out there for good, sustainable economic growth. Like the “Eat less and exercise more” prescription, it is difficult to implement, because it tells people to do things they don’t want to do: Compete in the marketplace instead of by getting regulators to shut down the competition, don’t use regulatory legislative power for rent seeking.
No fun for anybody in a position to impliment it, IOW.
Whew, something really chewed up that comment!
Anyway, the point is, people are always searching for a “third way”, for the same reason everybody’s looking for a miracle diet. Because what works isn’t any fun.
Whew, something really chewed up that comment!
Anyway, the point is, people are always searching for a “third way”, for the same reason everybody’s looking for a miracle diet. Because what works isn’t any fun.
But the cost in environmental damage and human rights has been horrific..
The costs of the industrialization of the West are in many respects similar…it’s just that we had the luxury of taking it on at a slower pace. Strip mining the Americas and the 3rd world (cf. Belgian Congo) also helped. The British fought wars to maintain the right to sell opium to the Chinese.
So asserting China “has had it easy” is pretty wide of the mark.
But the cost in environmental damage and human rights has been horrific..
The costs of the industrialization of the West are in many respects similar…it’s just that we had the luxury of taking it on at a slower pace. Strip mining the Americas and the 3rd world (cf. Belgian Congo) also helped. The British fought wars to maintain the right to sell opium to the Chinese.
So asserting China “has had it easy” is pretty wide of the mark.
Lots of interesting points there Brett, and thanks for your reply.
What strikes me is that, in the absence of regulation, larger players also find lots of ways of crushing the riff-raff. And, I mean, other than by simply out-competing them.
Likewise, in the absence of regulation, larger players also find lots of ways to capture the functions of government for their own purposes.
I’m not seeing all of that as specifically a consequence of regulation, per se.
Lots of interesting points there Brett, and thanks for your reply.
What strikes me is that, in the absence of regulation, larger players also find lots of ways of crushing the riff-raff. And, I mean, other than by simply out-competing them.
Likewise, in the absence of regulation, larger players also find lots of ways to capture the functions of government for their own purposes.
I’m not seeing all of that as specifically a consequence of regulation, per se.
I’ll try this again, in case the hash table problem with the anti-robot mechanism has cleared up.
By saying that, in the absence of regulation, larger players have lots of ways of crushing the riff-raff, are you conflating the absence of regulation with the absence of law enforcement?
Anyway, you might need a liver, but you don’t need a cancerous liver. You might need regulation, but you need regulation that’s promulgated for rational and publicly defensible reasons, not as a product of regulatory capture or regulatory extortion.
The problem I see is that the one known way of achieving sustained growth, a free market economy, is difficult to implement for the same reason diets fail: It might work, but it’s no fun being a regulator if you can’t indulge in a bit of extortion or bribe taking. It’s very difficult to have a powerful regulatory state that isn’t also corrupt, in a way which defeats much of the purpose of free market competition by replacing it with competition in buying off regulators.
Now, I’ll see if this site is still broken…
I’ll try this again, in case the hash table problem with the anti-robot mechanism has cleared up.
By saying that, in the absence of regulation, larger players have lots of ways of crushing the riff-raff, are you conflating the absence of regulation with the absence of law enforcement?
Anyway, you might need a liver, but you don’t need a cancerous liver. You might need regulation, but you need regulation that’s promulgated for rational and publicly defensible reasons, not as a product of regulatory capture or regulatory extortion.
The problem I see is that the one known way of achieving sustained growth, a free market economy, is difficult to implement for the same reason diets fail: It might work, but it’s no fun being a regulator if you can’t indulge in a bit of extortion or bribe taking. It’s very difficult to have a powerful regulatory state that isn’t also corrupt, in a way which defeats much of the purpose of free market competition by replacing it with competition in buying off regulators.
Now, I’ll see if this site is still broken…
are you conflating the absence of regulation with the absence of law enforcement?
No.
I’m noticing that unregulated markets in this country have historically yielded monopolies or near-monopolies in many industries.
So, for instance, the latter half of the 19th C.
I’m also noticing that “law enforcement” implies “law”, and I’m not sure I see a very bright line between “laws about how businesses may operate” and “regulation”.
My point is that the presence of government regulation, crappy as it often is, doesn’t seem to be a sufficient explanation for market distortions. Because they show up in situations where there is not a whole lot of regulation.
are you conflating the absence of regulation with the absence of law enforcement?
No.
I’m noticing that unregulated markets in this country have historically yielded monopolies or near-monopolies in many industries.
So, for instance, the latter half of the 19th C.
I’m also noticing that “law enforcement” implies “law”, and I’m not sure I see a very bright line between “laws about how businesses may operate” and “regulation”.
My point is that the presence of government regulation, crappy as it often is, doesn’t seem to be a sufficient explanation for market distortions. Because they show up in situations where there is not a whole lot of regulation.
You need a liver, but you don’t need a cancerous liver. And by the same token, you need regulations, but not regulations that are the result of regulatory capture, etc.
So the question arises, for those of a staunch libertarian turn of mind: How do you get to that kind of regulation? Because the impression I get (possibly incorrectly) is that, as far as you all are concerned, all regulation is the bad mind. Or are we in the position of someone who has only the choice of a cancerous liver or no liver?
You need a liver, but you don’t need a cancerous liver. And by the same token, you need regulations, but not regulations that are the result of regulatory capture, etc.
So the question arises, for those of a staunch libertarian turn of mind: How do you get to that kind of regulation? Because the impression I get (possibly incorrectly) is that, as far as you all are concerned, all regulation is the bad mind. Or are we in the position of someone who has only the choice of a cancerous liver or no liver?
In history as it actually happened, how true has it been that “the one known way of achieving sustained growth [is] a free market economy”?
I’m not thinking of modern-day China particularly. How Free was The Market in Adam Smith’s England? Bismark’s Germany? Henry Ford’s America?
I understand perfectly well that the USSR was a miserable failure at creating wealth because it had the very opposite of a Free Market Economy — though I suspect its environmental, safety, and other do-good-type regulations were probably not terribly onerous.
But I sometimes get the impression that “free market economy” is more shibboleth than taxonomy.
–TP
In history as it actually happened, how true has it been that “the one known way of achieving sustained growth [is] a free market economy”?
I’m not thinking of modern-day China particularly. How Free was The Market in Adam Smith’s England? Bismark’s Germany? Henry Ford’s America?
I understand perfectly well that the USSR was a miserable failure at creating wealth because it had the very opposite of a Free Market Economy — though I suspect its environmental, safety, and other do-good-type regulations were probably not terribly onerous.
But I sometimes get the impression that “free market economy” is more shibboleth than taxonomy.
–TP
Brett: Why would anybody not in a 3rd world country take China as an example of how to manage an economy?
Brett: so far China has had it easy
Not sure what date you’re starting from. I certainly wouldn’t recommend Mao as an example of how to manage an economy. What Mao left – I’ve thought a lot about how someone would turn China into a democratic, reasonably socialist, capitalist … whatever … economy. Obviously, the rampant corruption is a bad thing (which distorts the picture everywhere, including the U.S.)
To me, China is a horror/Cinderella story. I doubt that a lot of people (talking about a billion or so) could imagine the life that they have now, compared to the 1970’s – when I became an adult. Everyone alive who knows a person in China who is about their age: just do a compare and contrast. If your mind is not blown away, you haven’t been paying attention. China used to be North Korea. Now it’s a place where Western people can live and have fun.
That isn’t necessarily an argument that China is an example how to run an economy (I don’t want the U.S. to be China), but how China should have run China? Not sure I have a lot of advice to offer.
Brett: Why would anybody not in a 3rd world country take China as an example of how to manage an economy?
Brett: so far China has had it easy
Not sure what date you’re starting from. I certainly wouldn’t recommend Mao as an example of how to manage an economy. What Mao left – I’ve thought a lot about how someone would turn China into a democratic, reasonably socialist, capitalist … whatever … economy. Obviously, the rampant corruption is a bad thing (which distorts the picture everywhere, including the U.S.)
To me, China is a horror/Cinderella story. I doubt that a lot of people (talking about a billion or so) could imagine the life that they have now, compared to the 1970’s – when I became an adult. Everyone alive who knows a person in China who is about their age: just do a compare and contrast. If your mind is not blown away, you haven’t been paying attention. China used to be North Korea. Now it’s a place where Western people can live and have fun.
That isn’t necessarily an argument that China is an example how to run an economy (I don’t want the U.S. to be China), but how China should have run China? Not sure I have a lot of advice to offer.
Now it’s a place where Western people can live and have fun.
Oh, sorry, re-read that. Can live and have fun not a la Dennis Rodman. Can live and have fun with Chinese people who are living and having fun in a way that westerners might find somewhat familiar.
Now it’s a place where Western people can live and have fun.
Oh, sorry, re-read that. Can live and have fun not a la Dennis Rodman. Can live and have fun with Chinese people who are living and having fun in a way that westerners might find somewhat familiar.
wj:
Can’t speak for anybody but myself. You asked a good question, and I have a very incomplete answer. Russell has called me on this before, but at the end of the day, the devil is in the details. I don’t have any “bright lines” for you off the top of my head. If I was a philosopher and legal scholar I might be able to give you better answers. But here’s my attempt, in part by extending your liver analogy.
You need a liver, but you don’t need a cancerous liver.
Let’s take a liver. One of the primary functions is to clear toxins from your body. And its quite adaptable. It will engage in compensatory hypertrophy in the case of a chronically increased toxic load. Take too much tylenol? Take it regularly? Your liver will enlarge to better handle it. It’s actually quite impressive to the extent it can do this.
Ask to much of it, however, and hypertrophy isn’t enough. Your hepatocytes (liver cells) will struggle to keep up. In order to respond to the toxic load they will do all sorts of things to keep functioning. A lot of these things are really similar to cancer: excess proliferation and survival. A little slip here or there leads to fibrosis and neoplasia. The liver is either on the way to failure, or metastasis. The body suffers and falls as a whole.
(Way, way simplified, btw)
Because the impression I get (possibly incorrectly) is that, as far as you all are concerned, all regulation is the bad mind.
Not in my case anyway. But let’s take that tortured liver back to government. This is where my answer gets admittedly inadequate and I’m only going to try to express it in broad strokes. If that’s insufficient for, fine, I’m not pegging high hopes on winning you over, but I think it would take me days or weeks to really give you something close to a complete answer.
For better or worse, we are governed by the voters. By ourselves. Every single law or regulation enacted is done so with the consent or complicity of the voters. As the number of regulations and laws increases, the chance that any one will float to the top of the public consciousness and debate asymptotically goes to zero. If it’s not in the public eye (and sometimes if it is), it becomes trivial for an interest group to game the system.
Obviously, running a country like the US involves more detail than any single person can focus on. We have congress to focus our will, and the president to staff the executive departments, and civil servants to carry out the work. But we also have experts, and think tanks, and NGOs, and coalitions, and organizations feeding information to journalists who report to the public. And these are essential components of a democracy, and they serve to investigate and distill down complex topics to the public.
But they can only go so far. The more the government does, the more needs to be distilled, and the less likely even a blatantly obvious choice like ‘should we fund corn-EtOH’ gets public attention.
So, I would want regulation minimized and executed at the lowest form of government possible, to better enable any voter that wants to be informed to have the capacity to do so. Because the people ARE the government.
And…that’s where I get vague, handwavy, and apologetic. Because that’s not a bright line, its a rule of thumb. And like all rules of thumb, the application tends to vary. There’s a few other points I wanted to make about how some methods of government action are less risky than others, but I think I’ve gone on long enough.
And to bring it back to your analogy:
Or are we in the position of someone who has only the choice of a cancerous liver or no liver?
You need a liver, but if you ask too much of it, you create an environment permissive to failure.
wj:
Can’t speak for anybody but myself. You asked a good question, and I have a very incomplete answer. Russell has called me on this before, but at the end of the day, the devil is in the details. I don’t have any “bright lines” for you off the top of my head. If I was a philosopher and legal scholar I might be able to give you better answers. But here’s my attempt, in part by extending your liver analogy.
You need a liver, but you don’t need a cancerous liver.
Let’s take a liver. One of the primary functions is to clear toxins from your body. And its quite adaptable. It will engage in compensatory hypertrophy in the case of a chronically increased toxic load. Take too much tylenol? Take it regularly? Your liver will enlarge to better handle it. It’s actually quite impressive to the extent it can do this.
Ask to much of it, however, and hypertrophy isn’t enough. Your hepatocytes (liver cells) will struggle to keep up. In order to respond to the toxic load they will do all sorts of things to keep functioning. A lot of these things are really similar to cancer: excess proliferation and survival. A little slip here or there leads to fibrosis and neoplasia. The liver is either on the way to failure, or metastasis. The body suffers and falls as a whole.
(Way, way simplified, btw)
Because the impression I get (possibly incorrectly) is that, as far as you all are concerned, all regulation is the bad mind.
Not in my case anyway. But let’s take that tortured liver back to government. This is where my answer gets admittedly inadequate and I’m only going to try to express it in broad strokes. If that’s insufficient for, fine, I’m not pegging high hopes on winning you over, but I think it would take me days or weeks to really give you something close to a complete answer.
For better or worse, we are governed by the voters. By ourselves. Every single law or regulation enacted is done so with the consent or complicity of the voters. As the number of regulations and laws increases, the chance that any one will float to the top of the public consciousness and debate asymptotically goes to zero. If it’s not in the public eye (and sometimes if it is), it becomes trivial for an interest group to game the system.
Obviously, running a country like the US involves more detail than any single person can focus on. We have congress to focus our will, and the president to staff the executive departments, and civil servants to carry out the work. But we also have experts, and think tanks, and NGOs, and coalitions, and organizations feeding information to journalists who report to the public. And these are essential components of a democracy, and they serve to investigate and distill down complex topics to the public.
But they can only go so far. The more the government does, the more needs to be distilled, and the less likely even a blatantly obvious choice like ‘should we fund corn-EtOH’ gets public attention.
So, I would want regulation minimized and executed at the lowest form of government possible, to better enable any voter that wants to be informed to have the capacity to do so. Because the people ARE the government.
And…that’s where I get vague, handwavy, and apologetic. Because that’s not a bright line, its a rule of thumb. And like all rules of thumb, the application tends to vary. There’s a few other points I wanted to make about how some methods of government action are less risky than others, but I think I’ve gone on long enough.
And to bring it back to your analogy:
Or are we in the position of someone who has only the choice of a cancerous liver or no liver?
You need a liver, but if you ask too much of it, you create an environment permissive to failure.
I suppose the question is, once we have gotten too many regulations (just for simplicity, say too many regulations in one area), what are your chances of clearing out the underbrush and getting back to a reasonable level? I suppose one place we can see is to watch someone try.
For example, nobody would argue that the tax code doesn’t need a drastic simplification. We might argue about what specific bits ought to get changed, but I doubt anybody would argue that nothing ought to be cut. So, now we have Congressman Camp offering up a proposed revision to the tax code — with specifics. Will we see it get condiseration? Even if it gets changed, does some kind of simplification move along? Or does it die before it ever gets anywhere near a floor vote?
I suppose the question is, once we have gotten too many regulations (just for simplicity, say too many regulations in one area), what are your chances of clearing out the underbrush and getting back to a reasonable level? I suppose one place we can see is to watch someone try.
For example, nobody would argue that the tax code doesn’t need a drastic simplification. We might argue about what specific bits ought to get changed, but I doubt anybody would argue that nothing ought to be cut. So, now we have Congressman Camp offering up a proposed revision to the tax code — with specifics. Will we see it get condiseration? Even if it gets changed, does some kind of simplification move along? Or does it die before it ever gets anywhere near a floor vote?
wj:
what are your chances of clearing out the underbrush and getting back to a reasonable level?
Negligible, but I’m game to try. Part of the problem (in my mind) is that negotiations tend to fall along party lines and you generally need at least nominal bipartisan support. It’s staggeringly difficult to accumulate the base of either party and recruit some of the other side.
It’s one of the reasons I’d like to see more 3rd party support. Alliances between multiple parties are more fluid than “us v them.”
Will we see it get condiseration?
I hope so, but I’m not too optimistic. It’s a polarized environment. He can’t offer anything to acceptable to democrats or his party will abandon him. And democrats can’t accept anything anyway because it’s coming from a republican.
As you noted, there is probably a lot of room for agreement. But a congressman making a bold stand for exemption X or tax rate Y makes for much better cable news coverage.
wj:
what are your chances of clearing out the underbrush and getting back to a reasonable level?
Negligible, but I’m game to try. Part of the problem (in my mind) is that negotiations tend to fall along party lines and you generally need at least nominal bipartisan support. It’s staggeringly difficult to accumulate the base of either party and recruit some of the other side.
It’s one of the reasons I’d like to see more 3rd party support. Alliances between multiple parties are more fluid than “us v them.”
Will we see it get condiseration?
I hope so, but I’m not too optimistic. It’s a polarized environment. He can’t offer anything to acceptable to democrats or his party will abandon him. And democrats can’t accept anything anyway because it’s coming from a republican.
As you noted, there is probably a lot of room for agreement. But a congressman making a bold stand for exemption X or tax rate Y makes for much better cable news coverage.
I don’t think a third party approach is viable. From a couple of centuries experience, it looks like we get two parties. And the only way a third one gets in is if there is some massive issue (slavery in the type case) which galvanizes enough people to replace one of the existing parties with a new one. Not seeing an issue like that at the moment.
But we do have an indication that there may be another way. California has implemented two things which appear (so far) to have moved our legislature towards less polarization and more moderation and cooperation. 1) We forcably extracted redistricting from the legislature and gave it to a non-partisan citizens’ commission. 2) we forced thru open primaries — anyone can vote for any candidate, and the top two (regardless of party) get into the general election. Result, being radical and playing to the party base is no longer a safe route to nomination.
As a result, we get more moderate legislators (even in “safe” districts), and more cooperation once they are in office. See this article from the SF Chronicle
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/diaz/article/How-California-tamed-its-once-dysfunctional-5256895.php
I don’t think a third party approach is viable. From a couple of centuries experience, it looks like we get two parties. And the only way a third one gets in is if there is some massive issue (slavery in the type case) which galvanizes enough people to replace one of the existing parties with a new one. Not seeing an issue like that at the moment.
But we do have an indication that there may be another way. California has implemented two things which appear (so far) to have moved our legislature towards less polarization and more moderation and cooperation. 1) We forcably extracted redistricting from the legislature and gave it to a non-partisan citizens’ commission. 2) we forced thru open primaries — anyone can vote for any candidate, and the top two (regardless of party) get into the general election. Result, being radical and playing to the party base is no longer a safe route to nomination.
As a result, we get more moderate legislators (even in “safe” districts), and more cooperation once they are in office. See this article from the SF Chronicle
http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/diaz/article/How-California-tamed-its-once-dysfunctional-5256895.php
Yeah, two parties is definitely the low energy state. I’m familiar with both those efforts by CA and think they are good things.
I like to think (way optimistically) that measures like that will break the lock of the two party system, or at the very least make the party lines less distinct.
California, in a lot of ways, is a bizarre place. There is extreme left, and extreme right, which seem to dominate the discussion. But overall, most people I know seem pretty center of the road.
Yeah, two parties is definitely the low energy state. I’m familiar with both those efforts by CA and think they are good things.
I like to think (way optimistically) that measures like that will break the lock of the two party system, or at the very least make the party lines less distinct.
California, in a lot of ways, is a bizarre place. There is extreme left, and extreme right, which seem to dominate the discussion. But overall, most people I know seem pretty center of the road.
I don’t think the 3rd party approach is viable anymore. What California did is part of that, it was designed to kill off third parties, and is working.
And, that third parties aren’t viable anymore is part of the problem. The duopoly has been running a scam for a long time: The Republicans say, “Maybe you don’t like us, but we’re not as bad as the Democrats!”. And from the viewpoint of somebody on the right, that’s true, the GOP is awful, but the Democratic party is worse.
Meanwhile, the Democratic party pulls off the same scam. “Obama might be blowing away wedding parties with drone attacks, but at least he’s not George Bush.” Too true, if you’re a liberal; Obama is a somewhat liberalish wretched tyrant.
And, with each election cycle, they get worse, because that their side thinks the other is worse gives them room to get away with it.
The problem with this scam is that somebody might say, “Maybe you’re not as bad as “X”, but I’m going to vote for “Y”, who’s better than both of you!”
But not if you implement a top TWO primary system. (Why the hell not top THREE???) Or write ballot access laws so third parties spend all their money getting on the ballot, and have nothing left to campaign with. Or persuade media outlets to stop reporting on third party candidates. Or kick the League of Women Voters out of the debate game because they tried including a third party candidate…
I was a member of the Libertarian party almost from the day of it’s creation, I joined within months. I watched, year after year, as the legal and informal barriers to third parties were erected. Till I finally gave up on the effort back in the 90’s as hopeless.
Third parties aren’t viable? The major parties put a lot of work into seeing to that. And, because they did, the possiblity of a third party doesn’t act as a check on how bad they can get anymore, and they’re both getting worse.
“I like to think (way optimistically) that measures like that will break the lock of the two party system, or at the very least make the party lines less distinct.”
Oh, joy. You’re going to replace a two party system with a One party system., and you imagine that’s going to improve things?
I don’t think the 3rd party approach is viable anymore. What California did is part of that, it was designed to kill off third parties, and is working.
And, that third parties aren’t viable anymore is part of the problem. The duopoly has been running a scam for a long time: The Republicans say, “Maybe you don’t like us, but we’re not as bad as the Democrats!”. And from the viewpoint of somebody on the right, that’s true, the GOP is awful, but the Democratic party is worse.
Meanwhile, the Democratic party pulls off the same scam. “Obama might be blowing away wedding parties with drone attacks, but at least he’s not George Bush.” Too true, if you’re a liberal; Obama is a somewhat liberalish wretched tyrant.
And, with each election cycle, they get worse, because that their side thinks the other is worse gives them room to get away with it.
The problem with this scam is that somebody might say, “Maybe you’re not as bad as “X”, but I’m going to vote for “Y”, who’s better than both of you!”
But not if you implement a top TWO primary system. (Why the hell not top THREE???) Or write ballot access laws so third parties spend all their money getting on the ballot, and have nothing left to campaign with. Or persuade media outlets to stop reporting on third party candidates. Or kick the League of Women Voters out of the debate game because they tried including a third party candidate…
I was a member of the Libertarian party almost from the day of it’s creation, I joined within months. I watched, year after year, as the legal and informal barriers to third parties were erected. Till I finally gave up on the effort back in the 90’s as hopeless.
Third parties aren’t viable? The major parties put a lot of work into seeing to that. And, because they did, the possiblity of a third party doesn’t act as a check on how bad they can get anymore, and they’re both getting worse.
“I like to think (way optimistically) that measures like that will break the lock of the two party system, or at the very least make the party lines less distinct.”
Oh, joy. You’re going to replace a two party system with a One party system., and you imagine that’s going to improve things?
I would want regulation minimized and executed at the lowest form of government possible
Can local governments effectively regulate things that are larger in scope than they are?
And I’ll rephrase this:
My point is that the presence of government regulation, crappy as it often is, doesn’t seem to be a sufficient explanation for market distortions.
More accurately, my point is that the absence of regulation doesn’t result in free markets.
I would want regulation minimized and executed at the lowest form of government possible
Can local governments effectively regulate things that are larger in scope than they are?
And I’ll rephrase this:
My point is that the presence of government regulation, crappy as it often is, doesn’t seem to be a sufficient explanation for market distortions.
More accurately, my point is that the absence of regulation doesn’t result in free markets.
Regulation, as crappy as it is, is likely to be preferable to using the legal system (civil and criminal) to enforce standards of behavior for businesses.
Certainly this is true for individuals, where the cost/effort/time/%success barriers are crippling, but also even when governments or other businesses are bringing the cases.
I would think (but do not know for sure) that most businesses would prefer to deal with a regulator in advance of problems, than paying lots of legal bills and perhaps being socked with a huge award.
All of the above assumes honesty and good intentions by all concerned, which seems to be in short supply. When one political party seems to be devoted to both making regulation ineffective and also to block any remedies through the legal system, then it’s pretty clear whose side they are on.
Regulation, as crappy as it is, is likely to be preferable to using the legal system (civil and criminal) to enforce standards of behavior for businesses.
Certainly this is true for individuals, where the cost/effort/time/%success barriers are crippling, but also even when governments or other businesses are bringing the cases.
I would think (but do not know for sure) that most businesses would prefer to deal with a regulator in advance of problems, than paying lots of legal bills and perhaps being socked with a huge award.
All of the above assumes honesty and good intentions by all concerned, which seems to be in short supply. When one political party seems to be devoted to both making regulation ineffective and also to block any remedies through the legal system, then it’s pretty clear whose side they are on.
wj,
Bracket simplification does not necessarily equal tax reform. The devil is in the details (oh, crap. I’v a bad case of thompsonitis this am)
See Jared Bernstein here and Dean Baker here for example. I would give Rep. Camp a C+ for effort, however.
wj,
Bracket simplification does not necessarily equal tax reform. The devil is in the details (oh, crap. I’v a bad case of thompsonitis this am)
See Jared Bernstein here and Dean Baker here for example. I would give Rep. Camp a C+ for effort, however.
or, perhaps, the Libertarian Party simply has a very narrow and limited appeal*, and just couldn’t get enough popular support to overcome the things the other parties will (quite naturally) do to block competition. perhaps the Libertarians should do what the Tea “Party” did: establish itself as a bloc within the GOP. they’ve been pretty effective at fncking-up the mainstream GOP (if little else).
* yes yes, from the inside all Parties look as if they should be the natural home to all smart people
or, perhaps, the Libertarian Party simply has a very narrow and limited appeal*, and just couldn’t get enough popular support to overcome the things the other parties will (quite naturally) do to block competition. perhaps the Libertarians should do what the Tea “Party” did: establish itself as a bloc within the GOP. they’ve been pretty effective at fncking-up the mainstream GOP (if little else).
* yes yes, from the inside all Parties look as if they should be the natural home to all smart people
With winner-take-all, the system of checks and balances, and absent a parliamentary system, the two party system was baked into the cake by the Founders. Much as they claimed to hate “faction”, two of them formed almost immediately. The election of 1800 was one of unsurpassed nastiness. Maybe that’s what they really wanted, eh? Food for thought.
If you reside in a comparatively competitive district and vote 3rd party, you are essentially throwing away your vote.
With winner-take-all, the system of checks and balances, and absent a parliamentary system, the two party system was baked into the cake by the Founders. Much as they claimed to hate “faction”, two of them formed almost immediately. The election of 1800 was one of unsurpassed nastiness. Maybe that’s what they really wanted, eh? Food for thought.
If you reside in a comparatively competitive district and vote 3rd party, you are essentially throwing away your vote.
For all you libertarians out there:
Free markets? We don’t need any stinking free markets!
A case of “regulation at the lowest level”?
For all you libertarians out there:
Free markets? We don’t need any stinking free markets!
A case of “regulation at the lowest level”?
“I would want regulation minimized and executed at the lowest form of government possible.”
I submit that the depredations of regulation and other government interference in private decisions (ie: protection rackets which maintain entrenched and monopoly businesses at the cost of limiting competition) cited throughout this thread by the libertarian-minded are as great and collectively much worse the farther down the governing food chain you go.
“the lowest form of government” is in many cases exactly THAT the more local your corruption becomes.
One reason to like local control is to make sure your brother-in-law or a cousin is in place on the local governing boards (not so available the farther up the food chain you go from local to state to federal; in fact, I think that’s one reason why Americans mistrust the larger gummint institutions — because they are less likely to carve out corrupt individual exceptions for the connected, not that the American citizenry haven’t increasingly tried to make state and federal governments as corrupt as their good ole boy networks back home) to enable crony capitalism.
I’m sure YMMV.
I give you the crypto-libertarian-religious, by their own standards, state of Texas, not because I like picking on them (some of my favorite people live there) but every time I google this stuff, Texas comes up first.
Or South Carolina. Or Georgia. Or Arizona. Or everywhere else, except that everywhere else rarely claim to be climates for pristine high standards of governance. Hell, New Jersey and Illinois brag about the very opposite.
Two examples:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-texas-us-now-054418312.html
http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2014/02/24/exxon-ceo-fighting-water-tower-near-his-house-out.html
Regarding that last cite, may the Keystone Pipeline pass through the Exxon CEO’s and Dick Armey’s basements, or right down the middle of their marital beds, on it’s way to the Gulf of Mexico, and may the shale structures underneath their estates be thoroughly fracked.
Fracking is here to stay, of course. Just ask the landowners in western PA who are against it and have no choice in the matter, by design of the governments closest to them, which are merely agents for forcing corporate control.
That is gradually changing.
Generally speaking, the private sector doesn’t have much use for individual consumers (a word that reduces every individual to a behavioral vacuole to be manipulated) acting as independent, free agencies either:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chunkamui/2011/10/17/five-dangerous-lessons-to-learn-from-steve-jobs/
“Let’s take a liver.” As Henny Youngman would frame it, that request should be followed by a “please”.
Whoa, not so fast:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aclS1pGHp8o
I worry more about the folks (I’m not speaking of anyone here, since OBWI is home to relatively high coherence and intelligent discussion, despite our fundamental differences; if I thought about it for a second I could probably cite exceptions, including me, so I won’t) who have a cancerous liver and want the government (the corrupt one, over there, that taxes) to keep it hands off Medicare so that all citizens have the choice of keeping their cancerous livers if they deem it their free constitutional choice to duly keep their cancerous livers without government meddling, especially if they can’t afford a fresh liver and must resort to organ redistribution, which would be socialism.
Regarding energy and power sources, without arguing their relative merits, whatever choices are made are both private, governmental, and societal “collective” decisions, nearly always made without the weighing of individual, libertarian sentiment of either the right or the left.
If Keystone is approved, there will be some very angry Republican, libertarian ranchers and farmers whose land is encroached upon, despite their non-regulatory, free market, pro-corporate leanings (most of them lean so far that they fall over onto their own swords).
They will be FORCED.
If nuclear in its various forms is adopted widely, again without arguing its relative merits, if you live in a geographical area served by this source of power, you’ll have little choice but to accept it.
You’ll be forced. You’ll have no choice, if you plan on staying put. Whether its government or the private sector forcing you makes little difference.
Like the Comanche, your opinions on the matter one way or the other will be wiped off the face of the Earth at the hands of private actors and if that doesn’t work, the private hands will make up some sh*t like “manifest destiny” to justify bringing in the government cavalry (the Texas Rangers if your tastes run to local control) to achieve their ends.
You can stand your ground like the Comanche, but you will lose.
“I would want regulation minimized and executed at the lowest form of government possible.”
I submit that the depredations of regulation and other government interference in private decisions (ie: protection rackets which maintain entrenched and monopoly businesses at the cost of limiting competition) cited throughout this thread by the libertarian-minded are as great and collectively much worse the farther down the governing food chain you go.
“the lowest form of government” is in many cases exactly THAT the more local your corruption becomes.
One reason to like local control is to make sure your brother-in-law or a cousin is in place on the local governing boards (not so available the farther up the food chain you go from local to state to federal; in fact, I think that’s one reason why Americans mistrust the larger gummint institutions — because they are less likely to carve out corrupt individual exceptions for the connected, not that the American citizenry haven’t increasingly tried to make state and federal governments as corrupt as their good ole boy networks back home) to enable crony capitalism.
I’m sure YMMV.
I give you the crypto-libertarian-religious, by their own standards, state of Texas, not because I like picking on them (some of my favorite people live there) but every time I google this stuff, Texas comes up first.
Or South Carolina. Or Georgia. Or Arizona. Or everywhere else, except that everywhere else rarely claim to be climates for pristine high standards of governance. Hell, New Jersey and Illinois brag about the very opposite.
Two examples:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tesla-texas-us-now-054418312.html
http://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2014/02/24/exxon-ceo-fighting-water-tower-near-his-house-out.html
Regarding that last cite, may the Keystone Pipeline pass through the Exxon CEO’s and Dick Armey’s basements, or right down the middle of their marital beds, on it’s way to the Gulf of Mexico, and may the shale structures underneath their estates be thoroughly fracked.
Fracking is here to stay, of course. Just ask the landowners in western PA who are against it and have no choice in the matter, by design of the governments closest to them, which are merely agents for forcing corporate control.
That is gradually changing.
Generally speaking, the private sector doesn’t have much use for individual consumers (a word that reduces every individual to a behavioral vacuole to be manipulated) acting as independent, free agencies either:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/chunkamui/2011/10/17/five-dangerous-lessons-to-learn-from-steve-jobs/
“Let’s take a liver.” As Henny Youngman would frame it, that request should be followed by a “please”.
Whoa, not so fast:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aclS1pGHp8o
I worry more about the folks (I’m not speaking of anyone here, since OBWI is home to relatively high coherence and intelligent discussion, despite our fundamental differences; if I thought about it for a second I could probably cite exceptions, including me, so I won’t) who have a cancerous liver and want the government (the corrupt one, over there, that taxes) to keep it hands off Medicare so that all citizens have the choice of keeping their cancerous livers if they deem it their free constitutional choice to duly keep their cancerous livers without government meddling, especially if they can’t afford a fresh liver and must resort to organ redistribution, which would be socialism.
Regarding energy and power sources, without arguing their relative merits, whatever choices are made are both private, governmental, and societal “collective” decisions, nearly always made without the weighing of individual, libertarian sentiment of either the right or the left.
If Keystone is approved, there will be some very angry Republican, libertarian ranchers and farmers whose land is encroached upon, despite their non-regulatory, free market, pro-corporate leanings (most of them lean so far that they fall over onto their own swords).
They will be FORCED.
If nuclear in its various forms is adopted widely, again without arguing its relative merits, if you live in a geographical area served by this source of power, you’ll have little choice but to accept it.
You’ll be forced. You’ll have no choice, if you plan on staying put. Whether its government or the private sector forcing you makes little difference.
Like the Comanche, your opinions on the matter one way or the other will be wiped off the face of the Earth at the hands of private actors and if that doesn’t work, the private hands will make up some sh*t like “manifest destiny” to justify bringing in the government cavalry (the Texas Rangers if your tastes run to local control) to achieve their ends.
You can stand your ground like the Comanche, but you will lose.
Brett, actually the Top Two open primary is something that makes it easier for a third party to get some traction. Granted, your candidate has to make her case in the primary, not the general election. But there are a lot more candidates running at that point, all of them with less funding than in the general election. Which means the barrier to entry is lower.
Granted, you do have to make a case that will convince a lot of primary voters. But you don’t have to convince a majority of them — and when we sometimes see two candidates from the same party make the general election ballot, clearly there is a shot at convincing enough. And once you do that, suddenly you are one of only two candidates that the voters are picking among come the general election.
So no, I don’t see it as a further barrier to third party candidates winning election. I see it as easing the existing barriers.
Brett, actually the Top Two open primary is something that makes it easier for a third party to get some traction. Granted, your candidate has to make her case in the primary, not the general election. But there are a lot more candidates running at that point, all of them with less funding than in the general election. Which means the barrier to entry is lower.
Granted, you do have to make a case that will convince a lot of primary voters. But you don’t have to convince a majority of them — and when we sometimes see two candidates from the same party make the general election ballot, clearly there is a shot at convincing enough. And once you do that, suddenly you are one of only two candidates that the voters are picking among come the general election.
So no, I don’t see it as a further barrier to third party candidates winning election. I see it as easing the existing barriers.
If you want to end the two-party state, all you need is a transferrable voting system, so that voters can express their preferences for more marginal candidates ahead of the mainstream. The “mainstream” will very quickly evolve…
If you want to end the two-party state, all you need is a transferrable voting system, so that voters can express their preferences for more marginal candidates ahead of the mainstream. The “mainstream” will very quickly evolve…
“Brett, actually the Top Two open primary is something that makes it easier for a third party to get some traction.”
Strange, then, that all the actual third parties say the exact opposite.
“Brett, actually the Top Two open primary is something that makes it easier for a third party to get some traction.”
Strange, then, that all the actual third parties say the exact opposite.
“If you want to end the two-party state, all you need is a transferrable voting system, so that voters can express their preferences for more marginal candidates ahead of the mainstream.”
I’ve proposed something like that: Let anybody get a legislative position, if they want it, but the vote they get in the legislature is proportional to the number of proxies other people authorize them to exercise. It would completely obsolete gerrymandering.
It’s going nowhere, because the two major parties make the rules. And they make the rules to kill the competition.
“If you want to end the two-party state, all you need is a transferrable voting system, so that voters can express their preferences for more marginal candidates ahead of the mainstream.”
I’ve proposed something like that: Let anybody get a legislative position, if they want it, but the vote they get in the legislature is proportional to the number of proxies other people authorize them to exercise. It would completely obsolete gerrymandering.
It’s going nowhere, because the two major parties make the rules. And they make the rules to kill the competition.
Here’s how you stymie the corrupt, illegal influences at the lowest levels of government possible:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/nra-rhode-island-pac
Here’s how you stymie the corrupt, illegal influences at the lowest levels of government possible:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/muckraker/nra-rhode-island-pac
I hadn’t realized that the new Top Two system had so drastically increased the number of signatures to get on the Primary ballot. That obviously isn’t a necessary part of the system. And it is something that ought to get fixed. (Like most laws, initiatives frequently need tweaking once they are in place.)
I hadn’t realized that the new Top Two system had so drastically increased the number of signatures to get on the Primary ballot. That obviously isn’t a necessary part of the system. And it is something that ought to get fixed. (Like most laws, initiatives frequently need tweaking once they are in place.)
It’s going nowhere… Well is it not the case that ‘going there’ would require amending the various state constitutions?
It’s going nowhere… Well is it not the case that ‘going there’ would require amending the various state constitutions?
Strange, then, that all the actual third parties say the exact opposite.
Ugh. Here’s what I mean about voters not being able to focus on everything at once. Thanks for that Brett.
I still like the concept, but like wj says it needs to be fixed.
Again.
oh, crap. I’v a bad case of thompsonitis this am
Careful. If it progresses it can lead to liver atrophy.
russell:
Can local governments effectively regulate things that are larger in scope than they are?
Not effectively, no. But the things that can be handled locally, should be. Details, details, etc, etc, feel free to point out I didn’t actually offer a concrete solution to a specific problem.
More accurately, my point is that the absence of regulation doesn’t result in free markets.
Too true. And lots of regulation doesn’t equal fair markets.
Regulation isn’t inherently “good” or “bad”. It’s inherently burdensome, I suppose, because it needs to be paid for and complied with.
Often the conversation gets stuck between corporate vs. government sources of power and appeals to which side are you on.
Granting the government regulatory power is not synonymous with restricting corporate power.
Regulations and their potential effects should be weighed carefully by those ultimately responsible for the government: in a democracy, its the people.
And at some point you brought up bring externalities into the pricing structure? I have no specific objection to that in concept, depending on the implementation it may be subject to problems, and I personally don’t view it as that effective of a solution to AGW.
Like the bulbs: think its probably not going to do much, not a huge issue (depending on how its implemented), don’t really care.
The answer, in my mind, is investment in R&D, encouragement of fission, stop using coal.
Strange, then, that all the actual third parties say the exact opposite.
Ugh. Here’s what I mean about voters not being able to focus on everything at once. Thanks for that Brett.
I still like the concept, but like wj says it needs to be fixed.
Again.
oh, crap. I’v a bad case of thompsonitis this am
Careful. If it progresses it can lead to liver atrophy.
russell:
Can local governments effectively regulate things that are larger in scope than they are?
Not effectively, no. But the things that can be handled locally, should be. Details, details, etc, etc, feel free to point out I didn’t actually offer a concrete solution to a specific problem.
More accurately, my point is that the absence of regulation doesn’t result in free markets.
Too true. And lots of regulation doesn’t equal fair markets.
Regulation isn’t inherently “good” or “bad”. It’s inherently burdensome, I suppose, because it needs to be paid for and complied with.
Often the conversation gets stuck between corporate vs. government sources of power and appeals to which side are you on.
Granting the government regulatory power is not synonymous with restricting corporate power.
Regulations and their potential effects should be weighed carefully by those ultimately responsible for the government: in a democracy, its the people.
And at some point you brought up bring externalities into the pricing structure? I have no specific objection to that in concept, depending on the implementation it may be subject to problems, and I personally don’t view it as that effective of a solution to AGW.
Like the bulbs: think its probably not going to do much, not a huge issue (depending on how its implemented), don’t really care.
The answer, in my mind, is investment in R&D, encouragement of fission, stop using coal.
“Ugh. Here’s what I mean about voters not being able to focus on everything at once. Thanks for that Brett.”
You’re welcome. That’s the difference between being a major party member, or perhaps independent, and having spent most of your political life in a third party. It’s a lot easier to take these things as exercises in good faith, when you haven’t been the covert target of them for decades.
Actual members of third parties are aware that changes to election and campaign finance laws almost always involve some kind of buried attack on third parties. It’s a given.
You’re meant to think third parties fail because that’s just the way things are in a first past the post system. The truth is they’ve been under systematic attack for approaching 40 years now.
“Ugh. Here’s what I mean about voters not being able to focus on everything at once. Thanks for that Brett.”
You’re welcome. That’s the difference between being a major party member, or perhaps independent, and having spent most of your political life in a third party. It’s a lot easier to take these things as exercises in good faith, when you haven’t been the covert target of them for decades.
Actual members of third parties are aware that changes to election and campaign finance laws almost always involve some kind of buried attack on third parties. It’s a given.
You’re meant to think third parties fail because that’s just the way things are in a first past the post system. The truth is they’ve been under systematic attack for approaching 40 years now.
So, what we want is just enough regulation, and of the right kind.
I personally don’t view it as that effective of a solution to AGW.
To me, the value of pricing externalities into fossil fuels (or any energy source, or anything else for that matter) is that it makes the price signal accurate.
Which, in turn, should help the market dynamics to yield an optimal result.
It’s not a “solution to AGW”, there isn’t any one thing that’s a solution to AGW. It’s a simple way to decisions about power sources that much more rational.
So, what we want is just enough regulation, and of the right kind.
I personally don’t view it as that effective of a solution to AGW.
To me, the value of pricing externalities into fossil fuels (or any energy source, or anything else for that matter) is that it makes the price signal accurate.
Which, in turn, should help the market dynamics to yield an optimal result.
It’s not a “solution to AGW”, there isn’t any one thing that’s a solution to AGW. It’s a simple way to decisions about power sources that much more rational.
What you need is 50 ways to love your liver.
/Portnoy
What you need is 50 ways to love your liver.
/Portnoy
Brett:
The truth is they’ve been under systematic attack for approaching 40 years now.
The system wasn’t built for more than 2 parties, and there is vested interest in keeping it that way. I recognize that.
Russell:
So, what we want is just enough regulation, and of the right kind.
Yep. Exactly. Which I imagine doesn’t strike you as a bizarre concept. Regarding the details we probably disagree on some specific cases (and agree in some).
Which, in turn, should help the market dynamics to yield an optimal result.
Yeah, I’m all for it. That’s the kind of government action that can engage and support the free market, which can be a powerful optimization tool.
What I meant by “not a solution” is that you can, say, tax a source and use the money to combat the externalities. And we can use that normalize the pricing between technologies that have externalities and those that don’t (or have fewer).
Which is great and all, no objections from me (assuming its implemented well). I’m skeptical that this is the prime obstacle.
Ultimately, we need energy to run society. To some extent pricing in externalities can encourage people to decrease consumption of “dirty” energy and suppliers to increase production of “clean” energy.
At some point, if either of those are pushed too far, it will start have economic impacts. And there’s problems with that (political, constriction on R&D, less likely people are willing to invest in new efficiencies, etc).
Ultimately, we need better technology and a shift in our grid. That takes time, and I think at this point the timeline is largely affected by R&D cycles, production capacity, etc.
I’m skeptical that we can use that sort of pricing in of externalities to really effect change much faster than the technology comes along. Happy to see an effective plan to do so work, and obviously the two things are tied together to some extent (As coal gets expensive due to externalities, it becomes more worth it to invest in new tech, which increases R&D, etc).
I’m not unsympathetic to the idea, pricing in externalities is “good” (assuming done well). I just think what’s really going to change is better technologies come online. Many renewable techs hold promise to be *better* than fossil fuels even if you don’t count in externalities.
It just takes time to develop and vet those technologies. Increasing funding for that (for example by pricing in externalities) can help up to a point, but ultimately it just takes time to advance science and engineering.
And all that is a “gut feeling”. So if you have hard numbers showing that it’ll be different, great. I don’t hate this concept, I’m just focusing my (very limited) influence elsewhere at the moment.
Brett:
The truth is they’ve been under systematic attack for approaching 40 years now.
The system wasn’t built for more than 2 parties, and there is vested interest in keeping it that way. I recognize that.
Russell:
So, what we want is just enough regulation, and of the right kind.
Yep. Exactly. Which I imagine doesn’t strike you as a bizarre concept. Regarding the details we probably disagree on some specific cases (and agree in some).
Which, in turn, should help the market dynamics to yield an optimal result.
Yeah, I’m all for it. That’s the kind of government action that can engage and support the free market, which can be a powerful optimization tool.
What I meant by “not a solution” is that you can, say, tax a source and use the money to combat the externalities. And we can use that normalize the pricing between technologies that have externalities and those that don’t (or have fewer).
Which is great and all, no objections from me (assuming its implemented well). I’m skeptical that this is the prime obstacle.
Ultimately, we need energy to run society. To some extent pricing in externalities can encourage people to decrease consumption of “dirty” energy and suppliers to increase production of “clean” energy.
At some point, if either of those are pushed too far, it will start have economic impacts. And there’s problems with that (political, constriction on R&D, less likely people are willing to invest in new efficiencies, etc).
Ultimately, we need better technology and a shift in our grid. That takes time, and I think at this point the timeline is largely affected by R&D cycles, production capacity, etc.
I’m skeptical that we can use that sort of pricing in of externalities to really effect change much faster than the technology comes along. Happy to see an effective plan to do so work, and obviously the two things are tied together to some extent (As coal gets expensive due to externalities, it becomes more worth it to invest in new tech, which increases R&D, etc).
I’m not unsympathetic to the idea, pricing in externalities is “good” (assuming done well). I just think what’s really going to change is better technologies come online. Many renewable techs hold promise to be *better* than fossil fuels even if you don’t count in externalities.
It just takes time to develop and vet those technologies. Increasing funding for that (for example by pricing in externalities) can help up to a point, but ultimately it just takes time to advance science and engineering.
And all that is a “gut feeling”. So if you have hard numbers showing that it’ll be different, great. I don’t hate this concept, I’m just focusing my (very limited) influence elsewhere at the moment.
…..ultimately it just takes time to advance science and engineering
I observe that one of the major conclusions of the current scientific consensus is that we have reached the point where time is rapidly running out.
Another one of those ‘not yet fully priced’ externalities I guess.
But time will tell, what? (oh, god, another attack of thompsonitis–my liver, my liver…need strong drink)
…..ultimately it just takes time to advance science and engineering
I observe that one of the major conclusions of the current scientific consensus is that we have reached the point where time is rapidly running out.
Another one of those ‘not yet fully priced’ externalities I guess.
But time will tell, what? (oh, god, another attack of thompsonitis–my liver, my liver…need strong drink)
Which I imagine doesn’t strike you as a bizarre concept.
You are correct, sir.
I’m skeptical that this is the prime obstacle.
I agree. IMO the prime obstacle is the lack of a competing technology(ies) that match fossil fuel’s combination of energy density + portability + range of applications + existing infrastructure + general dialed-in-ness + fairly low cost.
The only thing that will be affected by pricing is the “fairly low cost” part.
I do note that we currently subsidize oil, gas, and coal in lots of ways, so it’s not like we aren’t already putting our thumb on the scale. Just stopping that would be a useful first step.
All of which assumes that we’re on board with moving away from fossil stuff in the first place, which is an assumption that I don’t think can be made universally.
But assuming that’s what we want to do, making the price to the end user reflect the actual cost would be useful, for all of the reasons mentioned.
Which I imagine doesn’t strike you as a bizarre concept.
You are correct, sir.
I’m skeptical that this is the prime obstacle.
I agree. IMO the prime obstacle is the lack of a competing technology(ies) that match fossil fuel’s combination of energy density + portability + range of applications + existing infrastructure + general dialed-in-ness + fairly low cost.
The only thing that will be affected by pricing is the “fairly low cost” part.
I do note that we currently subsidize oil, gas, and coal in lots of ways, so it’s not like we aren’t already putting our thumb on the scale. Just stopping that would be a useful first step.
All of which assumes that we’re on board with moving away from fossil stuff in the first place, which is an assumption that I don’t think can be made universally.
But assuming that’s what we want to do, making the price to the end user reflect the actual cost would be useful, for all of the reasons mentioned.
Just stopping that would be a useful first step.
No objection here.
Just stopping that would be a useful first step.
No objection here.
I observe that one of the major conclusions of the current scientific consensus is that we have reached the point where time is rapidly running out.
A related but orthogonal point. That is “is there a problem and how bad?” My exchange with russell is “what do we do about it?”
I observe that one of the major conclusions of the current scientific consensus is that we have reached the point where time is rapidly running out.
A related but orthogonal point. That is “is there a problem and how bad?” My exchange with russell is “what do we do about it?”
So, in other words: we have reached a point where the slope is slippery?
I remember that one scientist or other warned that we could turn into Venus, which is dumbassery of the highest order. Venus if Venus because it has 100x the atmosphere that we do.
Oh, yes: that was James Hansen. The same guy that predicted back in the 1980s that some NYC highways would be submerged by right about now.
Back to the point: why is there a too-late point? I haven’t seen a decent explanation for this claim.
So, in other words: we have reached a point where the slope is slippery?
I remember that one scientist or other warned that we could turn into Venus, which is dumbassery of the highest order. Venus if Venus because it has 100x the atmosphere that we do.
Oh, yes: that was James Hansen. The same guy that predicted back in the 1980s that some NYC highways would be submerged by right about now.
Back to the point: why is there a too-late point? I haven’t seen a decent explanation for this claim.
I remember that one scientist or other warned that we could turn into Venus.
Oh, yes: that was James Hansen.
Hansen:
The relevance of Venus as a point of comparison likely derives from Hansen’s early work, which focused on the atmosphere of Venus.
The “prediction” about NYC highways being underwater was in reply to a request to speculate about what New York would like in 40 years from 1988, if atmospheric CO2 doubled from pre-industrial levels to about 560 ppm.
I can’t tell you if Hansen was predicting 560 ppm by 2028 or not. It seems unlikely, but I could be wrong about that.
My understanding from general reading is that the actual increases in atmospheric CO2, and the effects we’d expect to see from them, track Hansen’s models fairly well. So, there’s that.
I remember that one scientist or other warned that we could turn into Venus.
Oh, yes: that was James Hansen.
Hansen:
The relevance of Venus as a point of comparison likely derives from Hansen’s early work, which focused on the atmosphere of Venus.
The “prediction” about NYC highways being underwater was in reply to a request to speculate about what New York would like in 40 years from 1988, if atmospheric CO2 doubled from pre-industrial levels to about 560 ppm.
I can’t tell you if Hansen was predicting 560 ppm by 2028 or not. It seems unlikely, but I could be wrong about that.
My understanding from general reading is that the actual increases in atmospheric CO2, and the effects we’d expect to see from them, track Hansen’s models fairly well. So, there’s that.
The basic problem with this whole “point of no return” concept, is that it relies on a high level of positive feedback to achieve it. Basically it postulates that the climate system is right on the verge of runaway heating, just in time for us to give it a nudge.
Maybe that’s true, but if it were, it would be remarkable that a large volcanic eruption hadn’t pushed us over the edge some time in the last half billion years or so.
The basic problem with this whole “point of no return” concept, is that it relies on a high level of positive feedback to achieve it. Basically it postulates that the climate system is right on the verge of runaway heating, just in time for us to give it a nudge.
Maybe that’s true, but if it were, it would be remarkable that a large volcanic eruption hadn’t pushed us over the edge some time in the last half billion years or so.
Back to the point: why is there a too-late point? I haven’t seen a decent explanation for this claim.
One could start here and noodle about a bit in the links. I could understand concerns that my particular alarmism is misplaced, but nonetheless, I believe the feedback effects could well be dire, Brett’s looking forward to a better tan notwithstanding.
What can we do short of massive WW2 type mobilization? Several things:
1. End subsidies to petroleum, coal, gas, etc.
2. A hefty carbon tax to encourage energy use substitution and start capturing the cost externalities not captured by ‘the market’.
3. End the subsidies promoting the single family home suburban life style.
4. Land use regulations promoting greater land use and population density.
5. A program to insulate buildings.
6. Build mass transit. Subsidize more mass transit to enable competition with single user autos driving on subsidized roads using subsidized gasoline.
7. Promotion of conservation of natural resources such as water, wetlands, etc.
None of these public measures require any significant technological breakthrough, so “we have to wait” is no excuse. Some of them are not terribly expensive. Some of them create jobs that the private sector has failed miserably to create.
Win-win I say.
For you doubters out there, here is a “program”. Enough detail for you?
Back to the point: why is there a too-late point? I haven’t seen a decent explanation for this claim.
One could start here and noodle about a bit in the links. I could understand concerns that my particular alarmism is misplaced, but nonetheless, I believe the feedback effects could well be dire, Brett’s looking forward to a better tan notwithstanding.
What can we do short of massive WW2 type mobilization? Several things:
1. End subsidies to petroleum, coal, gas, etc.
2. A hefty carbon tax to encourage energy use substitution and start capturing the cost externalities not captured by ‘the market’.
3. End the subsidies promoting the single family home suburban life style.
4. Land use regulations promoting greater land use and population density.
5. A program to insulate buildings.
6. Build mass transit. Subsidize more mass transit to enable competition with single user autos driving on subsidized roads using subsidized gasoline.
7. Promotion of conservation of natural resources such as water, wetlands, etc.
None of these public measures require any significant technological breakthrough, so “we have to wait” is no excuse. Some of them are not terribly expensive. Some of them create jobs that the private sector has failed miserably to create.
Win-win I say.
For you doubters out there, here is a “program”. Enough detail for you?
Maybe that’s true, but if it were, it would be remarkable that a large volcanic eruption hadn’t pushed us over the edge some time in the last half billion years or so.
Nothing at all remarkable about it.
Read up on Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. See the part about volcanoes. Interesting stuff.
Maybe that’s true, but if it were, it would be remarkable that a large volcanic eruption hadn’t pushed us over the edge some time in the last half billion years or so.
Nothing at all remarkable about it.
Read up on Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum. See the part about volcanoes. Interesting stuff.
…which is dumbassery of the highest order. Venus if Venus because it has 100x the atmosphere that we do.
Indeed. From the wikki: It is speculated that the atmosphere of Venus up to around 4 billion years ago was more like that of the Earth with liquid water on the surface. A runaway greenhouse effect may have been caused by the evaporation of the surface water and subsequent rise of the levels of other greenhouse gases.[7][8]
What’s not to like about global warming, eh?
…which is dumbassery of the highest order. Venus if Venus because it has 100x the atmosphere that we do.
Indeed. From the wikki: It is speculated that the atmosphere of Venus up to around 4 billion years ago was more like that of the Earth with liquid water on the surface. A runaway greenhouse effect may have been caused by the evaporation of the surface water and subsequent rise of the levels of other greenhouse gases.[7][8]
What’s not to like about global warming, eh?
Luckily, the women escaped from Venus, the male scientists of the time having warned them, but then the men staying put themselves either because they had to see if their theories were correct, or because of self-doubt, low self-esteem, and harassment by male denialists and the inevitable arm wrestling match to decide things as the last spaceship launched for Earth.
So, let’s say on the one hand, the global warming consensus enthusiasts turn out to be wrong? What are we out, some money? But along the way, we’ve developed some cool technologies, which in and of their cleaner selves might be worth the freight.
Maybe they dump iron filings in the ocean in desperation and ocean life bellies up, not like it’s doing so well anyway underneath the human footprint.
Maybe we fine them. Subject them to frequent tongue lashings. Taunt them at Starbucks.
But, let’s say the global warming denialists turn out to be wrong to some very noticeable extent, and I’m not talking anyone here, I’m talking the celebrity types, Limbaugh, Imhofe. various Exxon CEOs, the Kochs, Erickson and his vermin gay-hate mongers, you know the crowd.
I’m thinking they had better be hiding themselves and their families on the higher ground they purchased as a hedge while the rest of us were wasting our time arguing pros and cons as our basements filled with salt water, IF we are anywhere near right.
I’m thinking they are Comanche and I’m the Texas Rangers and I’m thinking the adoption of the scalping techniques they perfected against the scientific community will be my new hobby to be practiced on them.
Frankly, I’m rooting for manmade global warming and its attendant catastrophes being a myth, but there is something so full of sh*t about the conservative Bible thumpers and their libertarian brethren according Man complete control over the natural world and simultaneously denying any effects stemming from that control.
Luckily, the women escaped from Venus, the male scientists of the time having warned them, but then the men staying put themselves either because they had to see if their theories were correct, or because of self-doubt, low self-esteem, and harassment by male denialists and the inevitable arm wrestling match to decide things as the last spaceship launched for Earth.
So, let’s say on the one hand, the global warming consensus enthusiasts turn out to be wrong? What are we out, some money? But along the way, we’ve developed some cool technologies, which in and of their cleaner selves might be worth the freight.
Maybe they dump iron filings in the ocean in desperation and ocean life bellies up, not like it’s doing so well anyway underneath the human footprint.
Maybe we fine them. Subject them to frequent tongue lashings. Taunt them at Starbucks.
But, let’s say the global warming denialists turn out to be wrong to some very noticeable extent, and I’m not talking anyone here, I’m talking the celebrity types, Limbaugh, Imhofe. various Exxon CEOs, the Kochs, Erickson and his vermin gay-hate mongers, you know the crowd.
I’m thinking they had better be hiding themselves and their families on the higher ground they purchased as a hedge while the rest of us were wasting our time arguing pros and cons as our basements filled with salt water, IF we are anywhere near right.
I’m thinking they are Comanche and I’m the Texas Rangers and I’m thinking the adoption of the scalping techniques they perfected against the scientific community will be my new hobby to be practiced on them.
Frankly, I’m rooting for manmade global warming and its attendant catastrophes being a myth, but there is something so full of sh*t about the conservative Bible thumpers and their libertarian brethren according Man complete control over the natural world and simultaneously denying any effects stemming from that control.
Indeed. From the wikki:
It’s worth reading the paper that line is based on [ref 7].
http://www.chriscunnings.com/uploads/2/0/7/7/20773630/runaway_greenhouse_venus.pdf
It’s a fun little model, I’d have to think about what it actually means in terms of Earth, but I’m thinking not too much. It’s really looking at how much solar flux you’d need to generate runaway. Solar flux is roughly constant, and will be for the foreseeable future.
I am, however, amused that the paper that has as one of its major conclusions:
“However, CO2 increases alone are not able to trigger a runaway greenhouse.”
Which was probably not the point bobbyp was trying to make. Anyway, like I said, the model likely has limited application to Earth.
Indeed. From the wikki:
It’s worth reading the paper that line is based on [ref 7].
http://www.chriscunnings.com/uploads/2/0/7/7/20773630/runaway_greenhouse_venus.pdf
It’s a fun little model, I’d have to think about what it actually means in terms of Earth, but I’m thinking not too much. It’s really looking at how much solar flux you’d need to generate runaway. Solar flux is roughly constant, and will be for the foreseeable future.
I am, however, amused that the paper that has as one of its major conclusions:
“However, CO2 increases alone are not able to trigger a runaway greenhouse.”
Which was probably not the point bobbyp was trying to make. Anyway, like I said, the model likely has limited application to Earth.
Personally, I’m not sure who among us here at ObWi actually has the chops to make a professional assessment of Hansen’s hypotheses. Maybe some of your folks do, I sure as hell don’t.
So I will decline to argue about whether volcanoes should have pushed us over the brink, or whether Earth could ever achieve and atmosphere like Venus.
None of that is the point. The question on the table is whether human activity is contributing to climate changes that will be, net/net, harmful to us or the world in general.
We don’t need a 90 bar atmosphere, simply having the western half of North America become significantly more arid would be enough to make trouble with a capital T.
Or, having 100 year storms occur every 20 years. Or, having ocean acidification destroy important fish stocks.
Or, any of 1,000 other things that are short of turning Earth into Venus, but are still very very sucky.
What I see, personally, is that it appears to me that what’s actually happening tracks the models that guys like Hansen have produced. And I see that folks who have a huge amount of skin in the game, and who are responsible for assessing risks like this, are taking it seriously.
So, I figure I should probably do so as well.
I doubt there is going to be a point on this side of “too late” where we can consider the anthropogenic climate change theory “proved”. Climate is too complex a system.
So we either have to take action based on a more or less “if it walks like a duck” level of confidence. I.e., the stuff in the models is either showing up, or it’s not.
Or, we can ignore it and hope for the best.
Frankly, it’s kind of academic to me, because I’ll probably be dead before really bad effects kick in. But I feel an obligation to all of the folks who will be stuck with whatever we leave behind.
It’s a nice world, and it is for damned sure the only one we’re going to get. The rocket ships are not going to spirit us off to Planet B, it’s here or nowhere.
It would be a waste to just piss it away.
Personally, I’m not sure who among us here at ObWi actually has the chops to make a professional assessment of Hansen’s hypotheses. Maybe some of your folks do, I sure as hell don’t.
So I will decline to argue about whether volcanoes should have pushed us over the brink, or whether Earth could ever achieve and atmosphere like Venus.
None of that is the point. The question on the table is whether human activity is contributing to climate changes that will be, net/net, harmful to us or the world in general.
We don’t need a 90 bar atmosphere, simply having the western half of North America become significantly more arid would be enough to make trouble with a capital T.
Or, having 100 year storms occur every 20 years. Or, having ocean acidification destroy important fish stocks.
Or, any of 1,000 other things that are short of turning Earth into Venus, but are still very very sucky.
What I see, personally, is that it appears to me that what’s actually happening tracks the models that guys like Hansen have produced. And I see that folks who have a huge amount of skin in the game, and who are responsible for assessing risks like this, are taking it seriously.
So, I figure I should probably do so as well.
I doubt there is going to be a point on this side of “too late” where we can consider the anthropogenic climate change theory “proved”. Climate is too complex a system.
So we either have to take action based on a more or less “if it walks like a duck” level of confidence. I.e., the stuff in the models is either showing up, or it’s not.
Or, we can ignore it and hope for the best.
Frankly, it’s kind of academic to me, because I’ll probably be dead before really bad effects kick in. But I feel an obligation to all of the folks who will be stuck with whatever we leave behind.
It’s a nice world, and it is for damned sure the only one we’re going to get. The rocket ships are not going to spirit us off to Planet B, it’s here or nowhere.
It would be a waste to just piss it away.
Bobbyp: It is interesting stuff. Notice that the Earth didn’t go Venus, even then. (Starting from a much higher CO2 level, before the excursion.) So I think we can rule that out, today.
I think I’ll return to a fundamental point, and then drop this:
More people die of cold each year, than of excess heat.
More energy is spent each year for heating, than for air conditioning.
Warmer weather, especially in winter, would help agriculture.
I think there’s a shortage of serious thought about what the ideal temperature for the Earth actually is. As opposed to just assuming the ideal is whatever it was when you were born…
But, I’m willing to wait a few years for the current “pause” to either end, or not.
Bobbyp: It is interesting stuff. Notice that the Earth didn’t go Venus, even then. (Starting from a much higher CO2 level, before the excursion.) So I think we can rule that out, today.
I think I’ll return to a fundamental point, and then drop this:
More people die of cold each year, than of excess heat.
More energy is spent each year for heating, than for air conditioning.
Warmer weather, especially in winter, would help agriculture.
I think there’s a shortage of serious thought about what the ideal temperature for the Earth actually is. As opposed to just assuming the ideal is whatever it was when you were born…
But, I’m willing to wait a few years for the current “pause” to either end, or not.
“I think there’s a shortage of serious thought about what the ideal temperature for the Earth actually is. As opposed to just assuming the ideal is whatever it was when you were born…”
Actually, it was a sweet Spring night in 1974 in central Ohio and I had stepped out of the college library’s all night study room for a breath of honeysuckle-laced air just warm enough for short-sleeves and she followed me out after we had been making googly-eyes at each other across a crowded room for a period of several weeks, my shyness keeping me at bay, and she smiled and said “Hi”.
No matter what has been going on during the rest of my life since then, even the very best parts, there is not a day that goes by that I don’t give that moment very serious thought.
Next question?
Actually, agriculture-wise, since we are disparaging weather modeling but seem to lend complete credence to guessing wholesale about net positive effects, are we talking wheat farmers in Saskatchewan or lettuce farmers in California’s Central Valley?
Livestock herders on the edge of ever-advancing desertification in Saharan Africa or vineyards in France and Italy?
Subsistence fisherman off the coast of Belize or shellfish harvesters on the coast of Oregon as ocean temperatures and currents shift?
Natural gas frackers in North America who run out of injectable water for their wells or wind turbines in the North Sea swamped by higher seas?
“But, I’m willing to wait a few years for the current “pause” to either end, or not.”
That’s exactly where we were at the beginning of the thread and regardless of all of our passion on either end of the debate, that’s where will we will all meet because there will be little shift in the ideological weather front contantly bearing down on us to move attitudes either way.
I expect the Kansas, South Carolina, and Arizona state legislatures will attempt to allow the merchant class and cake makers to refuse service to gay global warming scientists, but not much else in this addled, bullsh*t political culture, but little else.
Then what?
Is someone going to run out and real quick fashion origami-wise a clean energy source after some emergency overnight meetings at the U.N. as newly converted believers (the worst kind, like ex-drinkers and smokers) fan out among us with bullhorns to guide us to higher ground, while Rush Limbaugh has already migrated inland secretly beforehand from his coastal estate in Florida to a penthouse apartment with armed doormen in scuba suits?
You’ll let us know, won’t you?
Maybe lj can arrange a guess post for you here at OBWI on this day in the future when you make your final decision and lay out the plan for us.
I’ll have probably lost interest altogether by then and threadjack the thing back to gun control, but some things never change.
Have you folks seen the movie “Melancholia” from a couple of years ago. The plight depicted in that movie (which is metaphorical; the approaching planet, Melancholia, about to collide with Earth, is more about our inner weather than anything else)?
I recommend it. It’s slow, but creepy and gripping.
“I think there’s a shortage of serious thought about what the ideal temperature for the Earth actually is. As opposed to just assuming the ideal is whatever it was when you were born…”
Actually, it was a sweet Spring night in 1974 in central Ohio and I had stepped out of the college library’s all night study room for a breath of honeysuckle-laced air just warm enough for short-sleeves and she followed me out after we had been making googly-eyes at each other across a crowded room for a period of several weeks, my shyness keeping me at bay, and she smiled and said “Hi”.
No matter what has been going on during the rest of my life since then, even the very best parts, there is not a day that goes by that I don’t give that moment very serious thought.
Next question?
Actually, agriculture-wise, since we are disparaging weather modeling but seem to lend complete credence to guessing wholesale about net positive effects, are we talking wheat farmers in Saskatchewan or lettuce farmers in California’s Central Valley?
Livestock herders on the edge of ever-advancing desertification in Saharan Africa or vineyards in France and Italy?
Subsistence fisherman off the coast of Belize or shellfish harvesters on the coast of Oregon as ocean temperatures and currents shift?
Natural gas frackers in North America who run out of injectable water for their wells or wind turbines in the North Sea swamped by higher seas?
“But, I’m willing to wait a few years for the current “pause” to either end, or not.”
That’s exactly where we were at the beginning of the thread and regardless of all of our passion on either end of the debate, that’s where will we will all meet because there will be little shift in the ideological weather front contantly bearing down on us to move attitudes either way.
I expect the Kansas, South Carolina, and Arizona state legislatures will attempt to allow the merchant class and cake makers to refuse service to gay global warming scientists, but not much else in this addled, bullsh*t political culture, but little else.
Then what?
Is someone going to run out and real quick fashion origami-wise a clean energy source after some emergency overnight meetings at the U.N. as newly converted believers (the worst kind, like ex-drinkers and smokers) fan out among us with bullhorns to guide us to higher ground, while Rush Limbaugh has already migrated inland secretly beforehand from his coastal estate in Florida to a penthouse apartment with armed doormen in scuba suits?
You’ll let us know, won’t you?
Maybe lj can arrange a guess post for you here at OBWI on this day in the future when you make your final decision and lay out the plan for us.
I’ll have probably lost interest altogether by then and threadjack the thing back to gun control, but some things never change.
Have you folks seen the movie “Melancholia” from a couple of years ago. The plight depicted in that movie (which is metaphorical; the approaching planet, Melancholia, about to collide with Earth, is more about our inner weather than anything else)?
I recommend it. It’s slow, but creepy and gripping.
“where will we will …”
I’d like to hear Barbara Wa Wa read that sentence.
“where will we will …”
I’d like to hear Barbara Wa Wa read that sentence.
More people die of cold each year, than of excess heat.
In North America, probably so. Lots of people don’t live in North America.
More energy is spent each year for heating, than for air conditioning.
Currently, in the US.
Heat and AC together are about half of household consumption, appliances and heating water are more or less the other half.
If warming up just adjusts the mix of heat vs AC, will we be ahead or behind?
Warmer weather, especially in winter, would help agriculture.
Which would be balanced by loss of other things. Will we be ahead or behind?
I’m betting on the folks who are actually running the numbers, rather than folks opining on blogs based on whatever crosses their mind.
More people die of cold each year, than of excess heat.
In North America, probably so. Lots of people don’t live in North America.
More energy is spent each year for heating, than for air conditioning.
Currently, in the US.
Heat and AC together are about half of household consumption, appliances and heating water are more or less the other half.
If warming up just adjusts the mix of heat vs AC, will we be ahead or behind?
Warmer weather, especially in winter, would help agriculture.
Which would be balanced by loss of other things. Will we be ahead or behind?
I’m betting on the folks who are actually running the numbers, rather than folks opining on blogs based on whatever crosses their mind.
It’s getting way too hot for me here. So, the next time Hobby Lobby comes up (and it will no doubt), bookmark the LGM page below and check out the links to Marty Lederman on Balkinazation.
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2014/02/lederman-on-the-specious-religious-freedom-arguments-against-the-aca
Come prepared. There will be a quiz.
And Brett, as Russell points out, there is a world south of the Rio Grande.
It’s getting way too hot for me here. So, the next time Hobby Lobby comes up (and it will no doubt), bookmark the LGM page below and check out the links to Marty Lederman on Balkinazation.
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2014/02/lederman-on-the-specious-religious-freedom-arguments-against-the-aca
Come prepared. There will be a quiz.
And Brett, as Russell points out, there is a world south of the Rio Grande.
Meanwhile, has anyone seen my Bitcoins?
Like Uncle Billy in “It’s a Wonderful Life”, I absentmindedly forgot to print them out as pieces of paper (hyunh, hyun, ha ha, haw), you know, like those worthless dollars, yet another little detail the libertarians forgot to tell us.
Meanwhile, has anyone seen my Bitcoins?
Like Uncle Billy in “It’s a Wonderful Life”, I absentmindedly forgot to print them out as pieces of paper (hyunh, hyun, ha ha, haw), you know, like those worthless dollars, yet another little detail the libertarians forgot to tell us.
I should have mentioned “Melancholia” on Doc Science’s depression thread some time back.
It’s the perfect metaphor for the inexorable, inescapable oppression of clinical depression.
Balmy day in Denver today. So far, so good.
I should have mentioned “Melancholia” on Doc Science’s depression thread some time back.
It’s the perfect metaphor for the inexorable, inescapable oppression of clinical depression.
Balmy day in Denver today. So far, so good.
I guess it’s a question of whether you’d prefer to die from heat or cold. Is moving some number of people from one type of death to another one of the proposed benefits of warming? Ditto for whether we’re using energy to suck heat out or make heat within our homes and other habitable structures. (At least you can make heat directly. You can’t really make cold, per se. Even cooling a house produces heat, on the whole.)
Large swaths of Eurasia might do better agriculturally on a warmer earth. I’m not sure about the good, ol’ U.S. of A.
Perhaps the planetary climate system has a number of negative-feedback mechanisms that will prevent runaway warming. I just wonder whether those mechanisms give a sh1t about humans (or all their stuff) as they undertake the stabilization of global temperature. The planet can save itself, in some sense (Why should it care how warm the atmosphere is? It’s not going to melt. Even if it did, it would just be a gooey-er spheroid than it is now. That might be fun.), without saving us.
Come to think about it, what do I care about the future of the human race? Or life in general? I’m going to die either way. I mean, it probably won’t get really bad in my kids’ lifetimes. Maybe I should just have them sterilized so I don’t have to worry about my grandchildren or great grandchildren.
What did a bunch of people who won’t be born until I’m dead ever do for me?
I guess it’s a question of whether you’d prefer to die from heat or cold. Is moving some number of people from one type of death to another one of the proposed benefits of warming? Ditto for whether we’re using energy to suck heat out or make heat within our homes and other habitable structures. (At least you can make heat directly. You can’t really make cold, per se. Even cooling a house produces heat, on the whole.)
Large swaths of Eurasia might do better agriculturally on a warmer earth. I’m not sure about the good, ol’ U.S. of A.
Perhaps the planetary climate system has a number of negative-feedback mechanisms that will prevent runaway warming. I just wonder whether those mechanisms give a sh1t about humans (or all their stuff) as they undertake the stabilization of global temperature. The planet can save itself, in some sense (Why should it care how warm the atmosphere is? It’s not going to melt. Even if it did, it would just be a gooey-er spheroid than it is now. That might be fun.), without saving us.
Come to think about it, what do I care about the future of the human race? Or life in general? I’m going to die either way. I mean, it probably won’t get really bad in my kids’ lifetimes. Maybe I should just have them sterilized so I don’t have to worry about my grandchildren or great grandchildren.
What did a bunch of people who won’t be born until I’m dead ever do for me?
Maybe I’ll just root for the water bears from now on.
Maybe I’ll just root for the water bears from now on.
[…]
The chief benefits of global warming include: fewer winter deaths; lower energy costs; better agricultural yields; probably fewer droughts; maybe richer biodiversity. It is a little-known fact that winter deaths exceed summer deaths — not just in countries like Britain but also those with very warm summers, including Greece. Both Britain and Greece see mortality rates rise by 18 per cent each winter. Especially cold winters cause a rise in heart failures far greater than the rise in deaths during heatwaves.
Cold, not the heat, is the biggest killer. For the last decade, Brits have been dying from the cold at the average rate of 29,000 excess deaths each winter. Compare this to the heatwave ten years ago, which claimed 15,000 lives in France and just 2,000 in Britain. In the ten years since, there has been no summer death spike at all. Excess winter deaths hit the poor harder than the rich for the obvious reason: they cannot afford heating. And it is not just those at risk who benefit from moderate warming. Global warming has so far cut heating bills more than it has raised cooling bills. If it resumes after its current 17-year hiatus, and if the energy efficiency of our homes improves, then at some point the cost of cooling probably will exceed the cost of heating — probably from about 2035, Prof Tol estimates.
The greatest benefit from climate change comes not from temperature change but from carbon dioxide itself. It is not pollution, but the raw material from which plants make carbohydrates and thence proteins and fats. As it is an extremely rare trace gas in the air — less than 0.04 per cent of the air on average — plants struggle to absorb enough of it…
The increase in average carbon dioxide levels over the past century, from 0.03 per cent to 0.04 per cent of the air, has had a measurable impact on plant growth rates. It is responsible for a startling change in the amount of greenery on the planet. As Dr Ranga Myneni of Boston University has documented, using three decades of satellite data, 31 per cent of the global vegetated area of the planet has become greener and just 3 per cent has become less green. This translates into a 14 per cent increase in productivity of ecosystems and has been observed in all vegetation types.
[…]
The Net Benefits of Climate Change Till 2080
[…]
The chief benefits of global warming include: fewer winter deaths; lower energy costs; better agricultural yields; probably fewer droughts; maybe richer biodiversity. It is a little-known fact that winter deaths exceed summer deaths — not just in countries like Britain but also those with very warm summers, including Greece. Both Britain and Greece see mortality rates rise by 18 per cent each winter. Especially cold winters cause a rise in heart failures far greater than the rise in deaths during heatwaves.
Cold, not the heat, is the biggest killer. For the last decade, Brits have been dying from the cold at the average rate of 29,000 excess deaths each winter. Compare this to the heatwave ten years ago, which claimed 15,000 lives in France and just 2,000 in Britain. In the ten years since, there has been no summer death spike at all. Excess winter deaths hit the poor harder than the rich for the obvious reason: they cannot afford heating. And it is not just those at risk who benefit from moderate warming. Global warming has so far cut heating bills more than it has raised cooling bills. If it resumes after its current 17-year hiatus, and if the energy efficiency of our homes improves, then at some point the cost of cooling probably will exceed the cost of heating — probably from about 2035, Prof Tol estimates.
The greatest benefit from climate change comes not from temperature change but from carbon dioxide itself. It is not pollution, but the raw material from which plants make carbohydrates and thence proteins and fats. As it is an extremely rare trace gas in the air — less than 0.04 per cent of the air on average — plants struggle to absorb enough of it…
The increase in average carbon dioxide levels over the past century, from 0.03 per cent to 0.04 per cent of the air, has had a measurable impact on plant growth rates. It is responsible for a startling change in the amount of greenery on the planet. As Dr Ranga Myneni of Boston University has documented, using three decades of satellite data, 31 per cent of the global vegetated area of the planet has become greener and just 3 per cent has become less green. This translates into a 14 per cent increase in productivity of ecosystems and has been observed in all vegetation types.
[…]
The Net Benefits of Climate Change Till 2080
Lederman does a dandy job of demonstrating that Hobby Lobby is going to lose if the Court decides every question against them, as he does in his series. I’m not so sure he does a good job of demonstrating they’re likely to.
And, I’m well aware there’s a world south of the Rio Grande. I’m also aware we evolved in a temperature range considerable warmer than most of the world’s population currently lives in. I can walk around in a South Carolina summer, 100F in the shade and humidity so high there’s dew on the ground in that shade at noon, but I’d die in under an hour in a Michigan winter without protective gear.
“Perhaps the planetary climate system has a number of negative-feedback mechanisms that will prevent runaway warming.”
All it requires is that it not have the positive feedback mechanisms that have to be posited to get the warming up to dangerous levels.
Lederman does a dandy job of demonstrating that Hobby Lobby is going to lose if the Court decides every question against them, as he does in his series. I’m not so sure he does a good job of demonstrating they’re likely to.
And, I’m well aware there’s a world south of the Rio Grande. I’m also aware we evolved in a temperature range considerable warmer than most of the world’s population currently lives in. I can walk around in a South Carolina summer, 100F in the shade and humidity so high there’s dew on the ground in that shade at noon, but I’d die in under an hour in a Michigan winter without protective gear.
“Perhaps the planetary climate system has a number of negative-feedback mechanisms that will prevent runaway warming.”
All it requires is that it not have the positive feedback mechanisms that have to be posited to get the warming up to dangerous levels.
“Indeed. From the wikki: It is speculated that the atmosphere of Venus up to around 4 billion years ago was more like that of the Earth with liquid water on the surface. A runaway greenhouse effect may have been caused by the evaporation of the surface water and subsequent rise of the levels of other greenhouse gases.[7][8]
What’s not to like about global warming, eh?”
The word “speculated” deserves some attention here. It is rather lower on the ladder of certainty than is “there is limited evidence for”.
“Indeed. From the wikki: It is speculated that the atmosphere of Venus up to around 4 billion years ago was more like that of the Earth with liquid water on the surface. A runaway greenhouse effect may have been caused by the evaporation of the surface water and subsequent rise of the levels of other greenhouse gases.[7][8]
What’s not to like about global warming, eh?”
The word “speculated” deserves some attention here. It is rather lower on the ladder of certainty than is “there is limited evidence for”.
“One could start here and noodle about a bit in the links”
One could. Maybe one already has, and found a great deal of hand-waving that is greatly at odds with any reasonable notion of a defensible point.
YMMV, of course.
“One could start here and noodle about a bit in the links”
One could. Maybe one already has, and found a great deal of hand-waving that is greatly at odds with any reasonable notion of a defensible point.
YMMV, of course.
Charles’ link is from Matt Ridley. Mr. Ridley says:
And, after 2080, who gives a crap?
I’m also aware we evolved in a temperature range considerable warmer than most of the world’s population currently lives in.
And, what conclusions can we draw from that?
We will not all immediately keel over and die if ambient global temperatures approach those of Holocene climatic optimum.
Excellent news!
What did the world look like during the Holocene climatic optimum?
What would things look like if we were to reproduce that world now? How would we be affected?
Humans have lived on the planet during a very wide range of overall climatic conditions.
7 billion humans, dependent on a ubiquitous industrial culture for the means of their survival and well-being, have not lived on the planet during a wide range of overall climatic conditions.
The fact that the human race has survived both a very warm period 10,000 years ago, and very cold period more recently, doesn’t tell us all that much about what the experience will be of that level of climate change *now*.
Where, for ‘now’, read ‘over the next 100 or 200 years’.
It’s nice that there are upsides to warming. More tomatoes, and we save on our heating bills.
There are also downsides.
Charles’ link is from Matt Ridley. Mr. Ridley says:
And, after 2080, who gives a crap?
I’m also aware we evolved in a temperature range considerable warmer than most of the world’s population currently lives in.
And, what conclusions can we draw from that?
We will not all immediately keel over and die if ambient global temperatures approach those of Holocene climatic optimum.
Excellent news!
What did the world look like during the Holocene climatic optimum?
What would things look like if we were to reproduce that world now? How would we be affected?
Humans have lived on the planet during a very wide range of overall climatic conditions.
7 billion humans, dependent on a ubiquitous industrial culture for the means of their survival and well-being, have not lived on the planet during a wide range of overall climatic conditions.
The fact that the human race has survived both a very warm period 10,000 years ago, and very cold period more recently, doesn’t tell us all that much about what the experience will be of that level of climate change *now*.
Where, for ‘now’, read ‘over the next 100 or 200 years’.
It’s nice that there are upsides to warming. More tomatoes, and we save on our heating bills.
There are also downsides.
I have a question for all those who think the net benefits will outweigh the downsides: We know from their geography that at least a coulpe of island nations will be disappearing under water as the sea level rises. Are you fine with inviting all of their residents to move to your country (and your town)?
Admittedly, those nations are small and have relatively small populations. So don’t forget to add in the fairly huge population of that other very low-lying nation, Bangladesh. (But we can spread them out across your whole state, since they won’t fit in your city.)
I have a question for all those who think the net benefits will outweigh the downsides: We know from their geography that at least a coulpe of island nations will be disappearing under water as the sea level rises. Are you fine with inviting all of their residents to move to your country (and your town)?
Admittedly, those nations are small and have relatively small populations. So don’t forget to add in the fairly huge population of that other very low-lying nation, Bangladesh. (But we can spread them out across your whole state, since they won’t fit in your city.)
nope, no downsides to global warming. any consequences will be good.
getting people to reduce fossil fuel usage: a disruption our economy could hardly bear.
nope, no downsides to global warming. any consequences will be good.
getting people to reduce fossil fuel usage: a disruption our economy could hardly bear.
Richard Tol. Quack economist.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/01/15/203540/richard-tol-voodoo-economics-global-warming/#
Richard Tol. Quack economist.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2009/01/15/203540/richard-tol-voodoo-economics-global-warming/#
All it requires is that it not have the positive feedback mechanisms that have to be posited to get the warming up to dangerous levels.
Or at least runaway warming, which I used and probably shouldn’t have. But it’s not simply a matter of warming being dangerous in and of itself. It might not be too hot for people to survive, noting your Carolina summers. But the tornadoiness, droughtiness, hurricanieness, floodiness of it all might make things a bit uncomfortable. (It might even affect – gasp! – GDP….)
All it requires is that it not have the positive feedback mechanisms that have to be posited to get the warming up to dangerous levels.
Or at least runaway warming, which I used and probably shouldn’t have. But it’s not simply a matter of warming being dangerous in and of itself. It might not be too hot for people to survive, noting your Carolina summers. But the tornadoiness, droughtiness, hurricanieness, floodiness of it all might make things a bit uncomfortable. (It might even affect – gasp! – GDP….)
Thanks for the link, Charles.
I’m going to read more Ridley.
So, we’ll revisit this discussion in say, October of 2079, around World Series time?
I hope to be there to participate.
Ridley posits that ideas have sex, which should be a shock to cake makers in the hinterlands (their cake melting in the heat, along with MacArthur Park, it took so long to make it) but is better than I can hope for in 65 years.
Why do ideas get to have all the fun?
Someone adjust my dribble cup, will ya?
Thanks for the link, Charles.
I’m going to read more Ridley.
So, we’ll revisit this discussion in say, October of 2079, around World Series time?
I hope to be there to participate.
Ridley posits that ideas have sex, which should be a shock to cake makers in the hinterlands (their cake melting in the heat, along with MacArthur Park, it took so long to make it) but is better than I can hope for in 65 years.
Why do ideas get to have all the fun?
Someone adjust my dribble cup, will ya?
Mat Ridley. Anybody who takes him seriously is, well, not being serious.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Matt_Ridley_blog.htm
YMMV, natch. All is good.
Mat Ridley. Anybody who takes him seriously is, well, not being serious.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Matt_Ridley_blog.htm
YMMV, natch. All is good.
“Or at least runaway warming, which I used and probably shouldn’t have. But it’s not simply a matter of warming being dangerous in and of itself.”
Positive feedback is required for the models to produce any degree of warming which would concern someone. The IR blocking effect of CO2 is largely saturated, it’s incapable of producing much additional warming by itself, at any plausible level.
The story is like this: CO2 goes up, and raises the Earth’s temperature a tiny bit. That slight increase in temperature causes more water to evaporate, raising relative humidity, and H2O acts as a greenhouse gas, producing more warming. This causes more water to evaporate, more warming, round and round. So that every degree of warming you might get from CO2 produces several degrees of warming in the end.
The models, in order to get their scary degree of warming, demand that the climate system exhibit a high degree of positive feedback, just short of runaway.
“Or at least runaway warming, which I used and probably shouldn’t have. But it’s not simply a matter of warming being dangerous in and of itself.”
Positive feedback is required for the models to produce any degree of warming which would concern someone. The IR blocking effect of CO2 is largely saturated, it’s incapable of producing much additional warming by itself, at any plausible level.
The story is like this: CO2 goes up, and raises the Earth’s temperature a tiny bit. That slight increase in temperature causes more water to evaporate, raising relative humidity, and H2O acts as a greenhouse gas, producing more warming. This causes more water to evaporate, more warming, round and round. So that every degree of warming you might get from CO2 produces several degrees of warming in the end.
The models, in order to get their scary degree of warming, demand that the climate system exhibit a high degree of positive feedback, just short of runaway.
i thought Ridley’s The Red Queen and The Origin Of Virtue were quite good, when i read them, decades ago. haven’t read anything from him since, tho.
i thought Ridley’s The Red Queen and The Origin Of Virtue were quite good, when i read them, decades ago. haven’t read anything from him since, tho.
wj: “I have a question for all those who think the net benefits will outweigh the downsides: We know from their geography that at least a coulpe of island nations will be disappearing under water as the sea level rises. Are you fine with inviting all of their residents to move to your country (and your town)?”
Polynesians? Pretty much, yeah.
But we should absolutely seal the borders with walls and robot lasers to prevent a invasion of Floridians. They can just Stand Their Ground, or what’s left of it.
wj: “I have a question for all those who think the net benefits will outweigh the downsides: We know from their geography that at least a coulpe of island nations will be disappearing under water as the sea level rises. Are you fine with inviting all of their residents to move to your country (and your town)?”
Polynesians? Pretty much, yeah.
But we should absolutely seal the borders with walls and robot lasers to prevent a invasion of Floridians. They can just Stand Their Ground, or what’s left of it.
The models, in order to get their scary degree of warming, demand that the climate system exhibit a high degree of positive feedback, just short of runaway.
Well, if we’re going to quibble – a high degree of positive feedback can be prevented by some amount of negative feedback, via some negative-feedback mechanism(s). What is it that’s going to keep H2O from evaporating more and more the warmer the atmosphere gets, in turn making the atmosphere warmer and warmer?
The models, in order to get their scary degree of warming, demand that the climate system exhibit a high degree of positive feedback, just short of runaway.
Well, if we’re going to quibble – a high degree of positive feedback can be prevented by some amount of negative feedback, via some negative-feedback mechanism(s). What is it that’s going to keep H2O from evaporating more and more the warmer the atmosphere gets, in turn making the atmosphere warmer and warmer?
Well, maybe…
Study: Global Warming Will Cause 180,000 More Rapes by 2099: Controversial new research predicts that over the coming century, rising temperatures will result in more violent crime.
Well, maybe…
Study: Global Warming Will Cause 180,000 More Rapes by 2099: Controversial new research predicts that over the coming century, rising temperatures will result in more violent crime.
rape, schmape.
rape, schmape.
“rape, schmape.”
And that was in Maine in the middle of winter, shooting down yet another theory.
Not that certain types won’t use any change in the weather to justify rape. Placing rationalizations and justifications for rape on a certain political party’s campaign platform is like a new set of all-weather tires — you’re good to go in all types of weather, like the Cossacks raping and pillaging and preventing abortions thereof in Eastern Europe.
A little frostbite never slows these people down. A few degrees to the warm side will only encourage them.
Look at this way, a global warming denialist and misogynist like Rush Limbaugh, his Ralph Cramden-sized boxer shorts down around his ankles, might hear this news about more rape as a result of global warming and stumble forth and add it to his do-nothing quiver as a part of the positive-feedback loop we can expect, like growing avocados (“Increased tropical fruit yields in Nova Scotia AND more rape; what’s not to like, folks? I say we burn more high sulphur coal. The more the better!”) in Manitoba and whatever else his mouth issues forth in a torrent.
Satire being one step behind these guys in this, the latter days of funny, he probably said precisely this on yesterday’s show.
There will be scalping.
“rape, schmape.”
And that was in Maine in the middle of winter, shooting down yet another theory.
Not that certain types won’t use any change in the weather to justify rape. Placing rationalizations and justifications for rape on a certain political party’s campaign platform is like a new set of all-weather tires — you’re good to go in all types of weather, like the Cossacks raping and pillaging and preventing abortions thereof in Eastern Europe.
A little frostbite never slows these people down. A few degrees to the warm side will only encourage them.
Look at this way, a global warming denialist and misogynist like Rush Limbaugh, his Ralph Cramden-sized boxer shorts down around his ankles, might hear this news about more rape as a result of global warming and stumble forth and add it to his do-nothing quiver as a part of the positive-feedback loop we can expect, like growing avocados (“Increased tropical fruit yields in Nova Scotia AND more rape; what’s not to like, folks? I say we burn more high sulphur coal. The more the better!”) in Manitoba and whatever else his mouth issues forth in a torrent.
Satire being one step behind these guys in this, the latter days of funny, he probably said precisely this on yesterday’s show.
There will be scalping.
People who think higher temperatures lead to more rape should check out Cole Porter’s take:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQ49QvOzKW4
People who think higher temperatures lead to more rape should check out Cole Porter’s take:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qQ49QvOzKW4
On the other hand, I’m a fan of global cooling when love is in the air:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckAXZwZ7LYE
On yet a third hand, whatever temperature causes “ants in the pants” should receive federal funding:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoJP4g9TB0Y
On the other hand, I’m a fan of global cooling when love is in the air:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ckAXZwZ7LYE
On yet a third hand, whatever temperature causes “ants in the pants” should receive federal funding:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PoJP4g9TB0Y
That last may be the only that uses the word “dyspeptic” in its lyrics.
That last may be the only that uses the word “dyspeptic” in its lyrics.
Count, not a lot of songs that use “finis” (multiple times!) either.
Count, not a lot of songs that use “finis” (multiple times!) either.
Yes, only in divorce depositions is it used more.
Yes, only in divorce depositions is it used more.
“But we should absolutely seal the borders with walls and robot lasers to prevent a invasion of Floridians. They can just Stand Their Ground, or what’s left of it.”
Or maybe we’ll just take yours, send directions.
“But we should absolutely seal the borders with walls and robot lasers to prevent a invasion of Floridians. They can just Stand Their Ground, or what’s left of it.”
Or maybe we’ll just take yours, send directions.
There will be a new gilled age.
Conservatives should have an advantage there since gills in humans are an atavism uns should thus be more common among them. 😉
There will be a new gilled age.
Conservatives should have an advantage there since gills in humans are an atavism uns should thus be more common among them. 😉
uns = and in previous post
uns = and in previous post
Imagine the Florida of the future: Instead of leaving, the people adapt. Homes are put up on stilts. Expressways, too. (If it happens, it’s going to happen slow enough for this.)
People fishing off their front porch. Rowing over to the neighbor. It would be Venice, writ large!
Or, we could import some Dutch, to teach us how to build dikes. Maybe a few people from New Orleans, to tell us how to maintain them. (Very handy, just do the opposite of whatever they say!)
Imagine the Florida of the future: Instead of leaving, the people adapt. Homes are put up on stilts. Expressways, too. (If it happens, it’s going to happen slow enough for this.)
People fishing off their front porch. Rowing over to the neighbor. It would be Venice, writ large!
Or, we could import some Dutch, to teach us how to build dikes. Maybe a few people from New Orleans, to tell us how to maintain them. (Very handy, just do the opposite of whatever they say!)
But what about the Keys? Difficult to dyke them in.
The main problem with stilts would be the occasional storm. At least on the coast it would require rather sturdy construction, not something American family homes are known for.
—
Not much disagreement about New Orleans on this topic from me. But I guess the same motives for the misguided measures there would also apply to Florida. But at least it would hit the rich folk that insists on beachfront property without coastal protection spoiling the view and not just the lowlives that have to live further inland.
But what about the Keys? Difficult to dyke them in.
The main problem with stilts would be the occasional storm. At least on the coast it would require rather sturdy construction, not something American family homes are known for.
—
Not much disagreement about New Orleans on this topic from me. But I guess the same motives for the misguided measures there would also apply to Florida. But at least it would hit the rich folk that insists on beachfront property without coastal protection spoiling the view and not just the lowlives that have to live further inland.
Or, we could import some Dutch, to teach us how to build dikes.
I think this is already underway. Not necessarily in FL, but various places in the US.
Water management technology and engineering is shaping up to be a growth industry for the Dutch. They’re a smart and enterprising group of folks, they will no doubt do well from it.
Or, we could import some Dutch, to teach us how to build dikes.
I think this is already underway. Not necessarily in FL, but various places in the US.
Water management technology and engineering is shaping up to be a growth industry for the Dutch. They’re a smart and enterprising group of folks, they will no doubt do well from it.
And, in case it doesn’t go without saying, it costs a lot.
And, in case it doesn’t go without saying, it costs a lot.
“The main problem with stilts would be the occasional storm.”
The occasional storm is not an objection to homes on stilts, (Which are frequently built in coastal areas subject to storm surge, and would be more frequently built if not for insurance subsidies.) because homes on stilts are a response to occasional storms. You put the house high enough up that the storm surge passes under, and use the area subject to it for uses which can deal with occasional inundation.
Building a house that can take a storm is cheaper than building a house that has to be repeatedly rebuilt.
“The main problem with stilts would be the occasional storm.”
The occasional storm is not an objection to homes on stilts, (Which are frequently built in coastal areas subject to storm surge, and would be more frequently built if not for insurance subsidies.) because homes on stilts are a response to occasional storms. You put the house high enough up that the storm surge passes under, and use the area subject to it for uses which can deal with occasional inundation.
Building a house that can take a storm is cheaper than building a house that has to be repeatedly rebuilt.
It always has to make assumptions about wave heights. And the foundations for the stilts have to go quite deep depending on the environment. If this was done the way the usual US family home gets built I would not trust it to last very long. Enough strength for the wind to get a hold of the superstructure but not enough to withstand it.
Better grow a deep mangrove forest in front of the house 😉
It always has to make assumptions about wave heights. And the foundations for the stilts have to go quite deep depending on the environment. If this was done the way the usual US family home gets built I would not trust it to last very long. Enough strength for the wind to get a hold of the superstructure but not enough to withstand it.
Better grow a deep mangrove forest in front of the house 😉
Homes would be put up on stilts.
But then everybody would have a view of the water, and teh victory of communism would be complete.
Interesting article on fusion technology and the ITER project here.
Homes would be put up on stilts.
But then everybody would have a view of the water, and teh victory of communism would be complete.
Interesting article on fusion technology and the ITER project here.
Yeah, I expect that, if the ocean actually went up 10 feet, there’d be a lot of mangrove swamps in Florida. Do a dandy job of damping the waves. (Which can only get so high in water that would only be a few feet deep.)
People actually do build homes on stilts, in areas subject to storm surge, now. We don’t have to speculate how to build them properly, we have experience with it.
Yeah, I expect that, if the ocean actually went up 10 feet, there’d be a lot of mangrove swamps in Florida. Do a dandy job of damping the waves. (Which can only get so high in water that would only be a few feet deep.)
People actually do build homes on stilts, in areas subject to storm surge, now. We don’t have to speculate how to build them properly, we have experience with it.
Well, humans have managed to build in stone a few millennia ago but it has not reached the American suburb yet 😉
Yes, you have mentioned the often absurd building codes and zoning laws on occasion as a main reason for that.
Well, humans have managed to build in stone a few millennia ago but it has not reached the American suburb yet 😉
Yes, you have mentioned the often absurd building codes and zoning laws on occasion as a main reason for that.
Stone is a great building material. As long as your environmental problem is high winds, rather than earthquakes. (And you have something to sink the foundation into besides mud.)
Stone is a great building material. As long as your environmental problem is high winds, rather than earthquakes. (And you have something to sink the foundation into besides mud.)
Actually, stone can work great with earthquakes, too, so long as you pair it with rebar and concrete.
Actually, stone can work great with earthquakes, too, so long as you pair it with rebar and concrete.
The city of Berlin is built out of stone on sand and mud. The bigger buildings stand on thousands of wooden poles driven into the shaky ground. Even the Spandau Citadel essentially floats on this kind of support structure.
The city of Berlin is built out of stone on sand and mud. The bigger buildings stand on thousands of wooden poles driven into the shaky ground. Even the Spandau Citadel essentially floats on this kind of support structure.
Fargo, North Dakota is a city on stilts.
Fargo, North Dakota is a city on stilts.
“Homes would be put up on stilts.”
Whoa, slow down there, Kemosabe, let’s not rush into anything. This is not a time to be rash; indeed, there will plenty of time to rush into rashness. I’m counting on you (I was just relaxing and reordering priorities on account of your libertarian insouciance up thread that we stop with the panic and await higher rates of rape before we act, and now all of a sudden it’s stilts this, and dikes that) to give us the high sign for when we should begin to prepare for high water, probably in the middle of the night with a bullhorn as you go door-to-door leading us (individually only; there will no collective action through any government agency, including the Coast Guard) to higher ground and apparently ordering the mangroves to become plentiful just in the nick of time:
http://takvera.blogspot.com/2013/01/mangrove-forests-threatened-by-climate.html
Wait, what. Ya mean the mangroves removed by development on the Florida coasts and elsewhere? You mean the ones that are being destroyed around the globe already by rising seas. What, are the mangroves going to lift their skirts like Ents and traipse … traipse, I say, inland several miles or more at the snap of our fingers:
http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/blue_planet/coasts/mangroves/mangrove_threats/
This impetuous preparation must cease and desist immediately and I’d like to know why government has the right to adopt new building codes without my permission:
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/florida/florida.pdf
What about Palm Beach? Good lord, and Boca Raton? The thought of all of the “tiny little ads” grifters and the penny stock liars getting their $38,000 John Lob busterbrowns wet pains me enormously.
The Glen Garry Glen Ross Realty Bucket shops will need to adjust their sales pitches before the inundation. I can hear the Al Pacino character, Ricky Roma in the movie of the same name advising his clients right now: “You need to buy this beachfront property today .. now, buppie, before it moves inland. I need better clients. Hoo-Ha!”
http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/news/news/national/future-florida-sea-level-rise-could-flood-parts-of/nTXjn/
If anyone can bear it, NOAA has a website which apparently lets you (you’re not forced) see the effects of rising ocean levels on the U.S. coasts right down to the street address, though I haven’t yet tried it from my perch here a mile above sea level. I would run, not walk to the site before the Republican Party, at the behest of consigliere R. Limbaugh, defunds the thing, so that if and when seas rise further, we’ll be forced to pass on the information instead by word of mouth up and down the coasts, as the Founders intended.
http://maps.csc.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/
Speaking of which, maybe rising seas will clean out the riffraff hogging Palm Beach. I am very, very, very, somewhat, not at all, concerned about one particular piece of property thereabouts:
http://www.jeffrealty.com/blog/2012/03/rush-limbaughs-palm-beach-home/
Somehow, the thought of a gigantic storm surge crashing into Limbaugh’s estate, Ann Coulter floating face down on the second floor of one of the guest houses, gives me a frisson of excitement equal only to the news that a Ukrainian nationalist put a bullet in Vlad Putin’s head.
Further, this idea of importing Dutch dyke expertise to the homeland is going to run into fierce opposition from the usual suspects. As noted here years ago, we could learn much about dykes from the Dutch if we weren’t so offended by the thought of Dutch dykes.
I’m speaking of course of opposition from the American Christian Cake Bakers and Solipsists Consortium, which will block any effort to marry one dyke to another end to end even if it keeps out the water and is the right thing to do.
As far as stilts go, I expect Rush Limbaugh will only favor placing women, not structures, on stilts in the event of rising rape fantasies by Republican candidates on account of sultry weather by 2080, but that may only be permitted so that Rush and company can look up Sandra Fluke’s skirts and call her a slut because of the beachfront view.
“It would be Venice, writ large!”
And Venice would be Atlantis, writ kaputnik!
“Homes would be put up on stilts.”
Whoa, slow down there, Kemosabe, let’s not rush into anything. This is not a time to be rash; indeed, there will plenty of time to rush into rashness. I’m counting on you (I was just relaxing and reordering priorities on account of your libertarian insouciance up thread that we stop with the panic and await higher rates of rape before we act, and now all of a sudden it’s stilts this, and dikes that) to give us the high sign for when we should begin to prepare for high water, probably in the middle of the night with a bullhorn as you go door-to-door leading us (individually only; there will no collective action through any government agency, including the Coast Guard) to higher ground and apparently ordering the mangroves to become plentiful just in the nick of time:
http://takvera.blogspot.com/2013/01/mangrove-forests-threatened-by-climate.html
Wait, what. Ya mean the mangroves removed by development on the Florida coasts and elsewhere? You mean the ones that are being destroyed around the globe already by rising seas. What, are the mangroves going to lift their skirts like Ents and traipse … traipse, I say, inland several miles or more at the snap of our fingers:
http://wwf.panda.org/about_our_earth/blue_planet/coasts/mangroves/mangrove_threats/
This impetuous preparation must cease and desist immediately and I’d like to know why government has the right to adopt new building codes without my permission:
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/florida/florida.pdf
What about Palm Beach? Good lord, and Boca Raton? The thought of all of the “tiny little ads” grifters and the penny stock liars getting their $38,000 John Lob busterbrowns wet pains me enormously.
The Glen Garry Glen Ross Realty Bucket shops will need to adjust their sales pitches before the inundation. I can hear the Al Pacino character, Ricky Roma in the movie of the same name advising his clients right now: “You need to buy this beachfront property today .. now, buppie, before it moves inland. I need better clients. Hoo-Ha!”
http://www.palmbeachdailynews.com/news/news/national/future-florida-sea-level-rise-could-flood-parts-of/nTXjn/
If anyone can bear it, NOAA has a website which apparently lets you (you’re not forced) see the effects of rising ocean levels on the U.S. coasts right down to the street address, though I haven’t yet tried it from my perch here a mile above sea level. I would run, not walk to the site before the Republican Party, at the behest of consigliere R. Limbaugh, defunds the thing, so that if and when seas rise further, we’ll be forced to pass on the information instead by word of mouth up and down the coasts, as the Founders intended.
http://maps.csc.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/
Speaking of which, maybe rising seas will clean out the riffraff hogging Palm Beach. I am very, very, very, somewhat, not at all, concerned about one particular piece of property thereabouts:
http://www.jeffrealty.com/blog/2012/03/rush-limbaughs-palm-beach-home/
Somehow, the thought of a gigantic storm surge crashing into Limbaugh’s estate, Ann Coulter floating face down on the second floor of one of the guest houses, gives me a frisson of excitement equal only to the news that a Ukrainian nationalist put a bullet in Vlad Putin’s head.
Further, this idea of importing Dutch dyke expertise to the homeland is going to run into fierce opposition from the usual suspects. As noted here years ago, we could learn much about dykes from the Dutch if we weren’t so offended by the thought of Dutch dykes.
I’m speaking of course of opposition from the American Christian Cake Bakers and Solipsists Consortium, which will block any effort to marry one dyke to another end to end even if it keeps out the water and is the right thing to do.
As far as stilts go, I expect Rush Limbaugh will only favor placing women, not structures, on stilts in the event of rising rape fantasies by Republican candidates on account of sultry weather by 2080, but that may only be permitted so that Rush and company can look up Sandra Fluke’s skirts and call her a slut because of the beachfront view.
“It would be Venice, writ large!”
And Venice would be Atlantis, writ kaputnik!
For some rising waters dystopian musings, read J.G. Ballard’s “The Drowned World”.
For some rising waters dystopian musings, read J.G. Ballard’s “The Drowned World”.
For a dyke to hold, something living has to be put into it during construction (old folk wisdom). At last a reason to award the contracts to the Mafia.
For a dyke to hold, something living has to be put into it during construction (old folk wisdom). At last a reason to award the contracts to the Mafia.
A libertarian 😉 using Fargo as an example for the rest of us seems a bit stilted, given the city’s reliance on the dreaded crony capitalism and taxpayer funded water diversion, most of which is probably federal dollars:
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/in-fargo-developers-want-to-build-a-skyscraper-in-a-flood-zone/
For Fargo, I suggest something along the lines of what the long lost puff adder and knave Trevino/Tacitus, in his incisive but depraved sense of what all of us should do, suggested years ago for New Orleans after the hurricane: abandon ship and shut it down.
I imagined at the time New Orleans’ millions of residents being force-marched out of the city by the Bush Administration, their stuff on their backs, into Texas, like Cambodians out of Phnom Penh 40 years ago, and provided paper hats for their jobs at Arby’s and let’s call it a win-win for the free market.
As with New Orleans, some french trappers long ago led us down the path too near the water and we’ve fallen for it.
Who says, free men without government make the best and right decisions, excepting the beaver belt hats.
A libertarian 😉 using Fargo as an example for the rest of us seems a bit stilted, given the city’s reliance on the dreaded crony capitalism and taxpayer funded water diversion, most of which is probably federal dollars:
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/in-fargo-developers-want-to-build-a-skyscraper-in-a-flood-zone/
For Fargo, I suggest something along the lines of what the long lost puff adder and knave Trevino/Tacitus, in his incisive but depraved sense of what all of us should do, suggested years ago for New Orleans after the hurricane: abandon ship and shut it down.
I imagined at the time New Orleans’ millions of residents being force-marched out of the city by the Bush Administration, their stuff on their backs, into Texas, like Cambodians out of Phnom Penh 40 years ago, and provided paper hats for their jobs at Arby’s and let’s call it a win-win for the free market.
As with New Orleans, some french trappers long ago led us down the path too near the water and we’ve fallen for it.
Who says, free men without government make the best and right decisions, excepting the beaver belt hats.
pelt … beaver pelt hats, s’il vous plait
pelt … beaver pelt hats, s’il vous plait
the thing is, nobody alive today is going to see florida underwater. imminent sea level rise measured in multiple meters, in anything like the near term, is not really what anybody is talking about.
OK, maybe Al Gore. But leaving Al Gore aside, not really anybody.
there are some predicted effects that we might expect to see in the near term. some of them – glacier and arctic ice retreat – we already see.
stuff like multi-meter sea level rise, if it happens, will take hundreds of years to play out. because they require things to happen that take decades to centuries to play out.
so, even if there is already enough CO2 in the atmosphere, today, to prompt a multi-meter sea level rise, none of us will have to deal with it. our great-great-grandchildren might.
so, no worries, unless you live in a low-lying atoll or a coastal barrier island, you will not have to put your house on stilts.
the questions we are faced with now are whether we are going to continue to burn carbon at the rates that we currently do, or whether we are going to start scaling it back.
there will, if folks like hansen et al understand things correctly, be some serious long-lasting consequences from the carbon that’s already in the atmosphere. and, that will almost certainly be added to the atmosphere, because we’re not going to turn our existing industrial culture and infrastructure on a dime.
those effects are not trivial, not least for lots of species other than us.
but the “new york city underwater” scenarios require CO2 levels on the order of twice what they were before the industrial revolution. which would require us to burn a hell of a lot of carbon that is still in the ground.
and, even if we burned that, they wouldn’t show up for decades to centuries, because the Greenland and Antarctic ice shelves are freaking ginormous, and it takes time to melt all of that ice.
nobody alive will see any of that happen. the question is whether we moderate what we do, so that folks 100 or 200 or 500 years from now don’t have a dramatically different climate to deal with.
if we burn everything we currently know about, the planet will be a different place in 100 or 200 years. if we don’t, it will probably not be exactly like it is now, because there’s already a lot of stuff in the air, but it will be sort of in the range of what we — or, more correctly, folks then — can probably deal with.
it’s a question of what we want to leave behind us, and whether we give a crap about that or not.
the thing is, nobody alive today is going to see florida underwater. imminent sea level rise measured in multiple meters, in anything like the near term, is not really what anybody is talking about.
OK, maybe Al Gore. But leaving Al Gore aside, not really anybody.
there are some predicted effects that we might expect to see in the near term. some of them – glacier and arctic ice retreat – we already see.
stuff like multi-meter sea level rise, if it happens, will take hundreds of years to play out. because they require things to happen that take decades to centuries to play out.
so, even if there is already enough CO2 in the atmosphere, today, to prompt a multi-meter sea level rise, none of us will have to deal with it. our great-great-grandchildren might.
so, no worries, unless you live in a low-lying atoll or a coastal barrier island, you will not have to put your house on stilts.
the questions we are faced with now are whether we are going to continue to burn carbon at the rates that we currently do, or whether we are going to start scaling it back.
there will, if folks like hansen et al understand things correctly, be some serious long-lasting consequences from the carbon that’s already in the atmosphere. and, that will almost certainly be added to the atmosphere, because we’re not going to turn our existing industrial culture and infrastructure on a dime.
those effects are not trivial, not least for lots of species other than us.
but the “new york city underwater” scenarios require CO2 levels on the order of twice what they were before the industrial revolution. which would require us to burn a hell of a lot of carbon that is still in the ground.
and, even if we burned that, they wouldn’t show up for decades to centuries, because the Greenland and Antarctic ice shelves are freaking ginormous, and it takes time to melt all of that ice.
nobody alive will see any of that happen. the question is whether we moderate what we do, so that folks 100 or 200 or 500 years from now don’t have a dramatically different climate to deal with.
if we burn everything we currently know about, the planet will be a different place in 100 or 200 years. if we don’t, it will probably not be exactly like it is now, because there’s already a lot of stuff in the air, but it will be sort of in the range of what we — or, more correctly, folks then — can probably deal with.
it’s a question of what we want to leave behind us, and whether we give a crap about that or not.
“imminent sea level rise measured in multiple meters,”
The “none of us will live to see it” part kind of contradicts the “imminent” part. This is like talking about “imminent glacial rebound”. The imminent sea level rise is on the order of millimeters. The projected sea level rise, per the IPCC, is on the order of tens of centimeters. Some people project more, some less. I see little reason to have confidence in any of these projections.
And, the “New York city underwater scenarios require more than higher CO2 levels. They require the models to actually be correct.
They also require that we not do anything about it in the next 200 years, where “do anything about it” isn’t limited to not burning coal and oil, isn’t limited to things we’re capable of today.
Think about what our capabilities were 200 years ago. Think about what they’ll be 200 years from now. Maybe half the world’s population will be living on floating islands, and won’t give a fart what the sea level is, because they’re always on top of it. Maybe we’ll send a billion tons of nanomachines into the atmosphere, to absorb green light, (Conveniently not used by plants.) and use it to reduce CO2 levels. Maybe we’ll deploy orbital sun screens to block a half percent or so of the Sun’s rays from reaching the Earth, and cool the planet back down. Float polyethylene balls on the ocean, to suppress evaporation and change the planet’s albedo.
Predictions that NYC will drown in 2100 are, I think, somewhat like predictions that it would be 20 feet deep in horse manure in 2000. They’re alike, in that they ignore the largest factor in determining the future:
Technological change.
“imminent sea level rise measured in multiple meters,”
The “none of us will live to see it” part kind of contradicts the “imminent” part. This is like talking about “imminent glacial rebound”. The imminent sea level rise is on the order of millimeters. The projected sea level rise, per the IPCC, is on the order of tens of centimeters. Some people project more, some less. I see little reason to have confidence in any of these projections.
And, the “New York city underwater scenarios require more than higher CO2 levels. They require the models to actually be correct.
They also require that we not do anything about it in the next 200 years, where “do anything about it” isn’t limited to not burning coal and oil, isn’t limited to things we’re capable of today.
Think about what our capabilities were 200 years ago. Think about what they’ll be 200 years from now. Maybe half the world’s population will be living on floating islands, and won’t give a fart what the sea level is, because they’re always on top of it. Maybe we’ll send a billion tons of nanomachines into the atmosphere, to absorb green light, (Conveniently not used by plants.) and use it to reduce CO2 levels. Maybe we’ll deploy orbital sun screens to block a half percent or so of the Sun’s rays from reaching the Earth, and cool the planet back down. Float polyethylene balls on the ocean, to suppress evaporation and change the planet’s albedo.
Predictions that NYC will drown in 2100 are, I think, somewhat like predictions that it would be 20 feet deep in horse manure in 2000. They’re alike, in that they ignore the largest factor in determining the future:
Technological change.
And let me add this:
Even assuming the models are right, if the only solution you’ve got is demanding that the world abandon fossil fuels, while they’re still affordable, and NOT for nuclear, either, you’re going to lose. People will not chose poverty. The third world will not agree to stay the third world.
If the models are correct, the only feasible solution is a combination of nuclear and geo-engineering. No matter how much you might loathe both. People won’t give up using energy, “renewables” won’t be a major source of it for many decades, and the coal and oil ARE going to get burnt.
Multi-national agreements won’t do squat. That’s even more of a fantasy than windmills and solar panels replacing coal. It’s unicorn fart level fantasy.
Even if you’re right, you’re not going to get your prefered solutions, because people won’t volunteer to be poor, and that’s what they imply: That most people stay poor.
And let me add this:
Even assuming the models are right, if the only solution you’ve got is demanding that the world abandon fossil fuels, while they’re still affordable, and NOT for nuclear, either, you’re going to lose. People will not chose poverty. The third world will not agree to stay the third world.
If the models are correct, the only feasible solution is a combination of nuclear and geo-engineering. No matter how much you might loathe both. People won’t give up using energy, “renewables” won’t be a major source of it for many decades, and the coal and oil ARE going to get burnt.
Multi-national agreements won’t do squat. That’s even more of a fantasy than windmills and solar panels replacing coal. It’s unicorn fart level fantasy.
Even if you’re right, you’re not going to get your prefered solutions, because people won’t volunteer to be poor, and that’s what they imply: That most people stay poor.
The “none of us will live to see it” part kind of contradicts the “imminent” part.
OK, to review:
What we put into the atmosphere NOW has effects that will not be evident until LATER.
So, if we don’t want to see (or want other folks to have to live with) disastrous effects LATER, we need to put less carbon in the air NOW.
Hence, the imminence.
Think about what our capabilities were 200 years ago. Think about what they’ll be 200 years from now.
That’s a really entertaining list of imaginary technologies you present. I’d say they pretty handily take first prize for “unicorn fart level fantasy”, when compared to, for instance, “put less carbon in the atmosphere”.
Just saying.
But yeah, who knows what the hell we’ll be able to do 200 years from now. Best of luck to our future progeny.
if the only solution you’ve got is demanding that the world abandon fossil fuels, while they’re still affordable, and NOT for nuclear, either, you’re going to lose.
I think this is correct, although either way I personally won’t lose. I’m almost 60, I’ll be dead before anything really bad happens.
But your basic point is, I think, correct. People will generally not accept any change in their lifestyle, let alone a negative one, for the benefit of folks who aren’t even born yet.
I don’t expect to see any really significant action on this unless somebody comes up with a solution that won’t inconvenience people in general.
And the bar for “inconvenience”, as we’ve seen on this and other threads, is pretty damned low.
So, best of luck to our future progeny.
The “none of us will live to see it” part kind of contradicts the “imminent” part.
OK, to review:
What we put into the atmosphere NOW has effects that will not be evident until LATER.
So, if we don’t want to see (or want other folks to have to live with) disastrous effects LATER, we need to put less carbon in the air NOW.
Hence, the imminence.
Think about what our capabilities were 200 years ago. Think about what they’ll be 200 years from now.
That’s a really entertaining list of imaginary technologies you present. I’d say they pretty handily take first prize for “unicorn fart level fantasy”, when compared to, for instance, “put less carbon in the atmosphere”.
Just saying.
But yeah, who knows what the hell we’ll be able to do 200 years from now. Best of luck to our future progeny.
if the only solution you’ve got is demanding that the world abandon fossil fuels, while they’re still affordable, and NOT for nuclear, either, you’re going to lose.
I think this is correct, although either way I personally won’t lose. I’m almost 60, I’ll be dead before anything really bad happens.
But your basic point is, I think, correct. People will generally not accept any change in their lifestyle, let alone a negative one, for the benefit of folks who aren’t even born yet.
I don’t expect to see any really significant action on this unless somebody comes up with a solution that won’t inconvenience people in general.
And the bar for “inconvenience”, as we’ve seen on this and other threads, is pretty damned low.
So, best of luck to our future progeny.
It’s interesting that reducing the population never gets mentioned in these discussions, except perhaps by me.
Too hard, maybe. Certainly a long-term approach.
It’s interesting that reducing the population never gets mentioned in these discussions, except perhaps by me.
Too hard, maybe. Certainly a long-term approach.
know what else never gets mentioned?
pollution
know what else never gets mentioned?
pollution
there is no shortage of interesting things that do and do not get mentioned in these discussions.
personally, i try to limit what i say about this stuff to the least controversial things possible. CO2 levels actually do seem to be higher, the models predict certain things, at least some of the ones that we would expect to be happening now actually are happening, credible organizations that could expect to see no particular upside if it’s a reality seem to take it seriously.
that’s pretty much my position on the topic, because i’m not a climatologist, let alone a paleo-climatologist.
and, as we see, even the most modest claims are met with resistance at the level of paranoid fantasies about socialist power grabs and a fundamental refusal to consider even the most modest changes in how we generate and use power.
CFLs don’t complement my skin tones and they don’t generate enough heat to keep my chickens warm.
al gore flies in planes.
that’s the level of dialog. nothing new about it, as sapient points out way way upthread, it’s the same level of dialog we’ve had at least since jimmy carter wore a sweater.
IMO if we can find a replacement for fossil fuels that (a) won’t require anyone to make any kind of significant change in their lifestyle, and (b) won’t cost too much, maybe we can make a dent. and for “significant change in their lifestyle” i mean NO significant change, even if the net quality of life is equal or even better.
if we can’t find something like that, we’re going to continue to burn great big sh*tloads of carbon, unless and until the consequences bite us, personally, right on our very own @sses.
the expected effects are likely to be positive, at least until 2080. who gives a sh*t about what happens after 2080? the nanobots will clean it up.
people have a limited capacity to deal with stuff, which ends up translating into making decisions that are stupid, selfish, sort-sighted, and counter-productive.
very smart monkeys, maybe the smartest monkeys around, but monkeys.
best of luck to our future progeny.
there is no shortage of interesting things that do and do not get mentioned in these discussions.
personally, i try to limit what i say about this stuff to the least controversial things possible. CO2 levels actually do seem to be higher, the models predict certain things, at least some of the ones that we would expect to be happening now actually are happening, credible organizations that could expect to see no particular upside if it’s a reality seem to take it seriously.
that’s pretty much my position on the topic, because i’m not a climatologist, let alone a paleo-climatologist.
and, as we see, even the most modest claims are met with resistance at the level of paranoid fantasies about socialist power grabs and a fundamental refusal to consider even the most modest changes in how we generate and use power.
CFLs don’t complement my skin tones and they don’t generate enough heat to keep my chickens warm.
al gore flies in planes.
that’s the level of dialog. nothing new about it, as sapient points out way way upthread, it’s the same level of dialog we’ve had at least since jimmy carter wore a sweater.
IMO if we can find a replacement for fossil fuels that (a) won’t require anyone to make any kind of significant change in their lifestyle, and (b) won’t cost too much, maybe we can make a dent. and for “significant change in their lifestyle” i mean NO significant change, even if the net quality of life is equal or even better.
if we can’t find something like that, we’re going to continue to burn great big sh*tloads of carbon, unless and until the consequences bite us, personally, right on our very own @sses.
the expected effects are likely to be positive, at least until 2080. who gives a sh*t about what happens after 2080? the nanobots will clean it up.
people have a limited capacity to deal with stuff, which ends up translating into making decisions that are stupid, selfish, sort-sighted, and counter-productive.
very smart monkeys, maybe the smartest monkeys around, but monkeys.
best of luck to our future progeny.
“It’s interesting that reducing the population never gets mentioned in these discussions, except perhaps by me.”
That would likely be, because reducing the population fast enough, and by a large enough degre to matter, would cause a demographic catastrophe.
People aren’t going to give up their lifespans, either. This implies that the only way to reduce population, is to have fewer children, and the only way to reduce it even moderately fast, is to have a LOT few children. As in, way, way below replacement levels.
China managed that for a little while, most of the world is not governed by totalitarian states, any government which attempted to impose such a policy would fall. And it’s yet to be seen whether China will be stable through the inevitable surge of spoiled only children taking control of society in a few years.
And, if you do manage it, the result is that a few decades after you manage it, you’ve got nobody to run your nursing homes. What do you do with the old farts, euthanize them?
Japan is headed towards this, and they are desperately trying to advance robotics, because they’re too xenophobic to import foreigners to run all those nursing homes. Who knows, if they succeed, maybe you could manage to reduce population by a couple percent a year without demographic tragedy. Just import Japanese android nurses.
Is a couple percent a year enough to matter, in this scenario? No, not really. And that’s why hardly anybody talks about reducing population to avoid these problems. Because, if you run the numbers, it becomes clear you’re talking a mass dieoff of the human race, worldwide genocide.
People actually do talk about that being necessary. Thankfully they haven’t the power to impose it.
“It’s interesting that reducing the population never gets mentioned in these discussions, except perhaps by me.”
That would likely be, because reducing the population fast enough, and by a large enough degre to matter, would cause a demographic catastrophe.
People aren’t going to give up their lifespans, either. This implies that the only way to reduce population, is to have fewer children, and the only way to reduce it even moderately fast, is to have a LOT few children. As in, way, way below replacement levels.
China managed that for a little while, most of the world is not governed by totalitarian states, any government which attempted to impose such a policy would fall. And it’s yet to be seen whether China will be stable through the inevitable surge of spoiled only children taking control of society in a few years.
And, if you do manage it, the result is that a few decades after you manage it, you’ve got nobody to run your nursing homes. What do you do with the old farts, euthanize them?
Japan is headed towards this, and they are desperately trying to advance robotics, because they’re too xenophobic to import foreigners to run all those nursing homes. Who knows, if they succeed, maybe you could manage to reduce population by a couple percent a year without demographic tragedy. Just import Japanese android nurses.
Is a couple percent a year enough to matter, in this scenario? No, not really. And that’s why hardly anybody talks about reducing population to avoid these problems. Because, if you run the numbers, it becomes clear you’re talking a mass dieoff of the human race, worldwide genocide.
People actually do talk about that being necessary. Thankfully they haven’t the power to impose it.
Slarti, reducing the population would certainly contribute to reducing total economic activity and so CO2 production. But in order to avoid other issues we would need to deal with the long, and well-paid, retirements we currently provide. Because what pays for all that is the current efforts of the younger part of the population.
As the Europeans and the Japanese are learning, when you population starts to shrink instead of grow, you are forced to make some changes in that regard. Which may be worth doing in themselves, of course. But definitely count as a change in people’s current comfortable lifestyle. Specifically the comfortable lifestyle of that part of the population most opposed to change.
Slarti, reducing the population would certainly contribute to reducing total economic activity and so CO2 production. But in order to avoid other issues we would need to deal with the long, and well-paid, retirements we currently provide. Because what pays for all that is the current efforts of the younger part of the population.
As the Europeans and the Japanese are learning, when you population starts to shrink instead of grow, you are forced to make some changes in that regard. Which may be worth doing in themselves, of course. But definitely count as a change in people’s current comfortable lifestyle. Specifically the comfortable lifestyle of that part of the population most opposed to change.
Certainly a long-term approach.
Seconded.
Pollution
Seconded.
Certainly a long-term approach.
Seconded.
Pollution
Seconded.
But in order to avoid other issues we would need to deal with the long, and well-paid, retirements we currently provide. Because what pays for all that is the current efforts of the younger part of the population.
Heartily disagree. This concern ignores totally the long term impact of productivity increase. Assuming we stay on trend (yes a big assumption) productivity swamps these other factors (aging of population). We hear this same ‘concern’ raised in our political discussions here. As Dean Baker points out tirelessly, this is an unsubstantiated line of reasoning “for those who know how to use arithmetic”.
Further, the allocation of our productive output is not handed down on high on sacred tablets. We currently waste a lot of resources because of the political choices we have made, not because “the market” dictates that’s where they should go.
But in order to avoid other issues we would need to deal with the long, and well-paid, retirements we currently provide. Because what pays for all that is the current efforts of the younger part of the population.
Heartily disagree. This concern ignores totally the long term impact of productivity increase. Assuming we stay on trend (yes a big assumption) productivity swamps these other factors (aging of population). We hear this same ‘concern’ raised in our political discussions here. As Dean Baker points out tirelessly, this is an unsubstantiated line of reasoning “for those who know how to use arithmetic”.
Further, the allocation of our productive output is not handed down on high on sacred tablets. We currently waste a lot of resources because of the political choices we have made, not because “the market” dictates that’s where they should go.
Even assuming the models are right, if the only solution you’ve got is demanding that the world abandon fossil fuels, while they’re still affordable, and NOT for nuclear, either, you’re going to lose.
Brett, I don’t know if this raises Hansen’s stock with you at all, but he agrees with you on nuclear. Hansen published a paper last year titled:
“Prevented mortality and greenhouse gas emissions from historical and projected nuclear power”
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es3051197
I don’t know if the article is paywalled but I’m pretty sure Hansen’s exchange with others group regarding with paper isn’t:
Critique 1:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es401667h
Response 1:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es402211m
Critique 2:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es404245a
Response 2:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es404806w
Those four comments are pretty short (1 page each) and I think they sum up the pro/anti nuclear debate pretty well, at least in the context of reducing GHG.
TLDR version, nuclear is the most viable method of reducing GHG near-term.
Even assuming the models are right, if the only solution you’ve got is demanding that the world abandon fossil fuels, while they’re still affordable, and NOT for nuclear, either, you’re going to lose.
Brett, I don’t know if this raises Hansen’s stock with you at all, but he agrees with you on nuclear. Hansen published a paper last year titled:
“Prevented mortality and greenhouse gas emissions from historical and projected nuclear power”
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es3051197
I don’t know if the article is paywalled but I’m pretty sure Hansen’s exchange with others group regarding with paper isn’t:
Critique 1:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es401667h
Response 1:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es402211m
Critique 2:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es404245a
Response 2:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es404806w
Those four comments are pretty short (1 page each) and I think they sum up the pro/anti nuclear debate pretty well, at least in the context of reducing GHG.
TLDR version, nuclear is the most viable method of reducing GHG near-term.
“and, as we see, even the most modest claims are met with resistance at the level of paranoid fantasies about socialist power grabs and a fundamental refusal to consider even the most modest changes in how we generate and use power.
CFLs don’t complement my skin tones and they don’t generate enough heat to keep my chickens warm.
al gore flies in planes.
that’s the level of dialog. nothing new about it, as sapient points out way way upthread, it’s the same level of dialog we’ve had at least since jimmy carter wore a sweater.”
I should leave it at that, but ….
Herein lies the answer to the mystery of Slart’s population reduction dog that no longer barks and cleek’s pollution cat that no longer goes meow in the night — and I’m talking on the ground in this country at the level of federal and state law-making bodies — try introducing any sort of society-wide measures through these traditional institutions given their current gerrymandered makeups and exotic rules abuses — generally speaking, dialogue, let alone action, if that’s what is believed is required, even by a democratic majority, is verboten in the current malign and intentional sociopathic paralysis afflicting the polis.
You might as well bring legislation limiting semi-automatic clip capacities in and near schools and or in and near bars, let alone more radical gun control strategies, for all the good it will do anyone.
One upside of this latter absurdity is there might in fact be some marginal population reduction among the “stupid, selfish, short-sighted, and counter-productive” who shoot their own children, their wives and girlfriends (sometimes simultaneously), their neighbors, innocent bystanders, and themselves by accident, and I’m pretty sure these folks are not “green” liberal types, but are rather the types who would feel inconvenienced by any limiting measures in other areas, especially if the inconvenience is trumpeted by mailers and dinnertime robocalls by the local Tea Party candidate.
Yes, the murder rate is plummeting, but much of that is probably due to the lead-reduction thesis, which by the way was fought tooth and nail by the usual suspects as “unelected EPA bureaucrats” “conspired” like “communist”, “tree-hugging gay hippies” to restrict the lead content in paint and gasoline and the FDA mandated the listing of lead content in their freedom fries.
If the connection between paint/gasoline and lead poisoning had not been made until last Thursday, there is no way any measures to regulate or reduce lead content in today’s cracked, dysfunctional, corrupt, regressive political culture.
Instead, you’d see Limbaugh, FOX, and Drudge extolling the benefits of lead consumption and crowds of Tea Party afficianados carrying signs pleading that the government via Medicare and Obamacare stay OUT of lead poisoning prevention and extolling dark conspiracies about Nancy Pelosi really wanting to confiscate our children’s #2 pencils.
Steve Doocy and co-stars would be munching on deep-fried paint chips with lead additives on his show in protest.
Governor Rick Perry would threaten Texas’ secession from the Union over proposed lead limits in paint in today’s toxic political climate, his “thinking” in and of itself a prime symptom of lead poisoning.
True, as Brett points out, horse puckey in New York City never reached 20 feet depths by the year 2000, but I can attest to the fact that horsesh*t surmounted those levels in the Wall Street district during the dot.com bubble of 2000 and the equine sewers backed up completely in the same area around 2006-07.
And that doesn’t count the mountain of horsesh*t secreted during American mid-term elections.
More seriously, the claim that anyone here claims that solar and wind power will fully supplant coal as an energy power source is scat from a horse of a different color.
I don’t even think Bill McKibben believes it.
The threat to coal, especially high-sulfur coal from the eastern United States, is the relatively cheap (for now, but wait until water users, because of scarcity and pollution, begin knocking heads with natural gas fracking producers) supply of natural gas.
Ask any electric and gas utility operator.
The savior of the American coal industry are the second and third worlds to whom most of it will be exported, a process already well underway.
Not a great idea, but maybe China’s command and control economy will issue some commands and controls as things progress, by which I mean regress.
There’s a reason Warren Buffet bought all of Burlington Northern Railroad. Getting coal to ports.
He’s merely hedging his energy bets with the massive solar investment of his wholly owned Mid-American Energy.
The energy footprint for the forseeable future will be a mix, probably including nuclear in some form, as a suspicious Kenyan has repeatedly pointed out to outraged cries of “Solyndra! by the usual suspects.
Unicorn farts. I’ll have you know that methane biomass production from unicorn fartage has been on the drawing boards for some time as a marginal replacement fuel source, but an alarming thing happened along the way.
Despite the regulatory efforts of busybody envirowackos to preserve and regulate unicorn resources by outlawing the harvesting of unicorn horns for their aphrodisiac properties, conservatives, and rich ones at that, in certain cultures have resisted change and inconvenience and shot down all legislation and in fact have financed the mercenary poaching of unicorn for their horns and I’m sorry to report that the species is now extinct.
Remarkably, there are still too many boners.
Unicorn farts finis, as Sinatra sang.
However, I’m still around and I emit unlimited supplies of hot air from both ends, as you will realize if you’re still reading.
“and, as we see, even the most modest claims are met with resistance at the level of paranoid fantasies about socialist power grabs and a fundamental refusal to consider even the most modest changes in how we generate and use power.
CFLs don’t complement my skin tones and they don’t generate enough heat to keep my chickens warm.
al gore flies in planes.
that’s the level of dialog. nothing new about it, as sapient points out way way upthread, it’s the same level of dialog we’ve had at least since jimmy carter wore a sweater.”
I should leave it at that, but ….
Herein lies the answer to the mystery of Slart’s population reduction dog that no longer barks and cleek’s pollution cat that no longer goes meow in the night — and I’m talking on the ground in this country at the level of federal and state law-making bodies — try introducing any sort of society-wide measures through these traditional institutions given their current gerrymandered makeups and exotic rules abuses — generally speaking, dialogue, let alone action, if that’s what is believed is required, even by a democratic majority, is verboten in the current malign and intentional sociopathic paralysis afflicting the polis.
You might as well bring legislation limiting semi-automatic clip capacities in and near schools and or in and near bars, let alone more radical gun control strategies, for all the good it will do anyone.
One upside of this latter absurdity is there might in fact be some marginal population reduction among the “stupid, selfish, short-sighted, and counter-productive” who shoot their own children, their wives and girlfriends (sometimes simultaneously), their neighbors, innocent bystanders, and themselves by accident, and I’m pretty sure these folks are not “green” liberal types, but are rather the types who would feel inconvenienced by any limiting measures in other areas, especially if the inconvenience is trumpeted by mailers and dinnertime robocalls by the local Tea Party candidate.
Yes, the murder rate is plummeting, but much of that is probably due to the lead-reduction thesis, which by the way was fought tooth and nail by the usual suspects as “unelected EPA bureaucrats” “conspired” like “communist”, “tree-hugging gay hippies” to restrict the lead content in paint and gasoline and the FDA mandated the listing of lead content in their freedom fries.
If the connection between paint/gasoline and lead poisoning had not been made until last Thursday, there is no way any measures to regulate or reduce lead content in today’s cracked, dysfunctional, corrupt, regressive political culture.
Instead, you’d see Limbaugh, FOX, and Drudge extolling the benefits of lead consumption and crowds of Tea Party afficianados carrying signs pleading that the government via Medicare and Obamacare stay OUT of lead poisoning prevention and extolling dark conspiracies about Nancy Pelosi really wanting to confiscate our children’s #2 pencils.
Steve Doocy and co-stars would be munching on deep-fried paint chips with lead additives on his show in protest.
Governor Rick Perry would threaten Texas’ secession from the Union over proposed lead limits in paint in today’s toxic political climate, his “thinking” in and of itself a prime symptom of lead poisoning.
True, as Brett points out, horse puckey in New York City never reached 20 feet depths by the year 2000, but I can attest to the fact that horsesh*t surmounted those levels in the Wall Street district during the dot.com bubble of 2000 and the equine sewers backed up completely in the same area around 2006-07.
And that doesn’t count the mountain of horsesh*t secreted during American mid-term elections.
More seriously, the claim that anyone here claims that solar and wind power will fully supplant coal as an energy power source is scat from a horse of a different color.
I don’t even think Bill McKibben believes it.
The threat to coal, especially high-sulfur coal from the eastern United States, is the relatively cheap (for now, but wait until water users, because of scarcity and pollution, begin knocking heads with natural gas fracking producers) supply of natural gas.
Ask any electric and gas utility operator.
The savior of the American coal industry are the second and third worlds to whom most of it will be exported, a process already well underway.
Not a great idea, but maybe China’s command and control economy will issue some commands and controls as things progress, by which I mean regress.
There’s a reason Warren Buffet bought all of Burlington Northern Railroad. Getting coal to ports.
He’s merely hedging his energy bets with the massive solar investment of his wholly owned Mid-American Energy.
The energy footprint for the forseeable future will be a mix, probably including nuclear in some form, as a suspicious Kenyan has repeatedly pointed out to outraged cries of “Solyndra! by the usual suspects.
Unicorn farts. I’ll have you know that methane biomass production from unicorn fartage has been on the drawing boards for some time as a marginal replacement fuel source, but an alarming thing happened along the way.
Despite the regulatory efforts of busybody envirowackos to preserve and regulate unicorn resources by outlawing the harvesting of unicorn horns for their aphrodisiac properties, conservatives, and rich ones at that, in certain cultures have resisted change and inconvenience and shot down all legislation and in fact have financed the mercenary poaching of unicorn for their horns and I’m sorry to report that the species is now extinct.
Remarkably, there are still too many boners.
Unicorn farts finis, as Sinatra sang.
However, I’m still around and I emit unlimited supplies of hot air from both ends, as you will realize if you’re still reading.
World population growth is projected to slow down and possibly even decline a bit in the not too distant future. Increasing living standards will be, I suspect, a large factor (ceteris paribus).
World population growth is projected to slow down and possibly even decline a bit in the not too distant future. Increasing living standards will be, I suspect, a large factor (ceteris paribus).
“What do you do with the old farts, euthanize them?”
After witnessing my mother’s and other loved ones’ declines into senility and worse, I’m a little afraid I won’t be euthanized when its time, not that I don’t want to stick around as long as possible to witness.
“Because, if you run the numbers, it becomes clear you’re talking a mass dieoff of the human race, worldwide genocide.”
Stateside, Paul Ryan has a budget blueprint for that.
I would add, as a fellow baby boomer to some here, including Brett, that judging from some of the rhetoric issuing from the generational warfare crowd, there are followup generations who can’t wait for the die-off, call it genocide if you wish, to begin, which it has, if death rates among my friends and family are any indication.
Actuaries, depending on who they work for, are either rubbing their hands together with glee as the die-off commences, or hoping to keep us all on life support for as long as possible to avoid paying on those life insurance policies.
“What do you do with the old farts, euthanize them?”
After witnessing my mother’s and other loved ones’ declines into senility and worse, I’m a little afraid I won’t be euthanized when its time, not that I don’t want to stick around as long as possible to witness.
“Because, if you run the numbers, it becomes clear you’re talking a mass dieoff of the human race, worldwide genocide.”
Stateside, Paul Ryan has a budget blueprint for that.
I would add, as a fellow baby boomer to some here, including Brett, that judging from some of the rhetoric issuing from the generational warfare crowd, there are followup generations who can’t wait for the die-off, call it genocide if you wish, to begin, which it has, if death rates among my friends and family are any indication.
Actuaries, depending on who they work for, are either rubbing their hands together with glee as the die-off commences, or hoping to keep us all on life support for as long as possible to avoid paying on those life insurance policies.
human demographic die off….
1.) Fewer people will make labor scarce–raising the relative wage.
2.) The system of endless accumulation (look it up) most likely would not be able to survive.
What’s not to like?
human demographic die off….
1.) Fewer people will make labor scarce–raising the relative wage.
2.) The system of endless accumulation (look it up) most likely would not be able to survive.
What’s not to like?
I don’t know if this raises Hansen’s stock with you at all, but he agrees with you on nuclear.
Hansen is, apparently, a more or less centrist conservative who likely voted for McCain in ’08.
He’s in favor of a direct carbon tax at point of production as a way of discouraging carbon extraction and use, except he’s concerned that the Democrats will grab it all and spend it on more government programs, instead of just distributing it directly to citizens. Like, for instance, they do in Alaska.
Hansen is not, remotely, a socialist, a big-government coup plotter, or any kind of moonbat.
He’s a scientist.
I don’t know if this raises Hansen’s stock with you at all, but he agrees with you on nuclear.
Hansen is, apparently, a more or less centrist conservative who likely voted for McCain in ’08.
He’s in favor of a direct carbon tax at point of production as a way of discouraging carbon extraction and use, except he’s concerned that the Democrats will grab it all and spend it on more government programs, instead of just distributing it directly to citizens. Like, for instance, they do in Alaska.
Hansen is not, remotely, a socialist, a big-government coup plotter, or any kind of moonbat.
He’s a scientist.
Sounds like he’s at least serious. Perhaps merely sloppy with statistics, and a short temper.
Sounds like he’s at least serious. Perhaps merely sloppy with statistics, and a short temper.
if i had to choose between hansen’s analysis and yours, i would go with hansen.
it’s his day job.
just saying.
if i had to choose between hansen’s analysis and yours, i would go with hansen.
it’s his day job.
just saying.
Sounds like he’s at least serious.
Irony alert.
Sounds like he’s at least serious.
Irony alert.
Hey, like it or not, that’s one of my criteria for whether to take somebody complaining about global warming seriously: Whether they’re willing to set aside anti-nuke hysteria for the sake of saving humanity.
The simple fact is that nuclear fission is the only currently available zero CO2, low footprint, power generating technology that’s available now, or for some time to come, that can displace fossil fuels. Nothing else we have NOW is up to the task.
Rejecting nuclear, and then complaining about CO2, is fundamentally unserious.
Hey, like it or not, that’s one of my criteria for whether to take somebody complaining about global warming seriously: Whether they’re willing to set aside anti-nuke hysteria for the sake of saving humanity.
The simple fact is that nuclear fission is the only currently available zero CO2, low footprint, power generating technology that’s available now, or for some time to come, that can displace fossil fuels. Nothing else we have NOW is up to the task.
Rejecting nuclear, and then complaining about CO2, is fundamentally unserious.
Rejecting the proposition that CO2 accumulation is a problem is fundamentally unserious, but let that pass.
What I want Brett’s opinion on is this: would Brett accept a national network of government-owned, government-operated nuclear power plants to replace fossil-fueled power plants over time? Or would he insist that only large corporations operating in The Free Market (while drawing various subsidies and guarantees from the government, of course) are fit to provide us with fission-generated electricity?
IOW, is Brett’s fundamental requirement for “seriousness” a technical argument about fission, or an ideological argument about “free markets”?
–TP
Rejecting the proposition that CO2 accumulation is a problem is fundamentally unserious, but let that pass.
What I want Brett’s opinion on is this: would Brett accept a national network of government-owned, government-operated nuclear power plants to replace fossil-fueled power plants over time? Or would he insist that only large corporations operating in The Free Market (while drawing various subsidies and guarantees from the government, of course) are fit to provide us with fission-generated electricity?
IOW, is Brett’s fundamental requirement for “seriousness” a technical argument about fission, or an ideological argument about “free markets”?
–TP
I never claimed to be serious about global warming. I’m serious about demanding proof proportionate to the actions demanded, the “precautionary principle” be damned.
But I understand some people claim to think that enough proof has been presented, or that the “precautionary principle” actually makes some kind of sense. And seeing how they react to the prospect of solving the problem they see with nuclear is a test of whether they’re actually serious in this, or just acting.
There’s a fundamental difference here: On the one hand, nuclear is the only available technology to do the job, so rejecting it is deciding to not have the job done. On the other hand, the demand that it be done by the government, and only the government, is completely orthogonal to getting the job done, both government AND the private sector are up to it. YOU, IOW, are inserting the ideological argument. Not me. I make no demands about WHO they suggest run the plants.
It’s like, “Ok, I’ve shown I’m serious by agreeing to nuclear power. Now, you show that you’re serious by agreeing the plants are to be staffed exclusively by left-handed redheads.” You’re kidding, right?
I’ll go on to say this: If it were a government that hadn’t demonstrated that it was hostile to nuclear? That hadn’t collected the money for Yuca Mountain, and then refused to built the repository? Regulators who hadn’t been captured by the anti-nuclear movement? Maybe that would be acceptable in a pinch. Were I convinced we were in a pinch.
As things stand, if you propose to put the very same government that’s been trying to kill off nuclear power in charge of implementing it, that just demonstrates to me you want it sabotaged from the start.
I never claimed to be serious about global warming. I’m serious about demanding proof proportionate to the actions demanded, the “precautionary principle” be damned.
But I understand some people claim to think that enough proof has been presented, or that the “precautionary principle” actually makes some kind of sense. And seeing how they react to the prospect of solving the problem they see with nuclear is a test of whether they’re actually serious in this, or just acting.
There’s a fundamental difference here: On the one hand, nuclear is the only available technology to do the job, so rejecting it is deciding to not have the job done. On the other hand, the demand that it be done by the government, and only the government, is completely orthogonal to getting the job done, both government AND the private sector are up to it. YOU, IOW, are inserting the ideological argument. Not me. I make no demands about WHO they suggest run the plants.
It’s like, “Ok, I’ve shown I’m serious by agreeing to nuclear power. Now, you show that you’re serious by agreeing the plants are to be staffed exclusively by left-handed redheads.” You’re kidding, right?
I’ll go on to say this: If it were a government that hadn’t demonstrated that it was hostile to nuclear? That hadn’t collected the money for Yuca Mountain, and then refused to built the repository? Regulators who hadn’t been captured by the anti-nuclear movement? Maybe that would be acceptable in a pinch. Were I convinced we were in a pinch.
As things stand, if you propose to put the very same government that’s been trying to kill off nuclear power in charge of implementing it, that just demonstrates to me you want it sabotaged from the start.
I never claimed to be serious about global warming.
Thank you.
the “precautionary principle” be damned
The precautionary principle is the idea that public action be taken based on potential risk *in the absence of scientific consensus*.
I’m curious to know what the freaking bar is for scientific consensus.
To my knowledge, the folks who differ from the conclusions of NASA, NOAA, the IPCC, et al, are either funded by the fossil fuel industry, or object on the grounds that (a) the results of global warming will actually be net positive, or (b) god wouldn’t allow it to happen.
I’m fine with the precautionary principle, but that’s moot. It isn’t required here.
I never claimed to be serious about global warming.
Thank you.
the “precautionary principle” be damned
The precautionary principle is the idea that public action be taken based on potential risk *in the absence of scientific consensus*.
I’m curious to know what the freaking bar is for scientific consensus.
To my knowledge, the folks who differ from the conclusions of NASA, NOAA, the IPCC, et al, are either funded by the fossil fuel industry, or object on the grounds that (a) the results of global warming will actually be net positive, or (b) god wouldn’t allow it to happen.
I’m fine with the precautionary principle, but that’s moot. It isn’t required here.
I would agree with Brett that taking enormously expensive precautions based of a wildly unlikely possibility with minimal impact if it does occur would be ridiculous.
But what the “precautionary principle” actually means is more like basic risk analysis: What is the cost of precautions? What is the cost of not taking precautions? And how big is the probability of the event?
For example, the cost of an impact by an asteroid could be enormous (depending on its size, of course). No reeal question there. But the cost of a system to deflect one would be high. So the question there is, How big is the risk? Given the potential impact (pun intended), it is worth incurring the relatively small cost of doing a survey, to try and find out how many objects there are with earth-orbit crossing paths, and how big they are. And so we are doing that.
In the case of climate change, the costs of taking action are not trivial (even if significantly mitigated by the other benefits that flow from some possible actions). But the potential cost of inaction is quite high. There are arguments about just how high the cost would actually be. But anyone who knows something about the subject knows that they would not be small (again, even mitigated by the possibility of an improved climate in some places).
.
Most of the arguments seem to be about how high the risk is. And on that score, most of the informed opinion seems to be on the side of fairly high risk. There are informed arguments about just how high. But nobody who knows the subject argues that it is minimal.
I would agree with Brett that taking enormously expensive precautions based of a wildly unlikely possibility with minimal impact if it does occur would be ridiculous.
But what the “precautionary principle” actually means is more like basic risk analysis: What is the cost of precautions? What is the cost of not taking precautions? And how big is the probability of the event?
For example, the cost of an impact by an asteroid could be enormous (depending on its size, of course). No reeal question there. But the cost of a system to deflect one would be high. So the question there is, How big is the risk? Given the potential impact (pun intended), it is worth incurring the relatively small cost of doing a survey, to try and find out how many objects there are with earth-orbit crossing paths, and how big they are. And so we are doing that.
In the case of climate change, the costs of taking action are not trivial (even if significantly mitigated by the other benefits that flow from some possible actions). But the potential cost of inaction is quite high. There are arguments about just how high the cost would actually be. But anyone who knows something about the subject knows that they would not be small (again, even mitigated by the possibility of an improved climate in some places).
.
Most of the arguments seem to be about how high the risk is. And on that score, most of the informed opinion seems to be on the side of fairly high risk. There are informed arguments about just how high. But nobody who knows the subject argues that it is minimal.
I’d agree with wj. That’s pretty much how I look at it as well, with one addendum. Coal is pretty much the worst source of power (except for its price). People die extracting it, people die inhaling it when its burned, and entire watersheds can be wiped out when coal sludge storage fails.
Even ignoring GHG, reducing our use of coal is a good thing.
I’d agree with wj. That’s pretty much how I look at it as well, with one addendum. Coal is pretty much the worst source of power (except for its price). People die extracting it, people die inhaling it when its burned, and entire watersheds can be wiped out when coal sludge storage fails.
Even ignoring GHG, reducing our use of coal is a good thing.
Via Sullivan, longer term, the oceans have bigger fish to fry than just activating sump pumps miles inland as a result of global warming:
http://aeon.co/magazine/nature-and-cosmos/plankton-the-tiny-sentinels-of-the-deep/
“I never claimed to be serious about global warming”
And to think I’ve spent the past few days furrowing my brow over your high standards of seriousness for the rest of humanity. 😉
I’m very serious AND I don’t care.
Sing it, Puddles:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBmCJEehYtU
Via Sullivan, longer term, the oceans have bigger fish to fry than just activating sump pumps miles inland as a result of global warming:
http://aeon.co/magazine/nature-and-cosmos/plankton-the-tiny-sentinels-of-the-deep/
“I never claimed to be serious about global warming”
And to think I’ve spent the past few days furrowing my brow over your high standards of seriousness for the rest of humanity. 😉
I’m very serious AND I don’t care.
Sing it, Puddles:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBmCJEehYtU
But the potential cost of inaction is quite high.
That is quite reasonable, but I would change it a bit to read as follows:
“The expectation of looming costs of inaction is inarguably positive, and arguably quite high.”
But hey, we’ll be able to grow mangos in those parts of Saskatchewan not yet strip mined for tar sands oil. Whoop de derp. Meanwhile vast populations in south Asia and equatorial Africa and South America do what, exactly? Build lots of nuclear reactors so they can have air conditioning? Hire a marketing firm to make jellyfish a delicacy?
A question for BB, not you.
But the potential cost of inaction is quite high.
That is quite reasonable, but I would change it a bit to read as follows:
“The expectation of looming costs of inaction is inarguably positive, and arguably quite high.”
But hey, we’ll be able to grow mangos in those parts of Saskatchewan not yet strip mined for tar sands oil. Whoop de derp. Meanwhile vast populations in south Asia and equatorial Africa and South America do what, exactly? Build lots of nuclear reactors so they can have air conditioning? Hire a marketing firm to make jellyfish a delicacy?
A question for BB, not you.
Yup, I never claimed to be serious about global warming. It’s difficult to take seriously a cause which manifestly is not taken seriously by most of it’s champions.
You want to know what I can be serious about? Getting rid of coal. Coal power is an environmental abomination, and that’s true whether or not you take global warming seriously.
And, what’s the biggest obstacle to getting rid of coal? The anti-nuclear movement. They’ve been blocking the only realistic alternative to fossil fuels for decades.
And, who’s allied with the anti-nuke movement? Yup, the global warming movement. Rigs metrics for CO2 compliance so that nuclear doesn’t count. Won’t count nuclear as “renewable”, when it’s good for a geologic time period. Gives aid and comfort to the enemies of the only real alternative to coal.
Got to change that, if you want me to take you seriously. Maybe you don’t, maybe you figure you’re going to win without people like me. Doesn’t look to me like you’re winning the PR battle, though. Looks to me like you’re getting desperate.
Yup, I never claimed to be serious about global warming. It’s difficult to take seriously a cause which manifestly is not taken seriously by most of it’s champions.
You want to know what I can be serious about? Getting rid of coal. Coal power is an environmental abomination, and that’s true whether or not you take global warming seriously.
And, what’s the biggest obstacle to getting rid of coal? The anti-nuclear movement. They’ve been blocking the only realistic alternative to fossil fuels for decades.
And, who’s allied with the anti-nuke movement? Yup, the global warming movement. Rigs metrics for CO2 compliance so that nuclear doesn’t count. Won’t count nuclear as “renewable”, when it’s good for a geologic time period. Gives aid and comfort to the enemies of the only real alternative to coal.
Got to change that, if you want me to take you seriously. Maybe you don’t, maybe you figure you’re going to win without people like me. Doesn’t look to me like you’re winning the PR battle, though. Looks to me like you’re getting desperate.
Won’t count nuclear as “renewable”, when it’s good for a geologic time period.
I’m neither for nor against nuclear power. If it’s the best choice, fine, let’s do that.
But purely for sake of clarity, “renewable” and “lasts a really long time” don’t actually mean the same thing.
Got to change that, if you want me to take you seriously.
Not on the bucket list.
Too much work, minimal upside.
I enjoy chatting here on ObWi, but I harbor no illusions about changing minds.
Won’t count nuclear as “renewable”, when it’s good for a geologic time period.
I’m neither for nor against nuclear power. If it’s the best choice, fine, let’s do that.
But purely for sake of clarity, “renewable” and “lasts a really long time” don’t actually mean the same thing.
Got to change that, if you want me to take you seriously.
Not on the bucket list.
Too much work, minimal upside.
I enjoy chatting here on ObWi, but I harbor no illusions about changing minds.
For the sake of clarity, yes they do mean the same. Geothermal counts as “renewable”, and the Earth will eventually cool. Solar counts as “renewable”, and the Sun will eventually go out. All “renewable” energy sources are of finite duration, and those durations are comparable to nuclear fission.
Nuclear is good for at least until plate tectonics grinds to a halt, and the mountains have eroded into the sea. Until then, fissile and fertile elements are being washed out to sea, and can be extracted from the sea at good EROI, at a rate higher than is needed to supply all our Earthly energy from nuclear. We don’t need to mine terrestrial deposits at all, they’re merely conveniently concentrated.
That makes nuclear as long lasting as geothermal. As long lasting as Earth based solar, for that matter, because the Sun is likely to go off main sequence and engulf the Earth before we run out of nuclear fuel.
That being the case, what excuse exists for declaring nuclear to not be “renewable”, and no less ephemerial sources of energy superior in this regard?
For the sake of clarity, yes they do mean the same. Geothermal counts as “renewable”, and the Earth will eventually cool. Solar counts as “renewable”, and the Sun will eventually go out. All “renewable” energy sources are of finite duration, and those durations are comparable to nuclear fission.
Nuclear is good for at least until plate tectonics grinds to a halt, and the mountains have eroded into the sea. Until then, fissile and fertile elements are being washed out to sea, and can be extracted from the sea at good EROI, at a rate higher than is needed to supply all our Earthly energy from nuclear. We don’t need to mine terrestrial deposits at all, they’re merely conveniently concentrated.
That makes nuclear as long lasting as geothermal. As long lasting as Earth based solar, for that matter, because the Sun is likely to go off main sequence and engulf the Earth before we run out of nuclear fuel.
That being the case, what excuse exists for declaring nuclear to not be “renewable”, and no less ephemerial sources of energy superior in this regard?
I enjoy chatting here on ObWi, but I harbor no illusions about changing minds.
That would be like the Seattle Seahawks trying to convince the Denver Broncos to root for them in the Super Bowl, instead of simply playing the game in an attempt at beating the Broncos (only without the possibility of winning in an objectively indisputable manner, natch).
This is a sport of sorts – an entertaining diversion. (Though I have a friend in meat space who went from being politically conservative to politically liberal largely due to his interactions on this very blog, back in the day. But I don’t see Brett as a candidate for that sort thing.)
I enjoy chatting here on ObWi, but I harbor no illusions about changing minds.
That would be like the Seattle Seahawks trying to convince the Denver Broncos to root for them in the Super Bowl, instead of simply playing the game in an attempt at beating the Broncos (only without the possibility of winning in an objectively indisputable manner, natch).
This is a sport of sorts – an entertaining diversion. (Though I have a friend in meat space who went from being politically conservative to politically liberal largely due to his interactions on this very blog, back in the day. But I don’t see Brett as a candidate for that sort thing.)
The government, meaning the Administration, accused above of sabotaging nuclear energy production is net/net more in favor of safe nuclear power than it is in preserving coal as a utility energy source.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/obama-administration-announces-loan-guarantees-construct-new-nuclear-power-reactors
Key passage:
“But energy leaders and experts recognize that as long as producing carbon pollution carries no cost, traditional plants that use fossil fuels will be more cost-effective than plants that use nuclear fuel. That is why we need comprehensive energy and climate legislation to create a system of incentives to make clean energy profitable.”
Even if there was not a single anti-nuke green in the country, nuclear power cannot outbid coal and other carbon sources in price without federal loan guarantees, and I think we know which parts of the “government” (hint: the parts closest to the people in West Virginia and Wyoming who send their reps to Washington) refuse to discuss a carbon tax, because .. well because.
Now, the two Georgia plants being constructed by the Southern Company are progressing and yes there are anti-nuke activists at the local and state levels, the governments closest to the people, raising a ruckus against the mere thought of the evil bureaucracy in out-of-touch Washington who dares interfere in local affairs with their socialist loan guarantees (that the vaunted cowardly private financing system finds too risky), crony capitalism, and tax finagling.
This all sounds familiar.
It almost sounds like a tea party or a demonstration against a healthcare exchange.
The government, meaning the Administration, accused above of sabotaging nuclear energy production is net/net more in favor of safe nuclear power than it is in preserving coal as a utility energy source.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/obama-administration-announces-loan-guarantees-construct-new-nuclear-power-reactors
Key passage:
“But energy leaders and experts recognize that as long as producing carbon pollution carries no cost, traditional plants that use fossil fuels will be more cost-effective than plants that use nuclear fuel. That is why we need comprehensive energy and climate legislation to create a system of incentives to make clean energy profitable.”
Even if there was not a single anti-nuke green in the country, nuclear power cannot outbid coal and other carbon sources in price without federal loan guarantees, and I think we know which parts of the “government” (hint: the parts closest to the people in West Virginia and Wyoming who send their reps to Washington) refuse to discuss a carbon tax, because .. well because.
Now, the two Georgia plants being constructed by the Southern Company are progressing and yes there are anti-nuke activists at the local and state levels, the governments closest to the people, raising a ruckus against the mere thought of the evil bureaucracy in out-of-touch Washington who dares interfere in local affairs with their socialist loan guarantees (that the vaunted cowardly private financing system finds too risky), crony capitalism, and tax finagling.
This all sounds familiar.
It almost sounds like a tea party or a demonstration against a healthcare exchange.
those anti-nuke activists would probably be shocked to learn that they wield so much power.
those anti-nuke activists would probably be shocked to learn that they wield so much power.
Geothermal counts as “renewable”, and the Earth will eventually cool. Solar counts as “renewable”, and the Sun will eventually go out.
Fair enough.
those anti-nuke activists would probably be shocked to learn that they wield so much power.
It’s one of those Illuminati things.
Geothermal counts as “renewable”, and the Earth will eventually cool. Solar counts as “renewable”, and the Sun will eventually go out.
Fair enough.
those anti-nuke activists would probably be shocked to learn that they wield so much power.
It’s one of those Illuminati things.
Regarding Yucca Mountain, a passage from Wikipedia:
“The project is widely opposed in Nevada and is a hotly debated national topic. A two-thirds majority of Nevadans feel it is unfair for their state to have to store nuclear waste when there are no nuclear power plants in Nevada”
Damn those people governing closest to the people and sabotaging national policy foisted upon them by know-it-alls in Washington D.C.
What those Nevadans need is some crony capitalists dotting their landscape with nuclear power plants so they come around to seeing the value of Yucca in their own backyards.
That way we can fool so-called serious people into thinking things work from the bottom up instead how they actually work, from the top down.
Regarding Yucca Mountain, a passage from Wikipedia:
“The project is widely opposed in Nevada and is a hotly debated national topic. A two-thirds majority of Nevadans feel it is unfair for their state to have to store nuclear waste when there are no nuclear power plants in Nevada”
Damn those people governing closest to the people and sabotaging national policy foisted upon them by know-it-alls in Washington D.C.
What those Nevadans need is some crony capitalists dotting their landscape with nuclear power plants so they come around to seeing the value of Yucca in their own backyards.
That way we can fool so-called serious people into thinking things work from the bottom up instead how they actually work, from the top down.
just to fact-check a bit:
Scientific American says we have about 230 years of uranium useable for power generation, given current technologies, pricing, and rates of consumption.
The Work Nuclear Association has it at 80 – 190 years, with the same caveats.
The brainiacs at MIT estimate we can power 1000 plants for about 50 years, given current known resources and the caveats mentioned above.
Of course, technology may improve, and/or uranium prices might increase significantly, either of which would change the picture.
However, relying on remarkable improvements in technology and/or dramatic changes in the economic picture puts nuclear on about the same footing as most other options.
In any case, 50 – 230 years of reliable supply, given a known and mature technology, is a pretty good near-term option.
just to fact-check a bit:
Scientific American says we have about 230 years of uranium useable for power generation, given current technologies, pricing, and rates of consumption.
The Work Nuclear Association has it at 80 – 190 years, with the same caveats.
The brainiacs at MIT estimate we can power 1000 plants for about 50 years, given current known resources and the caveats mentioned above.
Of course, technology may improve, and/or uranium prices might increase significantly, either of which would change the picture.
However, relying on remarkable improvements in technology and/or dramatic changes in the economic picture puts nuclear on about the same footing as most other options.
In any case, 50 – 230 years of reliable supply, given a known and mature technology, is a pretty good near-term option.
IAEA says 100 years, given currently known resources and requirements.
IAEA says 100 years, given currently known resources and requirements.
The feds (in the form of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board) come down on the side of 80-230 years, with enough supply for more or less unlimited growth for at least 50.
The feds (in the form of the Nuclear Waste Technical Review Board) come down on the side of 80-230 years, with enough supply for more or less unlimited growth for at least 50.
Do these numbers include reprocessing or is it single use?
Do these numbers include reprocessing or is it single use?
Look what happens when you let the objectivist capitalist riffraff move into Galt’s Gulch — folks try to build a water tower to supply nearby fracking and advance the free market and Galt himself, Dagny panting after him, runs to the gummint to whine and halt freedom.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/02/24/65569.htm
Imagine if some enterprising Kenyan tried to build a nuclear plant down the road.
That’s not a bad idea, come to think of it.
Look what happens when you let the objectivist capitalist riffraff move into Galt’s Gulch — folks try to build a water tower to supply nearby fracking and advance the free market and Galt himself, Dagny panting after him, runs to the gummint to whine and halt freedom.
http://www.courthousenews.com/2014/02/24/65569.htm
Imagine if some enterprising Kenyan tried to build a nuclear plant down the road.
That’s not a bad idea, come to think of it.
those anti-nuke activists would probably be shocked to learn that they wield so much power.
It’s worth pointing out that fission is one of the few energy sources where the price of the externalities are at least nominally covered (nuke plants taxes cover a disposal fund), suggesting that the “anti-nuke movement” at least has more traction than the “anti-GHG movement”.
It would be silly to say there isn’t a fairly powerful anti-nuclear lobby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement), but that’s not the main problem, IMHO.
Anti-nuke groups exist in a really fertile environment. Fission has really, really bad public perception. Everybody is scared of radiation, has minimal if any concept of why and how its dangerous, they just know that it is. Burning coal is far worse for people and the environment, but most people would rather live near a coal plant than a nuke plant…it doesn’t take much to convince people they don’t want nuclear in their backyard.
Integrating it into our grid is going to require concentrated effort by environmentalists, nuclear power industry groups, and government to get over the scare factor of nuclear. As Count notes, that’s starting to happen as people get serious about GHG emissions.
It’s not the shadowy Illuminati, it’s the fact its a “scary” technology.
those anti-nuke activists would probably be shocked to learn that they wield so much power.
It’s worth pointing out that fission is one of the few energy sources where the price of the externalities are at least nominally covered (nuke plants taxes cover a disposal fund), suggesting that the “anti-nuke movement” at least has more traction than the “anti-GHG movement”.
It would be silly to say there isn’t a fairly powerful anti-nuclear lobby (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement), but that’s not the main problem, IMHO.
Anti-nuke groups exist in a really fertile environment. Fission has really, really bad public perception. Everybody is scared of radiation, has minimal if any concept of why and how its dangerous, they just know that it is. Burning coal is far worse for people and the environment, but most people would rather live near a coal plant than a nuke plant…it doesn’t take much to convince people they don’t want nuclear in their backyard.
Integrating it into our grid is going to require concentrated effort by environmentalists, nuclear power industry groups, and government to get over the scare factor of nuclear. As Count notes, that’s starting to happen as people get serious about GHG emissions.
It’s not the shadowy Illuminati, it’s the fact its a “scary” technology.
Council on Foreign Relations says 70 years, although if we moved to fast breeders that could stretch to 2,000.
Two thousand years is pretty damned good. Don’t know what the cost / feasibility of moving to fast breeders is.
Council on Foreign Relations says 70 years, although if we moved to fast breeders that could stretch to 2,000.
Two thousand years is pretty damned good. Don’t know what the cost / feasibility of moving to fast breeders is.
Hartmut, I believe that all of the numbers I’ve cited are in terms of technology currently in common use. So, most likely, once through, as opposed to reprocessed.
I don’t know what the cost or feasibility of converting current / planned reactors to reprocessing technology would be.
Of course, a requirement for significantly different technology and/or cost structure takes us out of the realm of “technology on hand”, and puts nuclear on a similar footing as other solutions that require significant changes or improvements in technology.
Hartmut, I believe that all of the numbers I’ve cited are in terms of technology currently in common use. So, most likely, once through, as opposed to reprocessed.
I don’t know what the cost or feasibility of converting current / planned reactors to reprocessing technology would be.
Of course, a requirement for significantly different technology and/or cost structure takes us out of the realm of “technology on hand”, and puts nuclear on a similar footing as other solutions that require significant changes or improvements in technology.
Let’s take a look at where serious people are starting to put some serious money, after a number of years of decline, mostly because of the Fukushima disaster, which was scary, not because of previous scare rhetoric by anti-nuke activists, but because, as thompson points out, regulatory laxness and engineering failures by the private sector were scary.
http://seekingalpha.com/symbol/CCJ
Let’s take a look at where serious people are starting to put some serious money, after a number of years of decline, mostly because of the Fukushima disaster, which was scary, not because of previous scare rhetoric by anti-nuke activists, but because, as thompson points out, regulatory laxness and engineering failures by the private sector were scary.
http://seekingalpha.com/symbol/CCJ
More serious people placing serious money on global warming and investments that might ameliorate its effects.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/3-ways-to-get-rich-off-global-warming-2013-10-16?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
Of course, it’s hard to tell if they are just acting serious or are merely touting impossibly high standards and principles of seriousness.
More serious people placing serious money on global warming and investments that might ameliorate its effects.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/3-ways-to-get-rich-off-global-warming-2013-10-16?siteid=bigcharts&dist=bigcharts
Of course, it’s hard to tell if they are just acting serious or are merely touting impossibly high standards and principles of seriousness.
Reprocessing is certainly a “current” technology, even if it isn’t widely adopted yet.
Reprocessing is certainly a “current” technology, even if it isn’t widely adopted yet.
Everybody is scared of radiation, has minimal if any concept of why and how its dangerous, they just know that it is. Burning coal is far worse for people and the environment
when a nuke plant has trouble, you can poison a region for decades. Chernobyl is still restricted. Fukushima is still an ongoing disaster. Three Mile Island took fifteen years to clean up.
the risks involved with nuclear plants are real, serious, and cannot be brushed away by pointing out that coal might be even worse.
people are afraid of nuclear power because the kinds of accidents nuclear power plants can experience are serious. and people want to live without fear of being killed by the power company.
that said, i live in NC, a couple of miles from a nuke plant, and these days i am far more afraid of Duke Energy poisoning the water with coal ash.
Everybody is scared of radiation, has minimal if any concept of why and how its dangerous, they just know that it is. Burning coal is far worse for people and the environment
when a nuke plant has trouble, you can poison a region for decades. Chernobyl is still restricted. Fukushima is still an ongoing disaster. Three Mile Island took fifteen years to clean up.
the risks involved with nuclear plants are real, serious, and cannot be brushed away by pointing out that coal might be even worse.
people are afraid of nuclear power because the kinds of accidents nuclear power plants can experience are serious. and people want to live without fear of being killed by the power company.
that said, i live in NC, a couple of miles from a nuke plant, and these days i am far more afraid of Duke Energy poisoning the water with coal ash.
In addition to simple reprocessing, it ought to be possible to use a breeder reactor to generate additional fuel. (Unless my memory of what I read way back in college is even more suspect that I think….)
In addition to simple reprocessing, it ought to be possible to use a breeder reactor to generate additional fuel. (Unless my memory of what I read way back in college is even more suspect that I think….)
“You can poison a region for decades.”
Yeah, right. Three Mile Island didn’t even exceed their quarterly release allowance, averaged over the entire quarter. All the people who died from Fukushima died because of the evacuation, not radiation, or the lack of power because plants were shut down.
Chernobyl is basically the absolute worst case for a nuclear accident, it required reckless operation of a obsolete design which would never have been built in the West. No containement, even!
And even so, most of the projected “casualties” from Chernobyl are fictional, the product of a “Linear No Threshold” model of response to radiation which has been known for decades to be wrong. Which is why we have NOT seen the uptick in cancer due to Chernobyl wich was predicted.
Chernobyl, the worst nuclear disaster in history, wasn’t as bad as an average day of coal.
“You can poison a region for decades.”
Yeah, right. Three Mile Island didn’t even exceed their quarterly release allowance, averaged over the entire quarter. All the people who died from Fukushima died because of the evacuation, not radiation, or the lack of power because plants were shut down.
Chernobyl is basically the absolute worst case for a nuclear accident, it required reckless operation of a obsolete design which would never have been built in the West. No containement, even!
And even so, most of the projected “casualties” from Chernobyl are fictional, the product of a “Linear No Threshold” model of response to radiation which has been known for decades to be wrong. Which is why we have NOT seen the uptick in cancer due to Chernobyl wich was predicted.
Chernobyl, the worst nuclear disaster in history, wasn’t as bad as an average day of coal.
Reprocessing is certainly a “current” technology, even if it isn’t widely adopted yet.
Yes, but given the current price of uranium, it’s not particularly economic.
See here, and here, and here
Yes, two of those are academic papers, but they show their work.
Basically, the price of uranium would have to increase by an order of magnitude before reprocessing would be competitive, economically.
Plain old coal and gas beats the pants off of both, if various forms of regulation etc. are factored out.
We could simply require reprocessing as a matter of public policy, but then we’re back in the realm of regulation, subsidies, and all of that crap we all love so much.
Depending on the technology used, proliferation is also a potential hazard.
Chernobyl, the worst nuclear disaster in history, wasn’t as bad as an average day of coal.
Could be true, but if you want to “win”, you’re going to have to convince lots of people that the risks are not something they should be concerned about.
Reprocessing is certainly a “current” technology, even if it isn’t widely adopted yet.
Yes, but given the current price of uranium, it’s not particularly economic.
See here, and here, and here
Yes, two of those are academic papers, but they show their work.
Basically, the price of uranium would have to increase by an order of magnitude before reprocessing would be competitive, economically.
Plain old coal and gas beats the pants off of both, if various forms of regulation etc. are factored out.
We could simply require reprocessing as a matter of public policy, but then we’re back in the realm of regulation, subsidies, and all of that crap we all love so much.
Depending on the technology used, proliferation is also a potential hazard.
Chernobyl, the worst nuclear disaster in history, wasn’t as bad as an average day of coal.
Could be true, but if you want to “win”, you’re going to have to convince lots of people that the risks are not something they should be concerned about.
Which is why we have NOT seen the uptick in cancer due to Chernobyl wich was predicted.
predictions? who cares about predictions? the known and documented uptick in cancer rates actually happened.
All the people who died from Fukushima died because of the evacuation, not radiation, or the lack of power because plants were shut down.
so far.
Which is why we have NOT seen the uptick in cancer due to Chernobyl wich was predicted.
predictions? who cares about predictions? the known and documented uptick in cancer rates actually happened.
All the people who died from Fukushima died because of the evacuation, not radiation, or the lack of power because plants were shut down.
so far.
predictions? who cares about predictions? the known and documented uptick in cancer rates actually happened.
People base fears on such predictions, among other things. So, even though there are real dangers, as the documented increase in cancer rates demonstrates, fears can still be overblown.
I don’t think it’s controversial to say that many people have irrational or uninformed fears about radiation from nuclear plants. Nor do I think it’s controversial to say that nuclear power has its risks, some of which are potentially great, even if unlikely.
predictions? who cares about predictions? the known and documented uptick in cancer rates actually happened.
People base fears on such predictions, among other things. So, even though there are real dangers, as the documented increase in cancer rates demonstrates, fears can still be overblown.
I don’t think it’s controversial to say that many people have irrational or uninformed fears about radiation from nuclear plants. Nor do I think it’s controversial to say that nuclear power has its risks, some of which are potentially great, even if unlikely.
Nuclear power proponents have consistently understated cost & risk, and overstated benefits. Same old. (WPPS my home state fiasco). The industry could never have gotten off the ground without public intervention and subsidy. It won’t get much further without a great deal of the same.
Somehow Brett, free-marketer fanatic that he claims to be, never mentions this.
The coal/gas/oil industry is a walking, talking, live example of classic market failure. It, too, relies on a great deal of public money.
However, if nuclear is the way to go, then I cannot take you seriously unless you promise to vote straight Democratic Party ticket going forward, because the GOP, as an institution, actively denies the very science to begin with, and is deeply allied with those who fund the denier movement.
You know, goose….meet gander.
It’s pretty hard to discuss solutions when 1/2 of the folks out there don’t even believe there is a problem to begin with.
Nuclear power proponents have consistently understated cost & risk, and overstated benefits. Same old. (WPPS my home state fiasco). The industry could never have gotten off the ground without public intervention and subsidy. It won’t get much further without a great deal of the same.
Somehow Brett, free-marketer fanatic that he claims to be, never mentions this.
The coal/gas/oil industry is a walking, talking, live example of classic market failure. It, too, relies on a great deal of public money.
However, if nuclear is the way to go, then I cannot take you seriously unless you promise to vote straight Democratic Party ticket going forward, because the GOP, as an institution, actively denies the very science to begin with, and is deeply allied with those who fund the denier movement.
You know, goose….meet gander.
It’s pretty hard to discuss solutions when 1/2 of the folks out there don’t even believe there is a problem to begin with.
Specifically, rates of thyroid cancer in children in the region surrounding Chernobyl have increased and are predicted to increase.
http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html
Incidence rates of other cancers for the most part have not increased.
Among the workers who didn’t die at Chernobyl, there was a spike in eye cataract formation, which I believe you are familiar with as a result of radiation exposure, but in your case voluntary and a calculated risk to defeat a worse malady and that last is great news.
Stating that there was “no” uptick in cancer rates, given the thyroid cancer, sounds like something a Soviet apparatchik would claim, like Putin claiming there are “no” Soviet troops in Crimea.
In a former life, I used to do public information outreach for a Federal agency which conducted cloud seeding research projects and would meet with citizens groups (for, against, neutral) to inform them of the science and address their concerns regarding risks, among them health risks, and good luck standing in front of them (you know, actual people, the individual governing unit closest to the people) and categorically stating that there were “No” risks, even if true.
There were usually one or two vocal folks in the audience who, like Brett, would tell us we were full of sh*t merely because we were from the government, but it rarely persuaded them either when we invited scientists from the private sector along for the sessions.
Nuclear energy might reach more acceptance in this country, if Brett is correct about its economics and safety, if there wasn’t a constant barrage of anti-gummint propaganda foisted on the American people by the usual suspects, because believe me, nuclear power is going nowhere in this country without deep government involvement.
Moving to the general case for nuclear power, I don’t think nuclear energy as a power source will ever surmount the images of mushroom clouds over Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and in the U.S. deserts and Pacific atolls, not to mention the decades of dumbass nuclear terror propaganda silting down on the American people like fallout since World War II as a result of the nuclear arms race.
Yes, the facts seems to show that coal is much worse, but Americans are much more comfortable with being killed slowly than with the threat of sudden death, though pointing guns at the toddler as we’re cleaning them (the gun, not the toddler, though I imagine next week some dumbass American guy will shoot his kid accidentally while playing hide the banana and stand your ground in the bathtub) seems to argue the opposite.
And, again with coal, while accusations that this government sides with the anti-nuke folks have been brought forth as a cause of keeping coal as an energy source, it’s this Administration that has been racked over the “coals” for issuing Presidential edicts to decrease the use of coal in power plants.
In fact, it wasn’t too long ago that a conservative on these pages claimed that the President was single-handedly destroying the U.S. coal industry and I didn’t hear any other conservatives here (all two of ya) rushing to defend shutting it down because of it’s “environmental abomination.”
It’s enough to make serious people cry.
That’ll be the day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rhl8LbtayeI
Specifically, rates of thyroid cancer in children in the region surrounding Chernobyl have increased and are predicted to increase.
http://www.unscear.org/unscear/en/chernobyl.html
Incidence rates of other cancers for the most part have not increased.
Among the workers who didn’t die at Chernobyl, there was a spike in eye cataract formation, which I believe you are familiar with as a result of radiation exposure, but in your case voluntary and a calculated risk to defeat a worse malady and that last is great news.
Stating that there was “no” uptick in cancer rates, given the thyroid cancer, sounds like something a Soviet apparatchik would claim, like Putin claiming there are “no” Soviet troops in Crimea.
In a former life, I used to do public information outreach for a Federal agency which conducted cloud seeding research projects and would meet with citizens groups (for, against, neutral) to inform them of the science and address their concerns regarding risks, among them health risks, and good luck standing in front of them (you know, actual people, the individual governing unit closest to the people) and categorically stating that there were “No” risks, even if true.
There were usually one or two vocal folks in the audience who, like Brett, would tell us we were full of sh*t merely because we were from the government, but it rarely persuaded them either when we invited scientists from the private sector along for the sessions.
Nuclear energy might reach more acceptance in this country, if Brett is correct about its economics and safety, if there wasn’t a constant barrage of anti-gummint propaganda foisted on the American people by the usual suspects, because believe me, nuclear power is going nowhere in this country without deep government involvement.
Moving to the general case for nuclear power, I don’t think nuclear energy as a power source will ever surmount the images of mushroom clouds over Nagasaki and Hiroshima, and in the U.S. deserts and Pacific atolls, not to mention the decades of dumbass nuclear terror propaganda silting down on the American people like fallout since World War II as a result of the nuclear arms race.
Yes, the facts seems to show that coal is much worse, but Americans are much more comfortable with being killed slowly than with the threat of sudden death, though pointing guns at the toddler as we’re cleaning them (the gun, not the toddler, though I imagine next week some dumbass American guy will shoot his kid accidentally while playing hide the banana and stand your ground in the bathtub) seems to argue the opposite.
And, again with coal, while accusations that this government sides with the anti-nuke folks have been brought forth as a cause of keeping coal as an energy source, it’s this Administration that has been racked over the “coals” for issuing Presidential edicts to decrease the use of coal in power plants.
In fact, it wasn’t too long ago that a conservative on these pages claimed that the President was single-handedly destroying the U.S. coal industry and I didn’t hear any other conservatives here (all two of ya) rushing to defend shutting it down because of it’s “environmental abomination.”
It’s enough to make serious people cry.
That’ll be the day:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rhl8LbtayeI
Nuclear is good for at least until plate tectonics grinds to a halt….
This is like saying we will always have oil as long as we have carbon based life forms and the creation of sedimentary rock.
….right out of a 1957 issue of Popular Mechanics?
Nuclear is good for at least until plate tectonics grinds to a halt….
This is like saying we will always have oil as long as we have carbon based life forms and the creation of sedimentary rock.
….right out of a 1957 issue of Popular Mechanics?
Is it rude to point out that we know when we have hit an important topic by this: we see not just one but multiple posts — on-topic, insightful, and coherent — from the Count. By which criteria, this topic definitely qualifies.
Is it rude to point out that we know when we have hit an important topic by this: we see not just one but multiple posts — on-topic, insightful, and coherent — from the Count. By which criteria, this topic definitely qualifies.
Enjoy it while it lasts, because backsliding is sure to overtake me.
Enjoy it while it lasts, because backsliding is sure to overtake me.
Looking forward to it. (Otherwise, I would fear for your health!) 😉
Looking forward to it. (Otherwise, I would fear for your health!) 😉
the risks involved with nuclear plants are real, serious, and cannot be brushed away by pointing out that coal might be even worse.
I’m not trying to brush them aside, but right now we get a lot of energy from coal, which is worse. But:
Yes, the facts seems to show that coal is much worse, but Americans are much more comfortable with being killed slowly than with the threat of sudden death
Yep.
the President was single-handedly destroying the U.S. coal industry and I didn’t hear any other conservatives here (all two of ya) rushing to defend shutting it down because of it’s “environmental abomination.”
Sorry, wasn’t around yet. The next time the president takes it upon himself to destroy the coal industry, I’ll ride shotgun.
Also, Count:
nuclear power is going nowhere in this country without deep government involvement.
Agree, and that’s what I was alluding to above. Even if its a win in terms of AGW, AGW is a vague and futuristic threat that nobody really understands.
As you say, however, everybody understands a mushroom cloud.
Any large scale shift to nuke power would take a coordinated push from media, government, and NGOs. Anything less and its too easy to appeal to peoples fears of nuke power to slow progress.
the risks involved with nuclear plants are real, serious, and cannot be brushed away by pointing out that coal might be even worse.
I’m not trying to brush them aside, but right now we get a lot of energy from coal, which is worse. But:
Yes, the facts seems to show that coal is much worse, but Americans are much more comfortable with being killed slowly than with the threat of sudden death
Yep.
the President was single-handedly destroying the U.S. coal industry and I didn’t hear any other conservatives here (all two of ya) rushing to defend shutting it down because of it’s “environmental abomination.”
Sorry, wasn’t around yet. The next time the president takes it upon himself to destroy the coal industry, I’ll ride shotgun.
Also, Count:
nuclear power is going nowhere in this country without deep government involvement.
Agree, and that’s what I was alluding to above. Even if its a win in terms of AGW, AGW is a vague and futuristic threat that nobody really understands.
As you say, however, everybody understands a mushroom cloud.
Any large scale shift to nuke power would take a coordinated push from media, government, and NGOs. Anything less and its too easy to appeal to peoples fears of nuke power to slow progress.
Some coal stats:
http://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/
Some coal stats:
http://www.eia.gov/coal/production/quarterly/
Brett Bellmore: I make no demands about WHO they suggest run the plants.
Glad to hear it, Brett. So, I guess we can put you down as supporting nukes EVEN IF they are publicly owned and operated. That eliminates ONE objection to nuclear for a green hippie like me.
For serious people: I am not taking it for granted that government can do a better job of running nukes than the private sector can. A government run by god-bothering, science-denying Republicans would surely make a complete hash of it. But I do take it for granted that the “private sector”, left to its own devices, would be no more careful about operating nukes than it has been about operating coal mines, pip lines, ash dumps, etc. etc.
–TP
Brett Bellmore: I make no demands about WHO they suggest run the plants.
Glad to hear it, Brett. So, I guess we can put you down as supporting nukes EVEN IF they are publicly owned and operated. That eliminates ONE objection to nuclear for a green hippie like me.
For serious people: I am not taking it for granted that government can do a better job of running nukes than the private sector can. A government run by god-bothering, science-denying Republicans would surely make a complete hash of it. But I do take it for granted that the “private sector”, left to its own devices, would be no more careful about operating nukes than it has been about operating coal mines, pip lines, ash dumps, etc. etc.
–TP
“god-bothering”
Nice.
“god-bothering”
Nice.
“God-botherer” is a standard pejorative in Britain and some Commonwealth countries for someone who attempts to inflict her/his religious opinions on others. Including military chaplains.
“God-botherer” is a standard pejorative in Britain and some Commonwealth countries for someone who attempts to inflict her/his religious opinions on others. Including military chaplains.
“This is like saying we will always have oil as long as we have carbon based life forms and the creation of sedimentary rock.”
No, not at all. While the oceans have accumulated about 4.5 billion tons of Uranium, (To say nothing of the Thorium.) the point is that erosion is adding to this stock faster than we’d need to remove it. Which is not at all like the ongoing creation of oil at a minuscule rate.
Let me add that, in a towering bit of irony, coal actually contains more energy in the form of Uranium and Thorium, than can be got from burning it. (One of the reasons that coal power plants violate the radiation release limits on nuclear plants.) This is concentrated in the fly-ash, which could be remediated AND mined for fuel at the same time.
Tony. I would much prefer private sector nuclear power, to making the nation dependent on yet another artificial government monopoly. (Liberals hate monopolies, except for their favorite, the one monopoly that goes around shooting people.) However, I would grant that advocating even government monopoly nuclear would be a sign of seriousness in a global warming advocate.
My big concern would be that this requires a competent government. So I can’t see it happening here, unless maybe we had a revolution first. Our government is sinking fast in that regard, well into the endgame where the only priority in spending is enriching cronies so that some of the money makes it’s way back to the people running the government, actually getting anything done hardly makes the list.
Business at least enriches itself by supplying things to people, even if the supplying things is incidental to their aims, it is at least essential, in as much as they can’t tax people, and must deal with competition.
“This is like saying we will always have oil as long as we have carbon based life forms and the creation of sedimentary rock.”
No, not at all. While the oceans have accumulated about 4.5 billion tons of Uranium, (To say nothing of the Thorium.) the point is that erosion is adding to this stock faster than we’d need to remove it. Which is not at all like the ongoing creation of oil at a minuscule rate.
Let me add that, in a towering bit of irony, coal actually contains more energy in the form of Uranium and Thorium, than can be got from burning it. (One of the reasons that coal power plants violate the radiation release limits on nuclear plants.) This is concentrated in the fly-ash, which could be remediated AND mined for fuel at the same time.
Tony. I would much prefer private sector nuclear power, to making the nation dependent on yet another artificial government monopoly. (Liberals hate monopolies, except for their favorite, the one monopoly that goes around shooting people.) However, I would grant that advocating even government monopoly nuclear would be a sign of seriousness in a global warming advocate.
My big concern would be that this requires a competent government. So I can’t see it happening here, unless maybe we had a revolution first. Our government is sinking fast in that regard, well into the endgame where the only priority in spending is enriching cronies so that some of the money makes it’s way back to the people running the government, actually getting anything done hardly makes the list.
Business at least enriches itself by supplying things to people, even if the supplying things is incidental to their aims, it is at least essential, in as much as they can’t tax people, and must deal with competition.
as long as carbon is cheap, nukes are not going to make headway without public sponsorship – i.e. government – in one form or another.
neither is anything else, in anything like the near term.
My big concern would be that this requires a competent government
is there any government on earth that meets your standards for competence?
any government in history, for that matter?
as long as carbon is cheap, nukes are not going to make headway without public sponsorship – i.e. government – in one form or another.
neither is anything else, in anything like the near term.
My big concern would be that this requires a competent government
is there any government on earth that meets your standards for competence?
any government in history, for that matter?
If you don’t think God exists, there’s no One to bother. If you acknowledge the existence of the God of the Bible, he pretty much commands that people bother him.
So, “god-bothering” doesn’t really make sense, ever, in any context I can imagine. It’s an insult fail.
Some might say my imagination is somewhat lacking, though.
If you don’t think God exists, there’s no One to bother. If you acknowledge the existence of the God of the Bible, he pretty much commands that people bother him.
So, “god-bothering” doesn’t really make sense, ever, in any context I can imagine. It’s an insult fail.
Some might say my imagination is somewhat lacking, though.
When will someone come up with a method of using the towering bits of irony in our energy debates as feedstock for our Nation’s energy demands, I ask you?
Even though I put gas in my 1996 Toyota Tercel, I am mindful that it runs purely on irony. It is highly ironic, given everything, that it gets from point A to Point B.
So, I’m doing my part. I often gaze under the hood for the irony fuel cell that must be there.
The Owner’s Manual doesn’t mention it.
I know you were speaking to someone else’s preference for a government monopoly over nuclear power, but my assertion that there will be deep involvement does not assume a government monopoly, it merely presumes nuclear power will be provided to the grid through regulated utilities, just like most power has been provided under generally agreed upon rules promulgated through a representative democracy as demanded by the people closest to the people, the luckiest people in the world.
I would be happy to rid the world of cronyism but Americans do love their Koch and they try to insert their Kochs into every area of our lives, because they are trying to get some business done oveh heah, kapiche?
This revolution you speak of, where do I sign up?
Despite your repeated passive-voiced utterances about “revolution” over the years, I presume the troubles will be violent and bloody with plenty of attendant killing and maiming, maybe some mass graves filled with government employees, (yes, they shoot people, though my observation is that the people they’ve shot over the years would have shot themselves or their followers by accident anyway during their weekly drunken field stripping of the weapons and assorted debauchery, not that THAT was any reason for government to intervene; no, their immediate neighbors should have shot them first) and their cronies, given your people’s penchant for stockpiling high-powered weaponry, (I’d he happy to disarm government as well) unless you think it will be one those velvet types of revolution, which I doubt.
I presume the anti-coal people will join us, given their frustration with the coal industries’ crony ties to government, and the pro-coal folks down in Peabody country will join us given their hatred for the crony faggotry running the green side of the power debate, and I presume the anti-nuclear power folks will join us in this armed struggle as well, given their feelings about government cronies forcing nuclear power down their power grids and throats, and it goes on and on doesn’t it in this recruitment effort.
No doubt Dick Armey (you always want a guy with a name like that on your side) and the Exxon CEO will will join the struggle as well if only to stop their cronies from cronying up their backyards with unsightly water towers that are better forced down the throats of lower-middle class neighborhoods where renters predominate.
And, off in the woods, you’ll have Ted Nugent standing over a kneeling Barack Obama, who has just been forced to dig a pit for his and his family’s grave, deciding whether to shoot them in the back of the heads with a single shot setting on his weapon, or maybe back off a bit and use his crossbow, the f*cking murderous subhuman piece of sh*t.
He’s a crony of yours, right? Have a talk with him.
Now, Che, this new form of governance which will follow, and that you haven’t described in much detail, may have to wait when the first goals of the revolution are reached, dissolving representative government, at least for a time, by force, because I’m thinking these various splinter groups, fully armed as well, will now wonder why the other splinter groups want to FORCE their preferred energy sources down their throats, so I foresee a lengthy interregnum of internecine violence as those competing claims are resolved through bloodshed, since I expect the coal folks will take the opportunity in this dicey, highly charged environment bristling with weaponry, to take out the pesky greens, and so on, and I’m looking forward to you, King Nuclear, firing your weapon in the air, momentarily silencing the mayhem, and announcing to your fellow revolutionaries that YOU have resolved (like the fascist Ukrainians first move after their revolution to make it illegal for Russian ethnic groups in the Ukraine to speak Russian), given your pristine certainty about the facts, that nuclear power will be the way we’re going and that’ll be enough about coal, and solar, and wind power, so shut your traps, and I guess you expect them to buy this line of leadership because you are cronyless, and shortly to be friendless as well.
Or, were you going to lay down the arms and have a vote on these matters, only to probably lose the vote to a loose consortium of other power interests, probably because they don’t like being bossed around, more that anything else, like you, when their interests are threatened, and then what.
And then you’ll have to deal with me, your fellow confederate in this revolution, and I have my own ideas and priorities about what I will assent to be forced to accept regarding power, and since I’m extremely heavily armed too, you really don’t want to f*ck with me.
In conclusion, your solution to getting your way in the energy debates because you feel you are being forced by crony government to accept their priorities is to overthrow that government by violence and force everyone else to accept your energy solutions.
That’s my solution too.
When will someone come up with a method of using the towering bits of irony in our energy debates as feedstock for our Nation’s energy demands, I ask you?
Even though I put gas in my 1996 Toyota Tercel, I am mindful that it runs purely on irony. It is highly ironic, given everything, that it gets from point A to Point B.
So, I’m doing my part. I often gaze under the hood for the irony fuel cell that must be there.
The Owner’s Manual doesn’t mention it.
I know you were speaking to someone else’s preference for a government monopoly over nuclear power, but my assertion that there will be deep involvement does not assume a government monopoly, it merely presumes nuclear power will be provided to the grid through regulated utilities, just like most power has been provided under generally agreed upon rules promulgated through a representative democracy as demanded by the people closest to the people, the luckiest people in the world.
I would be happy to rid the world of cronyism but Americans do love their Koch and they try to insert their Kochs into every area of our lives, because they are trying to get some business done oveh heah, kapiche?
This revolution you speak of, where do I sign up?
Despite your repeated passive-voiced utterances about “revolution” over the years, I presume the troubles will be violent and bloody with plenty of attendant killing and maiming, maybe some mass graves filled with government employees, (yes, they shoot people, though my observation is that the people they’ve shot over the years would have shot themselves or their followers by accident anyway during their weekly drunken field stripping of the weapons and assorted debauchery, not that THAT was any reason for government to intervene; no, their immediate neighbors should have shot them first) and their cronies, given your people’s penchant for stockpiling high-powered weaponry, (I’d he happy to disarm government as well) unless you think it will be one those velvet types of revolution, which I doubt.
I presume the anti-coal people will join us, given their frustration with the coal industries’ crony ties to government, and the pro-coal folks down in Peabody country will join us given their hatred for the crony faggotry running the green side of the power debate, and I presume the anti-nuclear power folks will join us in this armed struggle as well, given their feelings about government cronies forcing nuclear power down their power grids and throats, and it goes on and on doesn’t it in this recruitment effort.
No doubt Dick Armey (you always want a guy with a name like that on your side) and the Exxon CEO will will join the struggle as well if only to stop their cronies from cronying up their backyards with unsightly water towers that are better forced down the throats of lower-middle class neighborhoods where renters predominate.
And, off in the woods, you’ll have Ted Nugent standing over a kneeling Barack Obama, who has just been forced to dig a pit for his and his family’s grave, deciding whether to shoot them in the back of the heads with a single shot setting on his weapon, or maybe back off a bit and use his crossbow, the f*cking murderous subhuman piece of sh*t.
He’s a crony of yours, right? Have a talk with him.
Now, Che, this new form of governance which will follow, and that you haven’t described in much detail, may have to wait when the first goals of the revolution are reached, dissolving representative government, at least for a time, by force, because I’m thinking these various splinter groups, fully armed as well, will now wonder why the other splinter groups want to FORCE their preferred energy sources down their throats, so I foresee a lengthy interregnum of internecine violence as those competing claims are resolved through bloodshed, since I expect the coal folks will take the opportunity in this dicey, highly charged environment bristling with weaponry, to take out the pesky greens, and so on, and I’m looking forward to you, King Nuclear, firing your weapon in the air, momentarily silencing the mayhem, and announcing to your fellow revolutionaries that YOU have resolved (like the fascist Ukrainians first move after their revolution to make it illegal for Russian ethnic groups in the Ukraine to speak Russian), given your pristine certainty about the facts, that nuclear power will be the way we’re going and that’ll be enough about coal, and solar, and wind power, so shut your traps, and I guess you expect them to buy this line of leadership because you are cronyless, and shortly to be friendless as well.
Or, were you going to lay down the arms and have a vote on these matters, only to probably lose the vote to a loose consortium of other power interests, probably because they don’t like being bossed around, more that anything else, like you, when their interests are threatened, and then what.
And then you’ll have to deal with me, your fellow confederate in this revolution, and I have my own ideas and priorities about what I will assent to be forced to accept regarding power, and since I’m extremely heavily armed too, you really don’t want to f*ck with me.
In conclusion, your solution to getting your way in the energy debates because you feel you are being forced by crony government to accept their priorities is to overthrow that government by violence and force everyone else to accept your energy solutions.
That’s my solution too.
Liberals hate monopolies, except for their favorite, the one monopoly that goes around shooting people.
The business of government is largely natural monopolies – things that almost everyone uses but no one private entity can profit from, undertake, or be trusted to undertake – or that a multitude of private entities would ever cooperate to undertake.
I’m not sure I get the part about shooting people. I mean, your aren’t suggesting we don’t have a military, are you?
Are liberals war mongers, supporters of draconian drug laws, drone enthusiasts? Do they favor deadly government responses to student protests, such as Kent State?
Do you have liberals confused with fascists? Or is this about how you think liberals love, love, love Waco and Ruby Ridge?
Liberals hate monopolies, except for their favorite, the one monopoly that goes around shooting people.
The business of government is largely natural monopolies – things that almost everyone uses but no one private entity can profit from, undertake, or be trusted to undertake – or that a multitude of private entities would ever cooperate to undertake.
I’m not sure I get the part about shooting people. I mean, your aren’t suggesting we don’t have a military, are you?
Are liberals war mongers, supporters of draconian drug laws, drone enthusiasts? Do they favor deadly government responses to student protests, such as Kent State?
Do you have liberals confused with fascists? Or is this about how you think liberals love, love, love Waco and Ruby Ridge?
So, “god-bothering” doesn’t really make sense, ever, in any context I can imagine. It’s an insult fail.
I can’t imagine you would be considered a god-botherer, Slart. Do you invoke God in an attempt to lend legitimacy to almost every argument you make (including the bad ones, of course)?
Simply believing in God, or even invoking him occasionally, doesn’t make you a botherer. Consider it a term of art of sorts.
So, “god-bothering” doesn’t really make sense, ever, in any context I can imagine. It’s an insult fail.
I can’t imagine you would be considered a god-botherer, Slart. Do you invoke God in an attempt to lend legitimacy to almost every argument you make (including the bad ones, of course)?
Simply believing in God, or even invoking him occasionally, doesn’t make you a botherer. Consider it a term of art of sorts.
no worries, count. there isn’t going to be a revolution.
people who can’t be bothered to walk a half-mile to the store to buy a gallon of milk are not going to put up with what would be involved to actually change the government. whether by force, or otherwise.
if somebody else will go do it for them and send them an email when it’s done, there might be a constituency. otherwise, no.
there are lots of folks who would simply enjoy shooting up a bunch of stuff and people, but that’s not a revolution.
those folks are too freaking irascible to, you know, govern. they’d just end up shooting each other over dumb crap like whether the battlements around galt’s redoubt should be gothic or norman.
no worries, count. there isn’t going to be a revolution.
people who can’t be bothered to walk a half-mile to the store to buy a gallon of milk are not going to put up with what would be involved to actually change the government. whether by force, or otherwise.
if somebody else will go do it for them and send them an email when it’s done, there might be a constituency. otherwise, no.
there are lots of folks who would simply enjoy shooting up a bunch of stuff and people, but that’s not a revolution.
those folks are too freaking irascible to, you know, govern. they’d just end up shooting each other over dumb crap like whether the battlements around galt’s redoubt should be gothic or norman.
My big concern would be that this requires a competent government. So I can’t see it happening here, unless maybe we had a revolution first. Our government is sinking fast in that regard,
Look on the bright side, Brett. An incompetent government won’t be able to successfully repress you. 😉
Even if we grant that such is its intent.
My big concern would be that this requires a competent government. So I can’t see it happening here, unless maybe we had a revolution first. Our government is sinking fast in that regard,
Look on the bright side, Brett. An incompetent government won’t be able to successfully repress you. 😉
Even if we grant that such is its intent.
Ah. The (non-incandescent) light begins to go on.
“God-botherer” means someone who bothers other people with their religion? I’m always the last to discover these things.
I hear, too, that there is an even faster Internet connection than my 54kbaud modem. Times, they are a-changin’.
Ah. The (non-incandescent) light begins to go on.
“God-botherer” means someone who bothers other people with their religion? I’m always the last to discover these things.
I hear, too, that there is an even faster Internet connection than my 54kbaud modem. Times, they are a-changin’.
they’d just end up shooting each other over dumb crap like whether the battlements around galt’s redoubt should be gothic or norman.
Norman. What kind of pinko-commie Galt would use gothic battlements?
More seriously:
Are liberals war mongers, supporters of draconian drug laws, drone enthusiasts? Do they favor deadly government responses to student protests, such as Kent State?
HSH, this is one of the huge problems with the “right vs. left” mentality/organization/etc.
I wouldn’t characterize “liberals” as war mongers, etc. But some “liberals” do support drones, endless wars of aggression, draconian drug laws, etc etc.
And we can get in a no true Scotsman argument if you’d like, I do recognize Obama isn’t as “liberal” as many “liberals” would like, but great example of someone who loves drones.
Authoritarian is a better way to characterize such people, IMHO. Not that authoritarians necessarily want violence visited on others, but they generally think the state needs the authority to do so, and tend not to question the application.
I think on both sides of the liberal-conservative spectrum there are those that are willing to grant a strong central government the authority to hurt, imprison, and kill their fellow man with little oversight.
Or is this about how you think liberals love, love, love Waco and Ruby Ridge?
I don’t think anybody loves Ruby Ridge or Waco. If they do, they are pretty terrible people in my book.
But there are people, both “liberal” and “conservative” that are very willing to grant the government the kind of power and lack of oversight that allows tragedies like that to happen.
Always in the thought that it wouldn’t be visited on them and theirs, because they are “good”, and the government would only ever target “bad” people.
they’d just end up shooting each other over dumb crap like whether the battlements around galt’s redoubt should be gothic or norman.
Norman. What kind of pinko-commie Galt would use gothic battlements?
More seriously:
Are liberals war mongers, supporters of draconian drug laws, drone enthusiasts? Do they favor deadly government responses to student protests, such as Kent State?
HSH, this is one of the huge problems with the “right vs. left” mentality/organization/etc.
I wouldn’t characterize “liberals” as war mongers, etc. But some “liberals” do support drones, endless wars of aggression, draconian drug laws, etc etc.
And we can get in a no true Scotsman argument if you’d like, I do recognize Obama isn’t as “liberal” as many “liberals” would like, but great example of someone who loves drones.
Authoritarian is a better way to characterize such people, IMHO. Not that authoritarians necessarily want violence visited on others, but they generally think the state needs the authority to do so, and tend not to question the application.
I think on both sides of the liberal-conservative spectrum there are those that are willing to grant a strong central government the authority to hurt, imprison, and kill their fellow man with little oversight.
Or is this about how you think liberals love, love, love Waco and Ruby Ridge?
I don’t think anybody loves Ruby Ridge or Waco. If they do, they are pretty terrible people in my book.
But there are people, both “liberal” and “conservative” that are very willing to grant the government the kind of power and lack of oversight that allows tragedies like that to happen.
Always in the thought that it wouldn’t be visited on them and theirs, because they are “good”, and the government would only ever target “bad” people.
Authoritarian is a better way to characterize such people, IMHO.
yup.
but, can anyone think of a Presidential candidate with a realistic shot at winning who would say No to the security state ? their is essentially no personal upside to it, and a whole lot of negative should they do it and another 9/11 comes along on their watch.
it’s a ratchet. and we’re ratcheted-up pretty good. but bet there’s still a few clicks left, if we all get together and require absolute perfect security from our elected officials and their underlings.
Authoritarian is a better way to characterize such people, IMHO.
yup.
but, can anyone think of a Presidential candidate with a realistic shot at winning who would say No to the security state ? their is essentially no personal upside to it, and a whole lot of negative should they do it and another 9/11 comes along on their watch.
it’s a ratchet. and we’re ratcheted-up pretty good. but bet there’s still a few clicks left, if we all get together and require absolute perfect security from our elected officials and their underlings.
i’d still be curious to know if there is any government, from any period in history including now, that brett would consider to be competent.
germanic tribal leaders circa caesar’s time?
hopi tribal council prior to european contact?
iceland’s parliamentary democracy under the althing?
anything at all?
i’m trying to understand what a “competent” government looks like from the POV of a hard-core libertarian.
i’d still be curious to know if there is any government, from any period in history including now, that brett would consider to be competent.
germanic tribal leaders circa caesar’s time?
hopi tribal council prior to european contact?
iceland’s parliamentary democracy under the althing?
anything at all?
i’m trying to understand what a “competent” government looks like from the POV of a hard-core libertarian.
Depends. You think Rand Paul has a realistic shot? Because he’s the only prospective candidate I know of who’d ratchet it down.
Depends. You think Rand Paul has a realistic shot? Because he’s the only prospective candidate I know of who’d ratchet it down.
but, can anyone think of a Presidential candidate with a realistic shot at winning who would say No to the security state ? their is essentially no personal upside to it
Yeah, that’s the problem. Which is why I personally beat the drum of liberty is important.
It’s like nuke power, to circle it back. Anybody who argues for nuke power puts their head in the noose (politically) if *anything* goes wrong. But keep-on-keeping-on with coal, which kills people and destroys environments, politically risk free.
it’s a ratchet.
I’d agree, part of the reason I fight even fairly innocuous uses of government power. It’s just really hard to back it off. It can be done and sometimes is (by both liberals and conservatives) but its far easier to pass new authority than it is to unwind existing authority.
but, can anyone think of a Presidential candidate with a realistic shot at winning who would say No to the security state ? their is essentially no personal upside to it
Yeah, that’s the problem. Which is why I personally beat the drum of liberty is important.
It’s like nuke power, to circle it back. Anybody who argues for nuke power puts their head in the noose (politically) if *anything* goes wrong. But keep-on-keeping-on with coal, which kills people and destroys environments, politically risk free.
it’s a ratchet.
I’d agree, part of the reason I fight even fairly innocuous uses of government power. It’s just really hard to back it off. It can be done and sometimes is (by both liberals and conservatives) but its far easier to pass new authority than it is to unwind existing authority.
I would say that France seems to be competent in running a nuclear power system. Canada seems to have mostly competent government, and they even seem to be capable of dropping something when it proves to be a mistake, which is a rare capacity in government.
I don’t have to agree with everything a government does to think it competent. But I see no reason to suppose, if our own government took over power production, the result wouldn’t be one Solyndra after another. The basic problem is that our office holders have higher priorities than the government actually working.
I make no secret of having a low opinion of government. At best government is a nasty institution, and it’s seldom at its best. But I think our’s has hit some kind of critical mass of dysfunction. Perhaps part of that is just trying to do too many things that not enough people agree about. Or maybe the crooks just reached a high enough percentage to shut down any organizational constraints on their abuses.
But I don’t think I’d want to trust our government with anything that complicated. Frankly, I’d rather take their nuclear bombs away, than give them nuclear power plants to use as oportunities for graft.
I would say that France seems to be competent in running a nuclear power system. Canada seems to have mostly competent government, and they even seem to be capable of dropping something when it proves to be a mistake, which is a rare capacity in government.
I don’t have to agree with everything a government does to think it competent. But I see no reason to suppose, if our own government took over power production, the result wouldn’t be one Solyndra after another. The basic problem is that our office holders have higher priorities than the government actually working.
I make no secret of having a low opinion of government. At best government is a nasty institution, and it’s seldom at its best. But I think our’s has hit some kind of critical mass of dysfunction. Perhaps part of that is just trying to do too many things that not enough people agree about. Or maybe the crooks just reached a high enough percentage to shut down any organizational constraints on their abuses.
But I don’t think I’d want to trust our government with anything that complicated. Frankly, I’d rather take their nuclear bombs away, than give them nuclear power plants to use as oportunities for graft.
But some “liberals” do support drones, endless wars of aggression, draconian drug laws, etc etc.
Sure. But are those distinctly liberal positions? If not, why bring up liberals, specifically, as having a favorite monopoly that is the only one that goes around shooting people? That’s a question for Brett, of course, not you.
It seems to me that if those things are distinctly authoritarian positions, somewhere on the x-axis, held by some liberals and some conservatives alike, all along the y-axis, there’s no reason to bring up liberals when authoritarians, liberal or otherwise, are a far better fit. (Well, no reason other than to bash liberals rather indiscrimately…)
But some “liberals” do support drones, endless wars of aggression, draconian drug laws, etc etc.
Sure. But are those distinctly liberal positions? If not, why bring up liberals, specifically, as having a favorite monopoly that is the only one that goes around shooting people? That’s a question for Brett, of course, not you.
It seems to me that if those things are distinctly authoritarian positions, somewhere on the x-axis, held by some liberals and some conservatives alike, all along the y-axis, there’s no reason to bring up liberals when authoritarians, liberal or otherwise, are a far better fit. (Well, no reason other than to bash liberals rather indiscrimately…)
The Comanche, who had their own problems, had no central government, but left what governance there was to the various local Comanche tribes.
The Federal Government, at the behest of God-fearing Christians and property-loving libertarians who figured the land belonged to them by manifest nonsense, chased their remnants up and down the arroyos of West Texas, slaughtered their food source, stole their horses, and finally, like Rand Paul will do, forced nuclear energy, sedentary farming, and the wearing of britches down their throats.
What this country needs is a good Comanche raiding party and uprising to restore the balance of power.
The Comanche, who had their own problems, had no central government, but left what governance there was to the various local Comanche tribes.
The Federal Government, at the behest of God-fearing Christians and property-loving libertarians who figured the land belonged to them by manifest nonsense, chased their remnants up and down the arroyos of West Texas, slaughtered their food source, stole their horses, and finally, like Rand Paul will do, forced nuclear energy, sedentary farming, and the wearing of britches down their throats.
What this country needs is a good Comanche raiding party and uprising to restore the balance of power.
I don’t have to agree with everything a government does to think it competent.
Understood.
Thanks for your reply, I appreciate it.
I don’t have to agree with everything a government does to think it competent.
Understood.
Thanks for your reply, I appreciate it.
I worked in the nuclear industry, and what I’d say about the government running plants rather than the private sector is this:
They both have tendencies for failure, but not the same tendencies. There are a lot of middle-managers in the nuclear industry that I would characterize as “cowboys.” They’re willing to cut corners to save or make a buck.
I would expect governement-run plants to be safer, but I would also expect them to be off line a greater percentage of the time.
I tried to find some good statistics by plant or owner for historical capacity factors to compare TVA’s performance to other owners/operators, but I didn’t get anything worthwhile.
I worked in the nuclear industry, and what I’d say about the government running plants rather than the private sector is this:
They both have tendencies for failure, but not the same tendencies. There are a lot of middle-managers in the nuclear industry that I would characterize as “cowboys.” They’re willing to cut corners to save or make a buck.
I would expect governement-run plants to be safer, but I would also expect them to be off line a greater percentage of the time.
I tried to find some good statistics by plant or owner for historical capacity factors to compare TVA’s performance to other owners/operators, but I didn’t get anything worthwhile.
You think Rand Paul has a realistic shot?
Actually, no. I think he might make a strong initial run, simply because the Republican primaries look to be full — dividing the votes for all the non-libertarian candidates. But once he starts to look like a serious threat, he gets hammered. And in the past he has not stood up all that well when that started to happen.
But suppose that he did get the nomination. Could he win a general election? I suppose that depends on who the Democrats nominate, and how many non-libertarian Republicans prefer her (or him) to a libertarian of any party — or at least are willing to stay home rather thang et out and work for him.
Still, suppose further that Paul did win. He might try to rachet down the security state. And maybe even make some reductions at the margins.
But any siginficant reduction is going to require Congressional action to cut the budgets of the administrative bodies which make it up. Otherwise those who work there will keep their fiefs going. Not seeing the kind of wave election to Congress that would be required to accomplish that.
You think Rand Paul has a realistic shot?
Actually, no. I think he might make a strong initial run, simply because the Republican primaries look to be full — dividing the votes for all the non-libertarian candidates. But once he starts to look like a serious threat, he gets hammered. And in the past he has not stood up all that well when that started to happen.
But suppose that he did get the nomination. Could he win a general election? I suppose that depends on who the Democrats nominate, and how many non-libertarian Republicans prefer her (or him) to a libertarian of any party — or at least are willing to stay home rather thang et out and work for him.
Still, suppose further that Paul did win. He might try to rachet down the security state. And maybe even make some reductions at the margins.
But any siginficant reduction is going to require Congressional action to cut the budgets of the administrative bodies which make it up. Otherwise those who work there will keep their fiefs going. Not seeing the kind of wave election to Congress that would be required to accomplish that.
Still, suppose further that Paul did win. He might try to rachet down the security state. And maybe even make some reductions at the margins.
i doubt it.
he’d walk in the first day and get the security briefings that scare the libertarian instincts out of every person who’s got the job so far.
it’s easy to take pot shots at the President for not having pure ideals, when you don’t have his job. it’s something else to be the one in charge.
Still, suppose further that Paul did win. He might try to rachet down the security state. And maybe even make some reductions at the margins.
i doubt it.
he’d walk in the first day and get the security briefings that scare the libertarian instincts out of every person who’s got the job so far.
it’s easy to take pot shots at the President for not having pure ideals, when you don’t have his job. it’s something else to be the one in charge.
“But I see no reason to suppose, if our own government took over power production, the result wouldn’t be one Solyndra after another.”
Cover one eye and see if you can see better.
It might be Solyndra, sure, but then the next one might be Tesla.
It might be a biotech company that goes under, or it might be grants to Genentech for any number of drug development research projects, some successful and some not in sort of an alternating pattern, like the way life works.
It might be a new development in ballistics funded by the Defense Department and then commercialized by Sturm Ruger for the home paranoid market.
Why do I suspect the high capacity clip technology loved by so many in this gun culture was at least partially developed and funded at the best of nasty government?
It might be a federal grant to improve cancer radiation therapy, the first may fail, the second approach might succeed and make many private actors rich and cancer patients better.
The federal government didn’t “take over” Solyndra and it won’t “take over” nuclear power production, which you know for a fact.
Now try the other eye.
I don’t know if you know this, but using both eyes to see lets the brain fill in the blanks to present a complete view of reality.
I’m not sure of this, but I expect some scientist in a federal lab was the first to make that observation which he/she gave away to commercial interests for development.
“But I see no reason to suppose, if our own government took over power production, the result wouldn’t be one Solyndra after another.”
Cover one eye and see if you can see better.
It might be Solyndra, sure, but then the next one might be Tesla.
It might be a biotech company that goes under, or it might be grants to Genentech for any number of drug development research projects, some successful and some not in sort of an alternating pattern, like the way life works.
It might be a new development in ballistics funded by the Defense Department and then commercialized by Sturm Ruger for the home paranoid market.
Why do I suspect the high capacity clip technology loved by so many in this gun culture was at least partially developed and funded at the best of nasty government?
It might be a federal grant to improve cancer radiation therapy, the first may fail, the second approach might succeed and make many private actors rich and cancer patients better.
The federal government didn’t “take over” Solyndra and it won’t “take over” nuclear power production, which you know for a fact.
Now try the other eye.
I don’t know if you know this, but using both eyes to see lets the brain fill in the blanks to present a complete view of reality.
I’m not sure of this, but I expect some scientist in a federal lab was the first to make that observation which he/she gave away to commercial interests for development.
security briefings that scare the libertarian instincts out of every person who’s got the job so far.
Because recent presidents have been so very libertarian? Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan,…stop me when I get to the one with “libertarian instincts”.
Bluntly, I don’t buy that there are barbarians at the gates, ready to tear down the USA, but they barely held in check by the ever expanding powers of the security state.
I’d buy there are some people that wish harm upon the US, but I am unconvinced that if I too saw the secrets contained in the vaunted security briefs I’d nod my head and say, “yep, we should definitely drone strike some weddings and also, hm, collect webcam images from yahoo chat. It’s the only way we can protect our freedom!”
security briefings that scare the libertarian instincts out of every person who’s got the job so far.
Because recent presidents have been so very libertarian? Obama, Bush, Clinton, Bush, Reagan,…stop me when I get to the one with “libertarian instincts”.
Bluntly, I don’t buy that there are barbarians at the gates, ready to tear down the USA, but they barely held in check by the ever expanding powers of the security state.
I’d buy there are some people that wish harm upon the US, but I am unconvinced that if I too saw the secrets contained in the vaunted security briefs I’d nod my head and say, “yep, we should definitely drone strike some weddings and also, hm, collect webcam images from yahoo chat. It’s the only way we can protect our freedom!”
Bluntly, I don’t buy that there are barbarians at the gates, ready to tear down the USA, but they barely held in check by the ever expanding powers of the security state.
i’m not saying i buy it either. but i bet there are plenty of people in NatSec who are eager to tell the President that it’s so. and given the political pressure of never letting even one American die on your watch, lest the great strategists in Congress and the media hold you, personally, accountable, there’s little reason to resist.
1. tear down a bunch of things that ostensibly protect Americans. have an attack on your watch, take the blame.
2. go with the people who say it’s a big scary world and we’re just doing our best. and if something should happen, at least you didn’t make it more likely to occur (in the eyes of the people who would run screaming to the media otherwise).
Bluntly, I don’t buy that there are barbarians at the gates, ready to tear down the USA, but they barely held in check by the ever expanding powers of the security state.
i’m not saying i buy it either. but i bet there are plenty of people in NatSec who are eager to tell the President that it’s so. and given the political pressure of never letting even one American die on your watch, lest the great strategists in Congress and the media hold you, personally, accountable, there’s little reason to resist.
1. tear down a bunch of things that ostensibly protect Americans. have an attack on your watch, take the blame.
2. go with the people who say it’s a big scary world and we’re just doing our best. and if something should happen, at least you didn’t make it more likely to occur (in the eyes of the people who would run screaming to the media otherwise).
Rand Paul’s efforts as President to destroy Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the National Parks, Obamacare, the IRS, all federal health, water, and nuclear power research efforts, the miniumum wage, Food Stamps, unemployment insurance, etc will demand that he maintain a robust domestic spying and intelligence capacity (though I wouldn’t doubt that he would outsource the spying, harassment, and targeted killings to private mercenary groups associated with his father’s neo-Nazi associates) plus quadruple deep barbed wire barricades around the White House, through which only is Big Coal Presidential election donors from Kentucky will be permitted entrance.
All to protect HIS precious libertarian butt, and only that.
Then, of course, he may have to deal with a flurry of Israeli assassination squad activity targeted against him as he cuts Israel loose, not that any of that is a bad idea.
And by the way, the American Christian Baker’s Association, whose donations will go a long way toward electing Rand Paul, will favor drone attacks on gay weddings, as long as the decisions on whether to bomb gay weddings are left to the states.
Well, I’ve backslide completely, as predicted.
Rand Paul’s efforts as President to destroy Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the National Parks, Obamacare, the IRS, all federal health, water, and nuclear power research efforts, the miniumum wage, Food Stamps, unemployment insurance, etc will demand that he maintain a robust domestic spying and intelligence capacity (though I wouldn’t doubt that he would outsource the spying, harassment, and targeted killings to private mercenary groups associated with his father’s neo-Nazi associates) plus quadruple deep barbed wire barricades around the White House, through which only is Big Coal Presidential election donors from Kentucky will be permitted entrance.
All to protect HIS precious libertarian butt, and only that.
Then, of course, he may have to deal with a flurry of Israeli assassination squad activity targeted against him as he cuts Israel loose, not that any of that is a bad idea.
And by the way, the American Christian Baker’s Association, whose donations will go a long way toward electing Rand Paul, will favor drone attacks on gay weddings, as long as the decisions on whether to bomb gay weddings are left to the states.
Well, I’ve backslide completely, as predicted.
but i bet there are plenty of people in NatSec who are eager to tell the President that it’s so.
Yes, absolutely. And I agree with your choices, as well. That’s the ratchet, as HSH eloquently put it.
but i bet there are plenty of people in NatSec who are eager to tell the President that it’s so.
Yes, absolutely. And I agree with your choices, as well. That’s the ratchet, as HSH eloquently put it.
Well, I’ve backslide completely, as predicted.
A demonstration of a slippery slope?
Well, I’ve backslide completely, as predicted.
A demonstration of a slippery slope?
Helter Skelter!
Helter Skelter!
That was cleek’s ratchet. (My ratchet is the one where tax rates have a lot easier time going down than up, regardless of where they are in absolute terms or historically relative terms. They’re always too high already, by default.)
That was cleek’s ratchet. (My ratchet is the one where tax rates have a lot easier time going down than up, regardless of where they are in absolute terms or historically relative terms. They’re always too high already, by default.)
That was cleek’s ratchet.
Ah, sorry, cleek and HSH, that was my error, I got turned around.
Regardless, ratchet, I think it well describes the security state. And taxes, now that you mention it.
That was cleek’s ratchet.
Ah, sorry, cleek and HSH, that was my error, I got turned around.
Regardless, ratchet, I think it well describes the security state. And taxes, now that you mention it.
Everything was wonderful about the 1950s! Except the tax rates. And everything is terrible about today — even the tax rates, which are like 1/3 what they were in the 1950s.
Correlation is not causation, of course. But . . . .
Everything was wonderful about the 1950s! Except the tax rates. And everything is terrible about today — even the tax rates, which are like 1/3 what they were in the 1950s.
Correlation is not causation, of course. But . . . .
Brett: At best government is a nasty institution, and it’s seldom at its best. But I think our’s has hit some kind of critical mass of dysfunction.
Unless you were born after 2008, you must know that even under the hated and vilified Clinton, let alone the Dick and Dubya regency, the federal government did not “hit some kind of critical mass of dysfunction”. You may not agree now, and may not even have agreed then, with what the government accomplished in 1992-2008. But you can’t fool anybody older than about 6 into the believing that the “critical mass of dysfunction” predates the election of Barack Hussein Obama.
The federal government has managed to function despite the filibuster, despite opposite parties holding Congress and the White House, despite the perennial influence of special interests — under every white President we have ever had.
–TP
Brett: At best government is a nasty institution, and it’s seldom at its best. But I think our’s has hit some kind of critical mass of dysfunction.
Unless you were born after 2008, you must know that even under the hated and vilified Clinton, let alone the Dick and Dubya regency, the federal government did not “hit some kind of critical mass of dysfunction”. You may not agree now, and may not even have agreed then, with what the government accomplished in 1992-2008. But you can’t fool anybody older than about 6 into the believing that the “critical mass of dysfunction” predates the election of Barack Hussein Obama.
The federal government has managed to function despite the filibuster, despite opposite parties holding Congress and the White House, despite the perennial influence of special interests — under every white President we have ever had.
–TP
Hello, my last post (and its repetition) disappeared. Could somebody check the spam trap, please? There were no links included and no forbidden words afaict. The system accepted both times but once I pressed refresh ‘poof’ and away it went.
It was a critical remark on the claim of French competence concerning running nuclear power plants.
Hello, my last post (and its repetition) disappeared. Could somebody check the spam trap, please? There were no links included and no forbidden words afaict. The system accepted both times but once I pressed refresh ‘poof’ and away it went.
It was a critical remark on the claim of French competence concerning running nuclear power plants.
Hartmut, I’m sorry, but I checked the spam filter and there were three comments, one by Cleek and another by russell that were from a while back and they reposted them and got them through and one from dr ngo about the phrase god-botherer. Nothing about French claims of competence.
This morning, I wasn’t able to get the site to load, it’s only now, 9 hours later, that it does. Don’t know if that is related.
Hartmut, I’m sorry, but I checked the spam filter and there were three comments, one by Cleek and another by russell that were from a while back and they reposted them and got them through and one from dr ngo about the phrase god-botherer. Nothing about French claims of competence.
This morning, I wasn’t able to get the site to load, it’s only now, 9 hours later, that it does. Don’t know if that is related.
There were some loading problem yesterday evening (European time) indeed.
There were some loading problem yesterday evening (European time) indeed.
” But you can’t fool anybody older than about 6 into the believing that the “critical mass of dysfunction” predates the election of Barack Hussein Obama.”
I was trying to politely avoid mentioning that Obama had dramatically accelerated the process, so that we could talk about the problem itself. I knew you were going to get all defensive, and project the causes onto the party out of power, if I actually mentioned the guilty party.
Didn’t realize you were feeling so defensive about Obama you had to bring him up yourself.
“Sure. But are those distinctly liberal positions? If not, why bring up liberals, specifically, as having a favorite monopoly that is the only one that goes around shooting people? That’s a question for Brett, of course, not you.”
Hairshirt, tried a couple times to answer that yesterday, but the site was broken.
I’m a great fan of Sowell’s “A Conflict of Visions”, the thesis of which is that the political conflict between ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals’, (Terrible names, neither movement lives up to their’s.) is rooted in a deeper divide, at the level of pre-political philosophical premises.
One I would identify is that most liberals are one or another kind of “consequentalist”, Utilitarian or Rawlsian, mostly. While actual conservatives tend more towards the teleological end of things.
Note, I’m talking about actual conservatives here, not politicians who are stuck with trying to mimic them to win their votes. (Cue the “No True Scotsman” fallacy fallacy.) The latter are mostly consequentialists, too.
Anyway, the key characteristic of consequentialist reasoning, is that there isn’t really anything you can’t justify doing, if you think you have a good enough reason to do it. And, who ever thought their reasons were bad?
Another way of putting it, is that consequentialists reject the idea that there’s anything which isn’t their business.
To anybody who doesn’t automatically think your reasons are good enough, and particularly to teleologists who think some things are none of your business regardless of your reasoning, this looks an awful lot like you’re authoritarian.
” But you can’t fool anybody older than about 6 into the believing that the “critical mass of dysfunction” predates the election of Barack Hussein Obama.”
I was trying to politely avoid mentioning that Obama had dramatically accelerated the process, so that we could talk about the problem itself. I knew you were going to get all defensive, and project the causes onto the party out of power, if I actually mentioned the guilty party.
Didn’t realize you were feeling so defensive about Obama you had to bring him up yourself.
“Sure. But are those distinctly liberal positions? If not, why bring up liberals, specifically, as having a favorite monopoly that is the only one that goes around shooting people? That’s a question for Brett, of course, not you.”
Hairshirt, tried a couple times to answer that yesterday, but the site was broken.
I’m a great fan of Sowell’s “A Conflict of Visions”, the thesis of which is that the political conflict between ‘conservatives’ and ‘liberals’, (Terrible names, neither movement lives up to their’s.) is rooted in a deeper divide, at the level of pre-political philosophical premises.
One I would identify is that most liberals are one or another kind of “consequentalist”, Utilitarian or Rawlsian, mostly. While actual conservatives tend more towards the teleological end of things.
Note, I’m talking about actual conservatives here, not politicians who are stuck with trying to mimic them to win their votes. (Cue the “No True Scotsman” fallacy fallacy.) The latter are mostly consequentialists, too.
Anyway, the key characteristic of consequentialist reasoning, is that there isn’t really anything you can’t justify doing, if you think you have a good enough reason to do it. And, who ever thought their reasons were bad?
Another way of putting it, is that consequentialists reject the idea that there’s anything which isn’t their business.
To anybody who doesn’t automatically think your reasons are good enough, and particularly to teleologists who think some things are none of your business regardless of your reasoning, this looks an awful lot like you’re authoritarian.
Thanks, Brett.
Somehow, I can’t help thinking of the abortion debate when I read that, particularly the part about how “some things are none of your business regardless of your reasoning.”
But I don’t want to start yet another go-around on abortion, at least not yet. (We need to space them out as best we can in the face of their inevitability.) I would only be willing to have a meta-discussion about the debate, and then only if I thought it wouldn’t lead to having the debate itself, which it certainly would, of course.
Thanks, Brett.
Somehow, I can’t help thinking of the abortion debate when I read that, particularly the part about how “some things are none of your business regardless of your reasoning.”
But I don’t want to start yet another go-around on abortion, at least not yet. (We need to space them out as best we can in the face of their inevitability.) I would only be willing to have a meta-discussion about the debate, and then only if I thought it wouldn’t lead to having the debate itself, which it certainly would, of course.
what a load of malarkey.
here, psychoanalyze this:
you can pile up a lot of big words to try to add weight to your belief that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is motivated by some weird neurotic need to mess with everybody else’s life, but it’s still a load of crap.
and thomas sowell is a tedious mendacious windbag and a natural born boring old scold. keep reading him and your mind will turn to mush.
what a load of malarkey.
here, psychoanalyze this:
you can pile up a lot of big words to try to add weight to your belief that anyone who doesn’t agree with you is motivated by some weird neurotic need to mess with everybody else’s life, but it’s still a load of crap.
and thomas sowell is a tedious mendacious windbag and a natural born boring old scold. keep reading him and your mind will turn to mush.
Tell us what you really think, russell. ;^)
Tell us what you really think, russell. ;^)
the fact that you think this doesn’t describe everybody is kinda hilarious.
who acts without thinking their reasoning justifies the action? you just think your reasons are eternal and self-evident and more beneficial than everyone else’s – as does everyone.
the fact that you think this doesn’t describe everybody is kinda hilarious.
who acts without thinking their reasoning justifies the action? you just think your reasons are eternal and self-evident and more beneficial than everyone else’s – as does everyone.
The fact that you DO think this describes everybody is kind of hilarious, in it’s own way.
The fact that you DO think this describes everybody is kind of hilarious, in it’s own way.
How do you justify not doing something? How do you justify keeping someone else from doing something, such that they’re not doing that something, and the something you’re doing is keeping them from doing the first something? I mean, if you’re not doing something, you must be doing something else.
Whatever course you take, aren’t you justifying it with some sort of reasoning? And is there anything you can’t not do based on your reasoning? Or is there a default state of nature we’re all violating by doing things, but not by not doing things?
I could go on, but have to go throw a bunch of babies into a giant meat grinder for the benefit of humanity.
How do you justify not doing something? How do you justify keeping someone else from doing something, such that they’re not doing that something, and the something you’re doing is keeping them from doing the first something? I mean, if you’re not doing something, you must be doing something else.
Whatever course you take, aren’t you justifying it with some sort of reasoning? And is there anything you can’t not do based on your reasoning? Or is there a default state of nature we’re all violating by doing things, but not by not doing things?
I could go on, but have to go throw a bunch of babies into a giant meat grinder for the benefit of humanity.
Brett doesn’t justify anything. he just mechanically acts from hardwired first principles which are a priori correct.
i think that’s called Freedom™
Brett doesn’t justify anything. he just mechanically acts from hardwired first principles which are a priori correct.
i think that’s called Freedom™
I’m always amused when Brett and others seem to argue that Obama is some kind of liberal. Now nobody would argue that he is a libertarian. But on the liberal/conservative axis? His positions and actions (on most issues, though of course not all) seem to be somewhere between the non-Tea Party Republicans (the majority of the party, although you wouldn’t know it to watch the Congress) and the independent voters.
Look at the polls of almost any issue you care to name. Military action in Syria or Crimea? Nobody outside the neocon caucus was enthused about either. Gay marriage? Independents favor it strongly and Republicans are just about evenly split. Health care? Pushed a plan written by the Heritage Foundation as the conservative alternative to Clinton’s proposals, and already implemented by the Republican’s 2012 Presidential nominee.
It is true that liberals and Democrats tend to give Obama a pass when he does things that they find illiberal. Just as conservatives and Republicans gave Bush II a pass when he did things (like explode the deficit) which they found unconservative. But in neither case did that make their actions actually in the ideological mold of the extremes of their party.
I’m always amused when Brett and others seem to argue that Obama is some kind of liberal. Now nobody would argue that he is a libertarian. But on the liberal/conservative axis? His positions and actions (on most issues, though of course not all) seem to be somewhere between the non-Tea Party Republicans (the majority of the party, although you wouldn’t know it to watch the Congress) and the independent voters.
Look at the polls of almost any issue you care to name. Military action in Syria or Crimea? Nobody outside the neocon caucus was enthused about either. Gay marriage? Independents favor it strongly and Republicans are just about evenly split. Health care? Pushed a plan written by the Heritage Foundation as the conservative alternative to Clinton’s proposals, and already implemented by the Republican’s 2012 Presidential nominee.
It is true that liberals and Democrats tend to give Obama a pass when he does things that they find illiberal. Just as conservatives and Republicans gave Bush II a pass when he did things (like explode the deficit) which they found unconservative. But in neither case did that make their actions actually in the ideological mold of the extremes of their party.
….I would identify is that most liberals are one or another kind of “consequentalist”, Utilitarian or Rawlsian, mostly. While actual conservatives tend more towards the teleological end of things.
“teleology”….HAHAHAHAHAHaaaa….the philosophical line that goes through Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, and (gasp!) Marx. The argument from assumed first principles that devolved into the lunacy of Leo Strauss who justified political lying and inspires the likes of William Kristol. Ends, means, motes, eyes….indeed!
I note in passing that I believe Hilzoy argues from Kantian principles….now I really have to get a copy of Freedom and Responsibility.
The great and widely respected philosophical work of Thomas Sowell, political hack? Snort. That was pretty funny, Bret. Only the Doughy Pant Load tops him with his concept of “liberal fascism”.
And what Russell said.
….I would identify is that most liberals are one or another kind of “consequentalist”, Utilitarian or Rawlsian, mostly. While actual conservatives tend more towards the teleological end of things.
“teleology”….HAHAHAHAHAHaaaa….the philosophical line that goes through Plato, Aristotle, Kant, Hegel, and (gasp!) Marx. The argument from assumed first principles that devolved into the lunacy of Leo Strauss who justified political lying and inspires the likes of William Kristol. Ends, means, motes, eyes….indeed!
I note in passing that I believe Hilzoy argues from Kantian principles….now I really have to get a copy of Freedom and Responsibility.
The great and widely respected philosophical work of Thomas Sowell, political hack? Snort. That was pretty funny, Bret. Only the Doughy Pant Load tops him with his concept of “liberal fascism”.
And what Russell said.
the fact that you think this doesn’t describe everybody is kinda hilarious.
The fact that you DO think this describes everybody is kind of hilarious, in it’s own way.
cleek, what you fail to realize is that Brett’s preferences are motivated by a telos, rather than a consequence.
so, they’re better.
the fact that you think this doesn’t describe everybody is kinda hilarious.
The fact that you DO think this describes everybody is kind of hilarious, in it’s own way.
cleek, what you fail to realize is that Brett’s preferences are motivated by a telos, rather than a consequence.
so, they’re better.
Whether they’re better or worse depends on what you judge them by, doesn’t it? Since we’re judging them by different criteria, are we really expected to agree about how they stack up?
But, it’s really hilarious that cleek would actually believe that everyone is a consequentialist. The famed liberal belief in diversity doesn’t extend very far, does it?
Whether they’re better or worse depends on what you judge them by, doesn’t it? Since we’re judging them by different criteria, are we really expected to agree about how they stack up?
But, it’s really hilarious that cleek would actually believe that everyone is a consequentialist. The famed liberal belief in diversity doesn’t extend very far, does it?
i didn’t say everybody was a consequentialist. i said everybody thinks their own reasoning justifies their actions, and that everybody thinks their reasons are the best.
i didn’t say everybody was a consequentialist. i said everybody thinks their own reasoning justifies their actions, and that everybody thinks their reasons are the best.
Brett’s right. Overwhelmingly, the diversity of the human race stems from individual human beings existing as consequentialists or non-consequentialists. Short of that, we’re almost entirely homogenous.
Brett’s right. Overwhelmingly, the diversity of the human race stems from individual human beings existing as consequentialists or non-consequentialists. Short of that, we’re almost entirely homogenous.
Whether they’re better or worse depends on what you judge them by, doesn’t it?
Our understanding of whether they’re better or worse does, for sure.
Whether they’re actually better or worse is likely independent of either of our opinions.
Unless, of course, you’re claiming some kind of transcendent insight. In which case, good luck with that.
Since we’re judging them by different criteria, are we really expected to agree about how they stack up?
Nope.
The famed liberal belief in diversity doesn’t extend very far, does it?
Why, is anybody here oppressing you in some way?
You may wish to re-read cleek’s comment, I think you have failed to grasp his point.
Whether they’re better or worse depends on what you judge them by, doesn’t it?
Our understanding of whether they’re better or worse does, for sure.
Whether they’re actually better or worse is likely independent of either of our opinions.
Unless, of course, you’re claiming some kind of transcendent insight. In which case, good luck with that.
Since we’re judging them by different criteria, are we really expected to agree about how they stack up?
Nope.
The famed liberal belief in diversity doesn’t extend very far, does it?
Why, is anybody here oppressing you in some way?
You may wish to re-read cleek’s comment, I think you have failed to grasp his point.
Brett, thanks for the reference to Sowell’s Conflict of Visions. I’m not as impressed by it as I first was but it sheds light on some things for me and I think it will be a good reference.
It’s good to find new ways of understanding the world but I don’t see myself in his theory. Apparently liberals like myself are supposed to fit Sowell’s ‘unconstrained vision’, but it’s not how I think at all, not anyone else I know. OTOH it *is* how I’ve been told I think and when I’ve disagreed I’ve been told I must secretly or unconsciously feel this way. I suppose at least now I know the source.
Is George Lakoff’s “red family, blue family” work as unconvincing to the conservative reader?
Brett, thanks for the reference to Sowell’s Conflict of Visions. I’m not as impressed by it as I first was but it sheds light on some things for me and I think it will be a good reference.
It’s good to find new ways of understanding the world but I don’t see myself in his theory. Apparently liberals like myself are supposed to fit Sowell’s ‘unconstrained vision’, but it’s not how I think at all, not anyone else I know. OTOH it *is* how I’ve been told I think and when I’ve disagreed I’ve been told I must secretly or unconsciously feel this way. I suppose at least now I know the source.
Is George Lakoff’s “red family, blue family” work as unconvincing to the conservative reader?
Our understanding of whether they’re better or worse does, for sure.
Cry for me, Criterina.
Our understanding of whether they’re better or worse does, for sure.
Cry for me, Criterina.
“Whether they’re actually better or worse is likely independent of either of our opinions.”
This would imply some objective basis for deciding what was better or worse, wouldn’t it? I’m in the “can’t get from is to ought” camp; There isn’t any objective basis for morality. Though I think the law of non-contradiction applies to moral theories, and rules out a lot of them. The problem is, it doesn’t rule in any.
Which is a long winded way of saying, no, it ISN’T independent of either of our opinions. And that is exactly the problem with morality.
“Whether they’re actually better or worse is likely independent of either of our opinions.”
This would imply some objective basis for deciding what was better or worse, wouldn’t it? I’m in the “can’t get from is to ought” camp; There isn’t any objective basis for morality. Though I think the law of non-contradiction applies to moral theories, and rules out a lot of them. The problem is, it doesn’t rule in any.
Which is a long winded way of saying, no, it ISN’T independent of either of our opinions. And that is exactly the problem with morality.
This would imply some objective basis for deciding what was better or worse, wouldn’t it?
You’re the teleologist, not me.
Look, you want to ascribe weird neurotic intentions to liberals, whoever they are.
Here’s my take on the difference between, for instance, you and me.
You consider that other people’s interest in not f***king up the world is of less importance then your being able to heat your chicken coop with an incandescent light bulb.
And not just a incandescent light bulb, but one that costs a quarter, rather than a dollar.
Because, apparently, freedom and individual liberty, which must not be transgressed. Because Thomas Sowell tells you that individual freedom is some teleological good – some special final cause baked into the fabric of existence, to which any mere consequences like changing the freaking climate of the planet must defer.
What I take away from that is that you are perfectly happy to let everybody else in the world suffer the consequences of your desire to not be bothered in any way shape or form.
What strikes me is that your understanding of freedom is pretty much a self-serving vehicle for relieving you of any responsibility for how your actions affect anyone else other than you or your family.
So, net/net, your sacred freedom is of no freaking use to me. It leaves me cold.
If you want people to respect your freedom and your integrity as a human, you must do the same for them.
And doing the same for them extends beyond not telling them they can’t have their favorite light bulb. Doing the same for them extends to giving a crap about how what you do impinges on their lives.
I’m not interested in your libertarian paradise, because to my eyes it’s a species of childish blinkered hell.
Nor am I interested in your analysis of my thoughts, beliefs, or motives. Just as you are likely not all that interested in mine, of yours.
And I for damned sure am not interested in Thomas Sowell’s thoughts, about much of anything.
This would imply some objective basis for deciding what was better or worse, wouldn’t it?
You’re the teleologist, not me.
Look, you want to ascribe weird neurotic intentions to liberals, whoever they are.
Here’s my take on the difference between, for instance, you and me.
You consider that other people’s interest in not f***king up the world is of less importance then your being able to heat your chicken coop with an incandescent light bulb.
And not just a incandescent light bulb, but one that costs a quarter, rather than a dollar.
Because, apparently, freedom and individual liberty, which must not be transgressed. Because Thomas Sowell tells you that individual freedom is some teleological good – some special final cause baked into the fabric of existence, to which any mere consequences like changing the freaking climate of the planet must defer.
What I take away from that is that you are perfectly happy to let everybody else in the world suffer the consequences of your desire to not be bothered in any way shape or form.
What strikes me is that your understanding of freedom is pretty much a self-serving vehicle for relieving you of any responsibility for how your actions affect anyone else other than you or your family.
So, net/net, your sacred freedom is of no freaking use to me. It leaves me cold.
If you want people to respect your freedom and your integrity as a human, you must do the same for them.
And doing the same for them extends beyond not telling them they can’t have their favorite light bulb. Doing the same for them extends to giving a crap about how what you do impinges on their lives.
I’m not interested in your libertarian paradise, because to my eyes it’s a species of childish blinkered hell.
Nor am I interested in your analysis of my thoughts, beliefs, or motives. Just as you are likely not all that interested in mine, of yours.
And I for damned sure am not interested in Thomas Sowell’s thoughts, about much of anything.
“You consider that other people’s interest in not f***king up the world is of less importance then your being able to heat your chicken coop with an incandescent light bulb.”
I think you’ve just demonstrated that you haven’t the slightest clue about the point I was making. Preventing me from using an incandescent lightbulb to heat my chicken coup has NOTHING to do with whether the world gets screwed up. LESS than nothing.
If I’m not using a lightbulb, I’ll be using a different, more expensive resistance heater, because I wanted the heat. Net electricity consumption? Identical. Net consumption of resources? Higher, because manufacturing light bulbs is pretty light on resource use compared to something like this.
Banning incandescent lightbulbs isn’t about saving energy, or you’d freaking CARE that doing it was an irrational way of accomplishing that end, with numerous downsides.
It was a dominance display, an exercise in proving to people that they shouldn’t expect to get to make their own decisions.
And, yeah, that pisses off people who think they ARE entitled to make their own decisions. Get used to that, people are only going to get more pissed off as time goes by.
“You consider that other people’s interest in not f***king up the world is of less importance then your being able to heat your chicken coop with an incandescent light bulb.”
I think you’ve just demonstrated that you haven’t the slightest clue about the point I was making. Preventing me from using an incandescent lightbulb to heat my chicken coup has NOTHING to do with whether the world gets screwed up. LESS than nothing.
If I’m not using a lightbulb, I’ll be using a different, more expensive resistance heater, because I wanted the heat. Net electricity consumption? Identical. Net consumption of resources? Higher, because manufacturing light bulbs is pretty light on resource use compared to something like this.
Banning incandescent lightbulbs isn’t about saving energy, or you’d freaking CARE that doing it was an irrational way of accomplishing that end, with numerous downsides.
It was a dominance display, an exercise in proving to people that they shouldn’t expect to get to make their own decisions.
And, yeah, that pisses off people who think they ARE entitled to make their own decisions. Get used to that, people are only going to get more pissed off as time goes by.
It was a dominance display, an exercise in proving to people that they shouldn’t expect to get to make their own decisions.
a “dominance display” !
WTFingF !
the bill it was part of passed Senate 86-8 and the House 314-100. and Bush signed it.
who there was displaying his/her dominance?
It was a dominance display, an exercise in proving to people that they shouldn’t expect to get to make their own decisions.
a “dominance display” !
WTFingF !
the bill it was part of passed Senate 86-8 and the House 314-100. and Bush signed it.
who there was displaying his/her dominance?
Banning incandescent lightbulbs isn’t about saving energy… It was a dominance display
With all due respect, this is basically insane.
If I’m not using a lightbulb, I’ll be using a different, more expensive resistance heater, because I wanted the heat.
Your call.
As noted, repeatedly, in this thread, you can readily get an incandescent bulb if that suits your purposes better.
Because – wait for it – there *is no ban on incandescent bulbs*. There’s a requirement that bulbs, of whatever kind, meet certain efficiency standards.
And, a very wide range of incandescents are specifically exempted.
So, pretty weak beer, as dominance displays go.
But, rave on.
Get used to that, people are only going to get more pissed off as time goes by.
Trust me, people are getting, and will continue to get, pissed off about things that are of a lot greater consequence than a freaking light bulb.
You’re not the only catfish in the sea, buddy.
Banning incandescent lightbulbs isn’t about saving energy… It was a dominance display
With all due respect, this is basically insane.
If I’m not using a lightbulb, I’ll be using a different, more expensive resistance heater, because I wanted the heat.
Your call.
As noted, repeatedly, in this thread, you can readily get an incandescent bulb if that suits your purposes better.
Because – wait for it – there *is no ban on incandescent bulbs*. There’s a requirement that bulbs, of whatever kind, meet certain efficiency standards.
And, a very wide range of incandescents are specifically exempted.
So, pretty weak beer, as dominance displays go.
But, rave on.
Get used to that, people are only going to get more pissed off as time goes by.
Trust me, people are getting, and will continue to get, pissed off about things that are of a lot greater consequence than a freaking light bulb.
You’re not the only catfish in the sea, buddy.
With all due respect, this is basically insane.
Sorry, but on reflection this seems overly harsh, and overly personal.
Please accept my apologies.
It’s sufficient to say that, IMO, your statement about “dominance displays” doesn’t make sense.
Sorry Brett.
With all due respect, this is basically insane.
Sorry, but on reflection this seems overly harsh, and overly personal.
Please accept my apologies.
It’s sufficient to say that, IMO, your statement about “dominance displays” doesn’t make sense.
Sorry Brett.
so, he said, apparently unwilling to allow this poor tired thread to die a graceful death – the funny thing about Sowell’s teleological vs consequentialist bushwa is that I find myself motivated by things that appear, to me, to be solidly on the teleological side of the scorecard.
I believe that we, as humans, are bound to consider how the things we do affect others.
I believe that the planet is not our toy to play with, that it was created for purposes that include us but which are, by far, not limited to us or our comforts and interests.
I consider these things to be baked into the very nature of our being and existence.
So, teleology.
I rarely bring stuff like this up in contexts like this, because teleological premises tend not to be things that can really be discussed at a purely rational level. At some point, they require the acceptance of certain principles or concepts at a more or less axiomatic level.
So, not that useful or appropriate for a forum where any and every point of view needs to be considered. Which is to say, I make no assumptions that everyone or even anyone reading a blog is going to be on board with what seem, to me, more or less first principles.
So, long story short, I’m not really open to Sowell’s hogwash. IMVHO the man makes shit up, to flatter himself and his readers that their point of view has some kind of metaphysical weight that is, again IMVHO, not deserved.
Basically, I think he’s full of crap.
I’m open to the idea that personal liberty is a teleological principle equally deserving of consideration and respect, and am well beyond being open to the idea that that is so at the level of things like freedom of speech and religion, the right to self defense, the basic right of privacy, and even the basic right of not being bothered without good reason.
I don’t think it extends to the freedom to burn whatever lightbulb you feel like. Not to beat that poor dead horse once again, but then again it’s not an example I volunteered, either.
Or, rather, I did, but I thought it was kind of a joke. Live and learn.
In any case, all of that, however worthwhile, doesn’t trump the need to consider the impact of your actions on others.
Your personal liberty ends precisely at the point that it interferes with someone else’s. It doesn’t mean you have to do everything they say, however it does mean they get a voice in deciding where the boundaries are.
These things seem, to me, self-evident. I don’t expect everyone to sign on just because they seem obvious to me, but I’m sure as hell not interested in hearing dopes like Sowell tell me that I secretly just want to interfere with everybody else’s life.
I don’t care what folks do. Whatever floats your boat. Guns, chickens, pickup trucks, whatever. Have a wild weekend with a roller derby girl, I won’t stand in your way. Sing Gilbert and Sullivan operettas on the front lawn, wearing nothing but a tutu and a fez.
Whatever you like.
Right up to the point that what you do effects everybody else.
so, he said, apparently unwilling to allow this poor tired thread to die a graceful death – the funny thing about Sowell’s teleological vs consequentialist bushwa is that I find myself motivated by things that appear, to me, to be solidly on the teleological side of the scorecard.
I believe that we, as humans, are bound to consider how the things we do affect others.
I believe that the planet is not our toy to play with, that it was created for purposes that include us but which are, by far, not limited to us or our comforts and interests.
I consider these things to be baked into the very nature of our being and existence.
So, teleology.
I rarely bring stuff like this up in contexts like this, because teleological premises tend not to be things that can really be discussed at a purely rational level. At some point, they require the acceptance of certain principles or concepts at a more or less axiomatic level.
So, not that useful or appropriate for a forum where any and every point of view needs to be considered. Which is to say, I make no assumptions that everyone or even anyone reading a blog is going to be on board with what seem, to me, more or less first principles.
So, long story short, I’m not really open to Sowell’s hogwash. IMVHO the man makes shit up, to flatter himself and his readers that their point of view has some kind of metaphysical weight that is, again IMVHO, not deserved.
Basically, I think he’s full of crap.
I’m open to the idea that personal liberty is a teleological principle equally deserving of consideration and respect, and am well beyond being open to the idea that that is so at the level of things like freedom of speech and religion, the right to self defense, the basic right of privacy, and even the basic right of not being bothered without good reason.
I don’t think it extends to the freedom to burn whatever lightbulb you feel like. Not to beat that poor dead horse once again, but then again it’s not an example I volunteered, either.
Or, rather, I did, but I thought it was kind of a joke. Live and learn.
In any case, all of that, however worthwhile, doesn’t trump the need to consider the impact of your actions on others.
Your personal liberty ends precisely at the point that it interferes with someone else’s. It doesn’t mean you have to do everything they say, however it does mean they get a voice in deciding where the boundaries are.
These things seem, to me, self-evident. I don’t expect everyone to sign on just because they seem obvious to me, but I’m sure as hell not interested in hearing dopes like Sowell tell me that I secretly just want to interfere with everybody else’s life.
I don’t care what folks do. Whatever floats your boat. Guns, chickens, pickup trucks, whatever. Have a wild weekend with a roller derby girl, I won’t stand in your way. Sing Gilbert and Sullivan operettas on the front lawn, wearing nothing but a tutu and a fez.
Whatever you like.
Right up to the point that what you do effects everybody else.
If I could ask a vague question of russell, rather than let the thread die quietly, surrounded by friends and family:
Right up to the point that what you do effects everybody else.
You say this, or things like this, a lot. Not that I expect a one liner to hold together under rigorous scrutiny, but doesn’t pretty much everything affect someone else?
If you’re talking guy in a tutu dancing on his lawn, it definitely could influence neighbors (especially those trying to sell).
A fairly ridiculous example, but lets take pickup trucks. They produce more CO2 which effects everybody. what about driving cars too much? Can we ban that? Or going grocery shopping twice in one week, isn’t that a waste? Etc Etc
You’re not saying any of that, but what I’m reading is:
Right up to the point that what you do *substantially* effects everybody else.
How do you draw the line what is substantial? Or do you not? Meaning anything that remotely affects other people is fair game for the majority to rule on?
It’s great to say your freedom to swing your fists stops at somebodies face, but part of living in society is that basically everything you do affects those around you to some extent. Do you have a line that you draw between what a meaningful impact is and what isn’t? If so, how do you decide on it?
Feel free to ignore this if you don’t feel like expounding to random-guy-on-internet, but its something I’ve been meaning to ask and I keep forgetting to.
If I could ask a vague question of russell, rather than let the thread die quietly, surrounded by friends and family:
Right up to the point that what you do effects everybody else.
You say this, or things like this, a lot. Not that I expect a one liner to hold together under rigorous scrutiny, but doesn’t pretty much everything affect someone else?
If you’re talking guy in a tutu dancing on his lawn, it definitely could influence neighbors (especially those trying to sell).
A fairly ridiculous example, but lets take pickup trucks. They produce more CO2 which effects everybody. what about driving cars too much? Can we ban that? Or going grocery shopping twice in one week, isn’t that a waste? Etc Etc
You’re not saying any of that, but what I’m reading is:
Right up to the point that what you do *substantially* effects everybody else.
How do you draw the line what is substantial? Or do you not? Meaning anything that remotely affects other people is fair game for the majority to rule on?
It’s great to say your freedom to swing your fists stops at somebodies face, but part of living in society is that basically everything you do affects those around you to some extent. Do you have a line that you draw between what a meaningful impact is and what isn’t? If so, how do you decide on it?
Feel free to ignore this if you don’t feel like expounding to random-guy-on-internet, but its something I’ve been meaning to ask and I keep forgetting to.
“I rarely bring stuff like this up in contexts like this, because teleological premises tend not to be things that can really be discussed at a purely rational level. At some point, they require the acceptance of certain principles or concepts at a more or less axiomatic level.”
That’s true. Whereas theories like Utilitarianism involve a pretense of rationality. Pretending that love and hate can be quantified and measured, and mathematically optimized.
Is pain a scalar or a vector? If the latter, what’s the angle between a tooth ache and the joy of getting a love letter in Jr. High? Are we trying to optimize the mode or the mean? And, how many gigaflops would you need to do the calculations in real time?
There are just as many ungrounded assumptions in consequentialist theories, as any teleological theory. They’re just buried under a layer of pseudo-rationality. I like my ungrounded assumptions out in the open, where they can be argued about.
“I rarely bring stuff like this up in contexts like this, because teleological premises tend not to be things that can really be discussed at a purely rational level. At some point, they require the acceptance of certain principles or concepts at a more or less axiomatic level.”
That’s true. Whereas theories like Utilitarianism involve a pretense of rationality. Pretending that love and hate can be quantified and measured, and mathematically optimized.
Is pain a scalar or a vector? If the latter, what’s the angle between a tooth ache and the joy of getting a love letter in Jr. High? Are we trying to optimize the mode or the mean? And, how many gigaflops would you need to do the calculations in real time?
There are just as many ungrounded assumptions in consequentialist theories, as any teleological theory. They’re just buried under a layer of pseudo-rationality. I like my ungrounded assumptions out in the open, where they can be argued about.
but doesn’t pretty much everything affect someone else?
yes.
certainly nowadays. maybe less so in the past, but now, yes.
How do you draw the line what is substantial?
tricky question, no simple answer.
in general you negotiate. preferably without shooting.
what’s the alternative?
my point overall is that i really don’t care all that much what other folks do or don’t do. i don’t mean that in a dismissive way, i mean it in the sense of be your own bad self and enjoy your life.
but we do all have to respect, at a minimum, where other folks’ noses begin and end.
is say at a minimum, because imo there are other things in the world that deserve respect as well. but that may be a bridge too far for this venue.
I like my ungrounded assumptions out in the open, where they can be argued about.
cool, now you have the gist of mine.
although i would say unprovable rather than ungrounded. i consider mine quite well grounded, i just don’t assume that other folks will find them persuasive. there is a distinction there.
not much point in arguing about them, though. it seems to me that you’re on board or you’re not, you might as well argue about what your favorite color is.
the productive things to discuss are where the line between fists and noses are going to be drawn. so, not what is your favorite color, but what color are we actually going to paint the living room.
those are conversations where a conclusion can at least be drawn.
most likely nobody will get their favorite color, but at least the room gets painted.
but doesn’t pretty much everything affect someone else?
yes.
certainly nowadays. maybe less so in the past, but now, yes.
How do you draw the line what is substantial?
tricky question, no simple answer.
in general you negotiate. preferably without shooting.
what’s the alternative?
my point overall is that i really don’t care all that much what other folks do or don’t do. i don’t mean that in a dismissive way, i mean it in the sense of be your own bad self and enjoy your life.
but we do all have to respect, at a minimum, where other folks’ noses begin and end.
is say at a minimum, because imo there are other things in the world that deserve respect as well. but that may be a bridge too far for this venue.
I like my ungrounded assumptions out in the open, where they can be argued about.
cool, now you have the gist of mine.
although i would say unprovable rather than ungrounded. i consider mine quite well grounded, i just don’t assume that other folks will find them persuasive. there is a distinction there.
not much point in arguing about them, though. it seems to me that you’re on board or you’re not, you might as well argue about what your favorite color is.
the productive things to discuss are where the line between fists and noses are going to be drawn. so, not what is your favorite color, but what color are we actually going to paint the living room.
those are conversations where a conclusion can at least be drawn.
most likely nobody will get their favorite color, but at least the room gets painted.
Yes, but in doing that, the volume of the room is decreased by a tenth of a cubic millimeter or so.
Why do you hate living space, russell?
Yes, but in doing that, the volume of the room is decreased by a tenth of a cubic millimeter or so.
Why do you hate living space, russell?
Slart, are you innumerate? Any paint on the market will reduce the volume of a normal sized room by tens of liters per coat. You don’t paint a room with a single drop of paint, after all!
Slart, are you innumerate? Any paint on the market will reduce the volume of a normal sized room by tens of liters per coat. You don’t paint a room with a single drop of paint, after all!
Nanotechnology, Brett. Welcome to the future.
Nanotechnology, Brett. Welcome to the future.
Why do you hate living space, russell?
natural born claustrophiliac, that’s me.
🙂
Why do you hate living space, russell?
natural born claustrophiliac, that’s me.
🙂
based on my experience in drying out rancid paint so that i can throw it out, i’d guess that half the volume of latex paint is lost to evaporation after application.
based on my experience in drying out rancid paint so that i can throw it out, i’d guess that half the volume of latex paint is lost to evaporation after application.
Real future nano will not need repainting. It’ll be self-healing and reconfigurable to an infinite variety of grey-body spectra.
Real future nano will not need repainting. It’ll be self-healing and reconfigurable to an infinite variety of grey-body spectra.
i don’t want self-repairing paint so much as i want self-repairing caulk, and grout.
i don’t want self-repairing paint so much as i want self-repairing caulk, and grout.
“i’d guess that half the volume of latex paint is lost to evaporation after application.”
That gets you within 5-6 orders of magnitude of Slart’s number, anyway…
“i’d guess that half the volume of latex paint is lost to evaporation after application.”
That gets you within 5-6 orders of magnitude of Slart’s number, anyway…
It’s actually 40% for the best of paints. I looked it up.
And yes, I can admit that I am completely wrong. It’s not really much of a stretch for me, though, given that I was deliberately exaggerating while making a point I have made to my wife a number of times.
It’d be funnier if you knew how many times we’ve repainted the inside of our house, over a dozen years.
It’s actually 40% for the best of paints. I looked it up.
And yes, I can admit that I am completely wrong. It’s not really much of a stretch for me, though, given that I was deliberately exaggerating while making a point I have made to my wife a number of times.
It’d be funnier if you knew how many times we’ve repainted the inside of our house, over a dozen years.
Volume is reduced to 40%, as a maximum for really high-solid paint. So it’s more like 60% lost, at least. Up to 80% for cheaper paint.
Not that it makes me substantially more accurate, but in the interest of accuracy…
Volume is reduced to 40%, as a maximum for really high-solid paint. So it’s more like 60% lost, at least. Up to 80% for cheaper paint.
Not that it makes me substantially more accurate, but in the interest of accuracy…
but….
how many nanos must die, just to save us the effort of painting the living room?
i’m just thinking of the nanos, here.
but….
how many nanos must die, just to save us the effort of painting the living room?
i’m just thinking of the nanos, here.
Good thing nanos are immortal then!
Of course, that means that eventually we will be waist-deep in nanos. But we can let future generations worry about that….
Good thing nanos are immortal then!
Of course, that means that eventually we will be waist-deep in nanos. But we can let future generations worry about that….
But we can let future generations worry about that….
do they taste like bacon?
if so, problem solved….
But we can let future generations worry about that….
do they taste like bacon?
if so, problem solved….
Thanks for indulging me, russell. To follow up:
tricky question, no simple answer.
in general you negotiate. preferably without shooting.
Yeah, sadly, there are no simple answers. I don’t think I quite phrased what I was asking well, though.
More simply put, my question is:
Is there anything inviolable? Is there any action that both affects others (as, let’s face it, most things do these days) and is not subject to the will of the majority?
Or is everything prone to negotiation at the ballot box?
And, to be clear, I’m not asking about what you personally care about. You seem to care about very little, based on your statements of not caring. I put that together.
Frex: There is a difference between not caring if people eat cheeseburgers and thinking the government has the authority (or can obtain the authority through votes) to regulate how many cheeseburgers people eat.
Don’t read into the example: I’m actually eating a cheeseburger at the moment, and was therefore inspired.
Thanks for indulging me, russell. To follow up:
tricky question, no simple answer.
in general you negotiate. preferably without shooting.
Yeah, sadly, there are no simple answers. I don’t think I quite phrased what I was asking well, though.
More simply put, my question is:
Is there anything inviolable? Is there any action that both affects others (as, let’s face it, most things do these days) and is not subject to the will of the majority?
Or is everything prone to negotiation at the ballot box?
And, to be clear, I’m not asking about what you personally care about. You seem to care about very little, based on your statements of not caring. I put that together.
Frex: There is a difference between not caring if people eat cheeseburgers and thinking the government has the authority (or can obtain the authority through votes) to regulate how many cheeseburgers people eat.
Don’t read into the example: I’m actually eating a cheeseburger at the moment, and was therefore inspired.
Is there anything inviolable?
If you ask 100 people for a list of what is inviolable as a matter of principle, you will probably get 100+ lists.
As a basis for a functioning polity, at the federal level we rely on the Constitution to mark the out-of-bounds line.
Which obviously still leaves a lot of room for debate, but at least there’s some objective thing – a text, and a history of what we have taken the text to mean – to refer to.
Not perfect, but it beats trial by combat.
Is there anything inviolable?
If you ask 100 people for a list of what is inviolable as a matter of principle, you will probably get 100+ lists.
As a basis for a functioning polity, at the federal level we rely on the Constitution to mark the out-of-bounds line.
Which obviously still leaves a lot of room for debate, but at least there’s some objective thing – a text, and a history of what we have taken the text to mean – to refer to.
Not perfect, but it beats trial by combat.
Frex: There is a difference between not caring if people eat cheeseburgers and thinking the government has the authority (or can obtain the authority through votes) to regulate how many cheeseburgers people eat.
Well, it would seem to me indisputable that the government has the authority to regulate how many cheeseburgers people eat now, and in fact to ban the eating of cheeseburgers outright. I think the government did ban driving cars too much at one point as well (perhaps indirectly through gasoline rationing), to take your example upthread.
Maybe I’m getting too caught up in the examples?
Frex: There is a difference between not caring if people eat cheeseburgers and thinking the government has the authority (or can obtain the authority through votes) to regulate how many cheeseburgers people eat.
Well, it would seem to me indisputable that the government has the authority to regulate how many cheeseburgers people eat now, and in fact to ban the eating of cheeseburgers outright. I think the government did ban driving cars too much at one point as well (perhaps indirectly through gasoline rationing), to take your example upthread.
Maybe I’m getting too caught up in the examples?
Is there anything inviolable?
As a matter of principle-maybe. If you believe there is, then posit the case under which the principle holds under any conceivable circumstance imbued with moral conflict.
As a matter of human practice in the dimension of time-no.
But then again, as a liberal, I am a moral relativist burdened by situational ethics, post modernism, and for some reason, something to do with Jeremy Bentham (not sure what). But hey, as a pragmatist, I have learned to take the criticism. Comes with the territory.
Is there anything inviolable?
As a matter of principle-maybe. If you believe there is, then posit the case under which the principle holds under any conceivable circumstance imbued with moral conflict.
As a matter of human practice in the dimension of time-no.
But then again, as a liberal, I am a moral relativist burdened by situational ethics, post modernism, and for some reason, something to do with Jeremy Bentham (not sure what). But hey, as a pragmatist, I have learned to take the criticism. Comes with the territory.
If you ask 100 people for a list of what is inviolable as a matter of principle, you will probably get 100+ lists.
I was asking what you thought. Or more specifically, whether such a list exists in your head, regardless of what is on it.
As a matter of practice, there are clearly few hard limits to what a majority rule can accomplish. But to me, there are some things that the government should not be able to do, even if they sometimes do.
Since my other examples have been less than helpful, a more concrete one would be marriage equality. To me, the government denying that right is wrong, and inviolable rights are being violated.
To me, something like that shouldn’t be a matter of negotiation or voting. I don’t view the governments actions at that point as legitimate.
What I’m trying to get at is if you have anything on your list of things the government, or any government, should not do, or is everything subject to negotiation and vote by the polity?
For example, if the anti-equality folks cobbled together enough of a majority to insert an amendment banning marriage equality, is that just the price we pay for living in a society, that sometimes things don’t go our way politically? Or does it violate something deeper?
Perhaps a better way of phrasing the question would be, is there any individual right, which, in your opinion, transcends the government’s or society’s power to regulate its functions, or is everything subject to negotiation?
There is also a practical concern, if 100 people have 100 different lists of rights, how do we sort out which list to use, etc etc.
Or is there no difference in your mind between the practical matter of list selection and the lists themselves?
Thanks for bearing with me so far, I’m really not trying to be indirect about this, but its a subtle question I’m trying to get at, I suppose.
If you ask 100 people for a list of what is inviolable as a matter of principle, you will probably get 100+ lists.
I was asking what you thought. Or more specifically, whether such a list exists in your head, regardless of what is on it.
As a matter of practice, there are clearly few hard limits to what a majority rule can accomplish. But to me, there are some things that the government should not be able to do, even if they sometimes do.
Since my other examples have been less than helpful, a more concrete one would be marriage equality. To me, the government denying that right is wrong, and inviolable rights are being violated.
To me, something like that shouldn’t be a matter of negotiation or voting. I don’t view the governments actions at that point as legitimate.
What I’m trying to get at is if you have anything on your list of things the government, or any government, should not do, or is everything subject to negotiation and vote by the polity?
For example, if the anti-equality folks cobbled together enough of a majority to insert an amendment banning marriage equality, is that just the price we pay for living in a society, that sometimes things don’t go our way politically? Or does it violate something deeper?
Perhaps a better way of phrasing the question would be, is there any individual right, which, in your opinion, transcends the government’s or society’s power to regulate its functions, or is everything subject to negotiation?
There is also a practical concern, if 100 people have 100 different lists of rights, how do we sort out which list to use, etc etc.
Or is there no difference in your mind between the practical matter of list selection and the lists themselves?
Thanks for bearing with me so far, I’m really not trying to be indirect about this, but its a subtle question I’m trying to get at, I suppose.
thompson,
Russell may have a different answer, but I say “everything IS subject to negotiation”. And by “negotiation” I mean “majority rule”, ultimately.
Yes, if “enough of a majority” decides to ban gay marriage, or abortion, or gun ownership, or tax exemptions for churches, then the minority will just have to lump it — the minority is not required to LIKE it.
Your protection (and mine) against untrammeled majority rule is this: there is not “enough of a majority” on most questions we consider important.
There’s near-unanimity on many things. The requirement to wear clothes. The right to kill animals and eat them. The prohibition of chattel slavery. Are things like that non-negotiable? Yes, for now, in the US. But they’re neither universal nor eternal. They’re not “non-negotiable” in principle.
–TP
thompson,
Russell may have a different answer, but I say “everything IS subject to negotiation”. And by “negotiation” I mean “majority rule”, ultimately.
Yes, if “enough of a majority” decides to ban gay marriage, or abortion, or gun ownership, or tax exemptions for churches, then the minority will just have to lump it — the minority is not required to LIKE it.
Your protection (and mine) against untrammeled majority rule is this: there is not “enough of a majority” on most questions we consider important.
There’s near-unanimity on many things. The requirement to wear clothes. The right to kill animals and eat them. The prohibition of chattel slavery. Are things like that non-negotiable? Yes, for now, in the US. But they’re neither universal nor eternal. They’re not “non-negotiable” in principle.
–TP
“Your protection (and mine) against untrammeled majority rule is this: there is not “enough of a majority” on most questions we consider important.”
Bingo. You’ve just identified why the passage of the ACA was such a big deal: Because it demonstrated a conviction that 50%+1 could do anything. Not just small things, but big things. Not just uncontroversial things, but hated things.
We disagree fundamentally on many things, in ways we will never reach agreement on. The way we manage to have some degree of peace anyway, is by letting people have their own individual way on most things, by leaving most topics on which there isn’t substantial agreement alone. Where “substantial” means a hell of a lot more than just 51%.
Abandon that principle, and the state is at war with a large part of it’s population.
The state, in Connecticut last year, decided to enact a gun control law which a substantial part of the population thought was beyond the pale. They are now trying to figure out how to cope with the fact that on the order of 85% of the people the law applied to, perhaps as many as 100,000 people, refused to comply with it, and are now technically felons. Perhaps 3% of the population.
They haven’t enough police to arrest them, (If many of them weren’t police anyway.) not enough courts to try them, and not enough prisons to hold them. They’re at a loss for what to do.
All because they figured they were entitled to tell people what to do, no matter how much those people disliked it. The state is at war with part of it’s people in Connecticut, and faced with the awful realization it doesn’t have enough of an army to prosecute that war.
The world is littered with lines in the sand, and the attitude that the majority doesn’t have to worry about crossing them so long as it’s got one more person on it’s side than the other has, is a recipe for all out war.
“Your protection (and mine) against untrammeled majority rule is this: there is not “enough of a majority” on most questions we consider important.”
Bingo. You’ve just identified why the passage of the ACA was such a big deal: Because it demonstrated a conviction that 50%+1 could do anything. Not just small things, but big things. Not just uncontroversial things, but hated things.
We disagree fundamentally on many things, in ways we will never reach agreement on. The way we manage to have some degree of peace anyway, is by letting people have their own individual way on most things, by leaving most topics on which there isn’t substantial agreement alone. Where “substantial” means a hell of a lot more than just 51%.
Abandon that principle, and the state is at war with a large part of it’s population.
The state, in Connecticut last year, decided to enact a gun control law which a substantial part of the population thought was beyond the pale. They are now trying to figure out how to cope with the fact that on the order of 85% of the people the law applied to, perhaps as many as 100,000 people, refused to comply with it, and are now technically felons. Perhaps 3% of the population.
They haven’t enough police to arrest them, (If many of them weren’t police anyway.) not enough courts to try them, and not enough prisons to hold them. They’re at a loss for what to do.
All because they figured they were entitled to tell people what to do, no matter how much those people disliked it. The state is at war with part of it’s people in Connecticut, and faced with the awful realization it doesn’t have enough of an army to prosecute that war.
The world is littered with lines in the sand, and the attitude that the majority doesn’t have to worry about crossing them so long as it’s got one more person on it’s side than the other has, is a recipe for all out war.
Perhaps a better way of phrasing the question would be, is there any individual right, which, in your opinion, transcends the government’s or society’s power to regulate its functions, or is everything subject to negotiation?
Yes, sure. I don’t know if I have a laundry list, but yes, IMO there are individual rights that the government ought not be able to override.
If I had a list, it would be probably not be that different that what’s in the Bill of Rights. I’d probably add an explicit right to privacy, although “privacy” might be a hard thing to pin down. But what we have now is, I think, pretty good. It’s the product of many centuries of thought and experience, Madison et al did a good job.
I wish our actual practice conformed to what they guarantee, frankly.
What I note about all of this is the tendency to frame the question in terms of the individual vs. the government. I don’t know if I really think about it in those terms. I generally think about it in terms of the rights of the individual as balanced against the interests of the community as a whole.
The government is not sovereign here. The people are, or ought to be.
So when you talk about “the individual vs. the government” to some degree what we’re talking about is one person vs other persons.
Not some weird alien unaccountable actor, but plain old other people. Because most of the conflicts we talk about here end up being about the interests of one group of people, vs. the interests of another. Government just ends up being the way we sort it out.
The way we think about things tends to affect the way we respond to them. Just something to ponder.
The state, in Connecticut last year, decided to enact a gun control law which a substantial part of the population thought was beyond the pale….. a recipe for all out war.
There’s a substantial part of the population who believes all guns should be registered. Or, that nobody should be able to buy a gun without submitting to a background check. Etc etc etc.
That’s just talking about guns. Lather rinse and repeat for any hot topic you like.
You can find a substantial part of the population for almost any point of view you like. I’ll give you my personal list of Stuff That Really Pisses Me Off, if you like. It’s getting longer every day.
So fuck it, let’s all just go to war. Why not?
Perhaps a better way of phrasing the question would be, is there any individual right, which, in your opinion, transcends the government’s or society’s power to regulate its functions, or is everything subject to negotiation?
Yes, sure. I don’t know if I have a laundry list, but yes, IMO there are individual rights that the government ought not be able to override.
If I had a list, it would be probably not be that different that what’s in the Bill of Rights. I’d probably add an explicit right to privacy, although “privacy” might be a hard thing to pin down. But what we have now is, I think, pretty good. It’s the product of many centuries of thought and experience, Madison et al did a good job.
I wish our actual practice conformed to what they guarantee, frankly.
What I note about all of this is the tendency to frame the question in terms of the individual vs. the government. I don’t know if I really think about it in those terms. I generally think about it in terms of the rights of the individual as balanced against the interests of the community as a whole.
The government is not sovereign here. The people are, or ought to be.
So when you talk about “the individual vs. the government” to some degree what we’re talking about is one person vs other persons.
Not some weird alien unaccountable actor, but plain old other people. Because most of the conflicts we talk about here end up being about the interests of one group of people, vs. the interests of another. Government just ends up being the way we sort it out.
The way we think about things tends to affect the way we respond to them. Just something to ponder.
The state, in Connecticut last year, decided to enact a gun control law which a substantial part of the population thought was beyond the pale….. a recipe for all out war.
There’s a substantial part of the population who believes all guns should be registered. Or, that nobody should be able to buy a gun without submitting to a background check. Etc etc etc.
That’s just talking about guns. Lather rinse and repeat for any hot topic you like.
You can find a substantial part of the population for almost any point of view you like. I’ll give you my personal list of Stuff That Really Pisses Me Off, if you like. It’s getting longer every day.
So fuck it, let’s all just go to war. Why not?
What I note about all of this is the tendency to frame the question in terms of the individual vs. the government. I don’t know if I really think about it in those terms. I generally think about it in terms of the rights of the individual as balanced against the interests of the community as a whole.
Of course, I believe that one of our biggest problems is that the government has become an independent actor.
The attempt to control the government as an actor has become the focus of our two party system.
The only resemblance to the government that the founders imagined is at the fringe, where the people so object to government action that they are forced to react.
For clarity, I believe, imho, that the government micromanages huge swaths of unimportant things, mismanages a few important ones, and doesn’t manage only when there is unanimity they shouldn’t. As opposed to managing when there is unanimity they should.
“They” being an independent actor constantly justifying their existence, size and importance because that’s what actors do.
What I note about all of this is the tendency to frame the question in terms of the individual vs. the government. I don’t know if I really think about it in those terms. I generally think about it in terms of the rights of the individual as balanced against the interests of the community as a whole.
Of course, I believe that one of our biggest problems is that the government has become an independent actor.
The attempt to control the government as an actor has become the focus of our two party system.
The only resemblance to the government that the founders imagined is at the fringe, where the people so object to government action that they are forced to react.
For clarity, I believe, imho, that the government micromanages huge swaths of unimportant things, mismanages a few important ones, and doesn’t manage only when there is unanimity they shouldn’t. As opposed to managing when there is unanimity they should.
“They” being an independent actor constantly justifying their existence, size and importance because that’s what actors do.
There’s a lot packed into a few paragraphs here, but I’d say your point of view has some merit.
There’s a little bit of a chicken-and-egg thing here:
The only resemblance to the government that the founders imagined is at the fringe, where the people so object to government action that they are forced to react.
If the only place where folks find government action so objectionable that they are prompted to react in some way is at the fringe, what are you saying about everyone else?
Are most folks fine with what government does, even if it’s not what the founders envisioned?
Annoyed and unhappy, but insufficiently so to rock the boat?
Kind of sleep-walking through life, and so oblivious to their own actual interests?
I’m also curious if there are areas where you find government to be competent and/or working at an appropriate scope of responsibility, or if it’s all rotten at this point.
There’s a lot packed into a few paragraphs here, but I’d say your point of view has some merit.
There’s a little bit of a chicken-and-egg thing here:
The only resemblance to the government that the founders imagined is at the fringe, where the people so object to government action that they are forced to react.
If the only place where folks find government action so objectionable that they are prompted to react in some way is at the fringe, what are you saying about everyone else?
Are most folks fine with what government does, even if it’s not what the founders envisioned?
Annoyed and unhappy, but insufficiently so to rock the boat?
Kind of sleep-walking through life, and so oblivious to their own actual interests?
I’m also curious if there are areas where you find government to be competent and/or working at an appropriate scope of responsibility, or if it’s all rotten at this point.
Q: can people make a government so strong that it can do whatever they ask it to, except when want it to do things they don’t want it to do?
A: Godel
Q: can people make a government so strong that it can do whatever they ask it to, except when want it to do things they don’t want it to do?
A: Godel
If the only place where folks find government action so objectionable that they are prompted to react in some way is at the fringe, what are you saying about everyone else?
I think that, without overcomplicating the thought process, they react to individual items on the national agenda with little sense of power. Then return to their lives or their blogs. Thus only a very few issues impact a broad enough swath of people in a personal way to create that fringe issue. Oddly both the ACA and immigration fall into that category.
The federal government does a pretty good job of defense. A reasonable job of controlling violent crime, with notable exceptions, and an ok job of managing the safety net.
Like most large entities they could do those things better if they did fewer distracting things.
DOMA, for example, was a useless distraction. Core curriculum by subterfuge is a distraction. Neither is what they should be doing, and they don’t do it well. But both help them stay in power with a certain group of people without costing them enough votes elsewhere. Perpetuation of their necessity.
All imho, of course.
If the only place where folks find government action so objectionable that they are prompted to react in some way is at the fringe, what are you saying about everyone else?
I think that, without overcomplicating the thought process, they react to individual items on the national agenda with little sense of power. Then return to their lives or their blogs. Thus only a very few issues impact a broad enough swath of people in a personal way to create that fringe issue. Oddly both the ACA and immigration fall into that category.
The federal government does a pretty good job of defense. A reasonable job of controlling violent crime, with notable exceptions, and an ok job of managing the safety net.
Like most large entities they could do those things better if they did fewer distracting things.
DOMA, for example, was a useless distraction. Core curriculum by subterfuge is a distraction. Neither is what they should be doing, and they don’t do it well. But both help them stay in power with a certain group of people without costing them enough votes elsewhere. Perpetuation of their necessity.
All imho, of course.
“If the only place where folks find government action so objectionable that they are prompted to react in some way is at the fringe, what are you saying about everyone else?”
We are all on one fringe or another, if the government insists on doing enough things that don’t have overwhelming levels of support.
I say, always remember that the laws are enforced, and reserve them for things you actually think are worthy of resorting to violence to compel obedience.
Because that’s what the government will be doing, resorting to violence. Violence IS the government’s “hammer”, after all, it’s the only thing the government brings to the solution of any problem that the private sector doesn’t.
“If the only place where folks find government action so objectionable that they are prompted to react in some way is at the fringe, what are you saying about everyone else?”
We are all on one fringe or another, if the government insists on doing enough things that don’t have overwhelming levels of support.
I say, always remember that the laws are enforced, and reserve them for things you actually think are worthy of resorting to violence to compel obedience.
Because that’s what the government will be doing, resorting to violence. Violence IS the government’s “hammer”, after all, it’s the only thing the government brings to the solution of any problem that the private sector doesn’t.
But both help them stay in power with a certain group of people
i’m not sure who core curriculum is intended to sway. from what i can tell, teachers everywhere hate it.
But both help them stay in power with a certain group of people
i’m not sure who core curriculum is intended to sway. from what i can tell, teachers everywhere hate it.
FWIW, I have no disagreement with the idea that programs and institutions have a tendency to grow, and to stake out and defend their turf.
That’s not unique to governments, it just seems to be a property of any kind of human institution. But, it is also true of government.
Everybody’s got their idea of what government should and shouldn’t be involved in, and how government ought to do whatever they do better. I sure do.
But for most things that government is involved in, it’s there because some collection of folks wanted it there. I’m actually hard pressed to think of an exception.
Because that’s what the government will be doing, resorting to violence.
200 to 300 million firearms in private hands in the US. Enough ammunition stockpiled that folks find it hard to buy bullets to use at the firing range, at least that’s what folks tell me.
Maybe your experience is different, but my interactions with government, in all of its many forms and manifestations, just aren’t that violent. Expensive sometimes, violent not so much.
When I worry about violence, other things come to mind.
FWIW, I have no disagreement with the idea that programs and institutions have a tendency to grow, and to stake out and defend their turf.
That’s not unique to governments, it just seems to be a property of any kind of human institution. But, it is also true of government.
Everybody’s got their idea of what government should and shouldn’t be involved in, and how government ought to do whatever they do better. I sure do.
But for most things that government is involved in, it’s there because some collection of folks wanted it there. I’m actually hard pressed to think of an exception.
Because that’s what the government will be doing, resorting to violence.
200 to 300 million firearms in private hands in the US. Enough ammunition stockpiled that folks find it hard to buy bullets to use at the firing range, at least that’s what folks tell me.
Maybe your experience is different, but my interactions with government, in all of its many forms and manifestations, just aren’t that violent. Expensive sometimes, violent not so much.
When I worry about violence, other things come to mind.
i’m not sure who core curriculum is intended to sway.
But for most things that government is involved in, it’s there because some collection of folks wanted it there. I’m actually hard pressed to think of an exception.
Actually, I take it back. Core curriculum would be the exception I’d cite.
I have no idea who was clamoring for that. Nobody I know, that’s for sure.
i’m not sure who core curriculum is intended to sway.
But for most things that government is involved in, it’s there because some collection of folks wanted it there. I’m actually hard pressed to think of an exception.
Actually, I take it back. Core curriculum would be the exception I’d cite.
I have no idea who was clamoring for that. Nobody I know, that’s for sure.
“Maybe your experience is different, but my interactions with government, in all of its many forms and manifestations, just aren’t that violent. Expensive sometimes, violent not so much.”
Right, you buy that non-violence by obedience. So long as you hand over any money demanded, and obey any orders, you’ll only be subject to the government’s violence by accident. But the threat is always there.
“Maybe your experience is different, but my interactions with government, in all of its many forms and manifestations, just aren’t that violent. Expensive sometimes, violent not so much.”
Right, you buy that non-violence by obedience. So long as you hand over any money demanded, and obey any orders, you’ll only be subject to the government’s violence by accident. But the threat is always there.
oh yay. this nonsense again.
oh yay. this nonsense again.
Right, you buy that non-violence by obedience.
There really aren’t that many things the government insists that I do that bother me all that much. So, lucky me.
I also figure my interests are reasonably well represented by the people I vote for. I don’t win ’em all, but I figure that’s part of the deal.
What I see is that if you’re not black or maybe hispanic, not overly poor, not in jail, and not an obvious knucklehead, you have to go pretty far out of your way to get any kind of forceful response from anybody in government.
Some significant caveats there, and I wish there were no caveats at all. But the folks who don’t fall into any of the buckets I’ve named make up most of the population. Unless I’m mistaken, you don’t fall into any of them, either.
And what I also see is that “obedience” extends to (a) don’t break the law and (b) pay your taxes. I don’t find either of those things to be particularly burdensome, and I’m in a relatively high tax bracket and I live in MA.
To be honest, in the context of the experience of the human race, currently and historically, I find myself in a pretty good situation regarding my relationship with the various governments I live under.
I have been threatened with violence a couple of times in my life, but never by anyone in the government. And I haven’t actually been such a good docile cooperative boy all my life, either.
So, all in, I don’t see that I have a complaint. Perhaps your experience is different, many people’s have been. But, not mine.
I don’t come into this with any kind of assumption that I can do anything I want, which I think helps make the various social obligations I live under fairly tolerable. In any case, I think I get a lot back for my “obedience”, such as it is.
That’s how it all looks to me. If I’m “buying non-violence” with my “obedience”, it’s a pretty good deal.
Right, you buy that non-violence by obedience.
There really aren’t that many things the government insists that I do that bother me all that much. So, lucky me.
I also figure my interests are reasonably well represented by the people I vote for. I don’t win ’em all, but I figure that’s part of the deal.
What I see is that if you’re not black or maybe hispanic, not overly poor, not in jail, and not an obvious knucklehead, you have to go pretty far out of your way to get any kind of forceful response from anybody in government.
Some significant caveats there, and I wish there were no caveats at all. But the folks who don’t fall into any of the buckets I’ve named make up most of the population. Unless I’m mistaken, you don’t fall into any of them, either.
And what I also see is that “obedience” extends to (a) don’t break the law and (b) pay your taxes. I don’t find either of those things to be particularly burdensome, and I’m in a relatively high tax bracket and I live in MA.
To be honest, in the context of the experience of the human race, currently and historically, I find myself in a pretty good situation regarding my relationship with the various governments I live under.
I have been threatened with violence a couple of times in my life, but never by anyone in the government. And I haven’t actually been such a good docile cooperative boy all my life, either.
So, all in, I don’t see that I have a complaint. Perhaps your experience is different, many people’s have been. But, not mine.
I don’t come into this with any kind of assumption that I can do anything I want, which I think helps make the various social obligations I live under fairly tolerable. In any case, I think I get a lot back for my “obedience”, such as it is.
That’s how it all looks to me. If I’m “buying non-violence” with my “obedience”, it’s a pretty good deal.
shorter me:
what cleek said
shorter me:
what cleek said
I am not fond of this circular argument, but the fact that russell or I don’t have a problem with most of what the government demands doesn’t in any way counter Brett’s point.
Whatever the mechanism, violence always being the ultimate threat, we should not ask government to do things we don’t ultimately want them to be able to enforce.
I am not sure why that gets such a reaction. On this blog comments there seems to be broad agreement that drug laws should changedi somehow, armed men shouldn’t arrest pot dealers with no knock searches blah blah. Yet any attempt to draw a broader parallel gets hammered.
Its confusing.
I am not fond of this circular argument, but the fact that russell or I don’t have a problem with most of what the government demands doesn’t in any way counter Brett’s point.
Whatever the mechanism, violence always being the ultimate threat, we should not ask government to do things we don’t ultimately want them to be able to enforce.
I am not sure why that gets such a reaction. On this blog comments there seems to be broad agreement that drug laws should changedi somehow, armed men shouldn’t arrest pot dealers with no knock searches blah blah. Yet any attempt to draw a broader parallel gets hammered.
Its confusing.
What I find really, really sad is that there are people (apparently including Brett) whose entire focus when it comes to government is on how it threatens them with violence.
One would think, from the way they go on, that they were experiencing imminent threats of violence to their persons on a daily basis. But in fact, unless they have a burning desire to break the law, there just isn’t that much threat.
Sure, the government could inflict violence upon you if it doesn’t like what you are doing (or not doing). But so could your local gun owner. And in the course of our real lives, the latter is, while actually extremely unlikely, far more likely than the former.
What I find really, really sad is that there are people (apparently including Brett) whose entire focus when it comes to government is on how it threatens them with violence.
One would think, from the way they go on, that they were experiencing imminent threats of violence to their persons on a daily basis. But in fact, unless they have a burning desire to break the law, there just isn’t that much threat.
Sure, the government could inflict violence upon you if it doesn’t like what you are doing (or not doing). But so could your local gun owner. And in the course of our real lives, the latter is, while actually extremely unlikely, far more likely than the former.
Really, really sad? Really? I think Brett’s ok.
Really, really sad? Really? I think Brett’s ok.
The government thinks Brett is O.K., too, else they’d use violence against him at the request of the representatives of the people who craft the laws, or failing that mechanism, George Zimmerman would appoint himself in charge of doing violence against Brett for whatever Zimmerman gets his back up about at any particular time.
What is it you folks want to do that you’re not doing because you believe the government would do violence against you?
Local police can administer just as violent violence as State-level police can administer, and as, in turn, Federal law enforcement administers, and in fact, locally is where nearly all violence against the citizenry is perpetrated.
Does violence administered at the level of government closest to the victim of that government somehow feel better?
I’m for disarming all levels of domestic government, including the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the IRS, the Border Patrol, but I guarantee you no one else on these boards agrees with that position AND I get the feeling if that state of grace actually came to be somehow (no how), it would be used as an excuse for heavily armed citizen f*cks to show up at political meetings at all levels of government and bully government officials into doing their personal bidding and killing them when need be, especially the IRS agent who inquires politely when my f*cking tax returns can be expected to be in the mail, because I don’t like deadlines either.
Americans, as a class of people, are f*cking violent motherf&ckers in and out of government.
Individually, natch, all of us chickens are decent people, including Brett.
The government thinks Brett is O.K., too, else they’d use violence against him at the request of the representatives of the people who craft the laws, or failing that mechanism, George Zimmerman would appoint himself in charge of doing violence against Brett for whatever Zimmerman gets his back up about at any particular time.
What is it you folks want to do that you’re not doing because you believe the government would do violence against you?
Local police can administer just as violent violence as State-level police can administer, and as, in turn, Federal law enforcement administers, and in fact, locally is where nearly all violence against the citizenry is perpetrated.
Does violence administered at the level of government closest to the victim of that government somehow feel better?
I’m for disarming all levels of domestic government, including the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the IRS, the Border Patrol, but I guarantee you no one else on these boards agrees with that position AND I get the feeling if that state of grace actually came to be somehow (no how), it would be used as an excuse for heavily armed citizen f*cks to show up at political meetings at all levels of government and bully government officials into doing their personal bidding and killing them when need be, especially the IRS agent who inquires politely when my f*cking tax returns can be expected to be in the mail, because I don’t like deadlines either.
Americans, as a class of people, are f*cking violent motherf&ckers in and out of government.
Individually, natch, all of us chickens are decent people, including Brett.
…but I guarantee you no one else on these boards agrees with that position.
I Agree!
So who should have the monopoly of violence? Private actors? You mean like when teh Vanderbilts and Goulds who hired private armies of thugs to break labor strikes? Like husbands who are free to rape their wives “because they sleep with them”? Like the boss who asks for sexual favors or out the door you go? Like the KKK?
I, for one, would rather this monopoly be confined to an accountable institution, not power crazed private actors accountable to nobody.
If you believe there should be no state, then welcome to pure anarchism (in the classical sense) and tell me why the f*ck you support Republicans? No true Scots need respond, please.
…but I guarantee you no one else on these boards agrees with that position.
I Agree!
So who should have the monopoly of violence? Private actors? You mean like when teh Vanderbilts and Goulds who hired private armies of thugs to break labor strikes? Like husbands who are free to rape their wives “because they sleep with them”? Like the boss who asks for sexual favors or out the door you go? Like the KKK?
I, for one, would rather this monopoly be confined to an accountable institution, not power crazed private actors accountable to nobody.
If you believe there should be no state, then welcome to pure anarchism (in the classical sense) and tell me why the f*ck you support Republicans? No true Scots need respond, please.
There is no monopoly of violence under the US constitution. Max Weber’s conception of the state was rejected by the founders of this country before he ever formulated it, they created a State which was only partially delegated sovereignty by the people, who reserved a considerable part of it. Including the right to resort to violence, even against the state, if it became necessary.
That was our “new order for the ages”, a State which was NOT all powerful, and which only contingently held the people’s sovereignty, so long as they permitted it to exercise it.
As for your examples, you might as well ask if the state that ships people to death camps should have a monopoly on violence. You really can’t conceive of any justified use of violence by the individual? Self defense, maybe? All your examples are wrongs?
Countme-In: Yes, I’m a chicken, as far as anything I’m going to tell you. I’d certainly be a fool to confess any felonies here. Probably more than three, though.
There is no monopoly of violence under the US constitution. Max Weber’s conception of the state was rejected by the founders of this country before he ever formulated it, they created a State which was only partially delegated sovereignty by the people, who reserved a considerable part of it. Including the right to resort to violence, even against the state, if it became necessary.
That was our “new order for the ages”, a State which was NOT all powerful, and which only contingently held the people’s sovereignty, so long as they permitted it to exercise it.
As for your examples, you might as well ask if the state that ships people to death camps should have a monopoly on violence. You really can’t conceive of any justified use of violence by the individual? Self defense, maybe? All your examples are wrongs?
Countme-In: Yes, I’m a chicken, as far as anything I’m going to tell you. I’d certainly be a fool to confess any felonies here. Probably more than three, though.
Whatever the mechanism, violence always being the ultimate threat, we should not ask government to do things we don’t ultimately want them to be able to enforce.
I can’t imagine anybody disagreeing with this. Correct, we should not ask government to do things that we don’t want them to be able to enforce.
And I also quite agree that Brett’s OK, and in fact I quite agree with his 8:36.
As an aside, I find it puzzling that, in a nation with 200 to 300 million firearms in private hands, anybody is talking about the government having a monopoly on the use of force.
The reason Brett’s comments “get such a reaction” isn’t because the rest of us are unaware that the government may use force to enforce the law. It’s because it’s totally and completely unsurprising that government would do so, and in fact it’s both legitimate and desirable that government would do so.
So, not so much “what a silly idea!”, but “no shit, Sherlock!”.
Without a way to coerce compliance with the law, the law would be utterly without force. Or, it would have the same force as your Sunday school teacher telling you to be nice to everyone.
If the law was without force, lots of folks would ignore it. And, in fact, lots of those folks would be quite happy to employ force of their own to compel your obedience to what *they* wanted.
Like, your property and your life. In short, your liberty.
If you value any kind of meaningful personal liberty, you will be delighted that government is able to compel compliance with the law.
That’s why we grant government the prerogative of using force. Because we don’t want to live our lives subject to the whims of warlords, mafiosi, and crazy-ass violent maniacs, and we don’t (at least most of us) don’t want to have to live in armed camps of our own construction to achieve that.
I don’t think Brett would even disagree with that. His issue seems more focused on the next phrase:
IMVHO, Brett confuses “consent” with “agreement”. If there’s anything the government does that he, or some other hypothetical person for instance living in Connecticut, disagrees with, then in his view the government’s use of force in doing that becomes offensive and illegitimate.
I’m speaking for Brett here, I will welcome his comment if I’m misrepresenting his point of view.
In any case, consent is not the same as agreement. And disagreement does not make the use of force by government illegitimate.
If you do not consent to be governed by the government of the United States as it currently stands, you have the right to resist that government, and ultimately the right to employ force in that resistance. If enough folks agree with you, you may even prevail.
But the reason most people are just not that worked up about the government using force to get folks to comply with the law is because, in spite of whatever disagreements they may have with the government, they consent to being governed by it.
Whatever the mechanism, violence always being the ultimate threat, we should not ask government to do things we don’t ultimately want them to be able to enforce.
I can’t imagine anybody disagreeing with this. Correct, we should not ask government to do things that we don’t want them to be able to enforce.
And I also quite agree that Brett’s OK, and in fact I quite agree with his 8:36.
As an aside, I find it puzzling that, in a nation with 200 to 300 million firearms in private hands, anybody is talking about the government having a monopoly on the use of force.
The reason Brett’s comments “get such a reaction” isn’t because the rest of us are unaware that the government may use force to enforce the law. It’s because it’s totally and completely unsurprising that government would do so, and in fact it’s both legitimate and desirable that government would do so.
So, not so much “what a silly idea!”, but “no shit, Sherlock!”.
Without a way to coerce compliance with the law, the law would be utterly without force. Or, it would have the same force as your Sunday school teacher telling you to be nice to everyone.
If the law was without force, lots of folks would ignore it. And, in fact, lots of those folks would be quite happy to employ force of their own to compel your obedience to what *they* wanted.
Like, your property and your life. In short, your liberty.
If you value any kind of meaningful personal liberty, you will be delighted that government is able to compel compliance with the law.
That’s why we grant government the prerogative of using force. Because we don’t want to live our lives subject to the whims of warlords, mafiosi, and crazy-ass violent maniacs, and we don’t (at least most of us) don’t want to have to live in armed camps of our own construction to achieve that.
I don’t think Brett would even disagree with that. His issue seems more focused on the next phrase:
IMVHO, Brett confuses “consent” with “agreement”. If there’s anything the government does that he, or some other hypothetical person for instance living in Connecticut, disagrees with, then in his view the government’s use of force in doing that becomes offensive and illegitimate.
I’m speaking for Brett here, I will welcome his comment if I’m misrepresenting his point of view.
In any case, consent is not the same as agreement. And disagreement does not make the use of force by government illegitimate.
If you do not consent to be governed by the government of the United States as it currently stands, you have the right to resist that government, and ultimately the right to employ force in that resistance. If enough folks agree with you, you may even prevail.
But the reason most people are just not that worked up about the government using force to get folks to comply with the law is because, in spite of whatever disagreements they may have with the government, they consent to being governed by it.
“The reason Brett’s comments “get such a reaction” isn’t because the rest of us are unaware that the government may use force to enforce the law. It’s because it’s totally and completely unsurprising that government would do so, and in fact it’s both legitimate and desirable that government would do so.”
The point is that whether it is both legitimate and desirable that the government be willing to resort to violence to enforce “the law” is dependent on the nature of the law. Use violence to crack down on murder and rape? Fine. Use violence to crack down on people removing the tags from their mattresses? Not so fine.
The point is, that laws are enforced with the threat of violence, (Which must be carried out from time to time to keep the threat plausible.) implies that one should not make laws prohibiting things which violence would not be justified in dealing with.
Threatening people with violence if they don’t obey you is not a trivial matter, even if there are circumstances which may justify it, they are not all circumstances.
What I’m saying is, if you wouldn’t feel right assaulting your neighbor if he smokes pot, maybe you shouldn’t feel any better about delegating that assault to somebody else. Maybe, before you go all “There ought to be a law!”, you should ask yourself if you would be willing to crack somebody’s head open with a billy club over the matter. And if the answer is no, forget about passing a law.
“The reason Brett’s comments “get such a reaction” isn’t because the rest of us are unaware that the government may use force to enforce the law. It’s because it’s totally and completely unsurprising that government would do so, and in fact it’s both legitimate and desirable that government would do so.”
The point is that whether it is both legitimate and desirable that the government be willing to resort to violence to enforce “the law” is dependent on the nature of the law. Use violence to crack down on murder and rape? Fine. Use violence to crack down on people removing the tags from their mattresses? Not so fine.
The point is, that laws are enforced with the threat of violence, (Which must be carried out from time to time to keep the threat plausible.) implies that one should not make laws prohibiting things which violence would not be justified in dealing with.
Threatening people with violence if they don’t obey you is not a trivial matter, even if there are circumstances which may justify it, they are not all circumstances.
What I’m saying is, if you wouldn’t feel right assaulting your neighbor if he smokes pot, maybe you shouldn’t feel any better about delegating that assault to somebody else. Maybe, before you go all “There ought to be a law!”, you should ask yourself if you would be willing to crack somebody’s head open with a billy club over the matter. And if the answer is no, forget about passing a law.
“more than three”
I’ll show you mine if you show me yours.
I’ve broken some portion of the Ten Commandments numerous times, including Jimmy Carter’s favorite, in my heart, according to the letter of the law, and have violated wholesale most of the Hebraic (Judeo-Christian) dietary laws in the Old Testament, and the ratio of the number of times I’ve broken traffic laws to the number of times the government has bothered to apprehend and prosecute me would put most seriously oppressive autocrats to shame.
And yet I’m walking the streets.
Why, the NSA has all of my commentary at OBWI, and yours, on file regarding our respective views about what oughta be done over heah, and nuttin happens ….. wait, why is someone pounding on my door at this time in the morning …. excuse me, I’ll be right back ….
“more than three”
I’ll show you mine if you show me yours.
I’ve broken some portion of the Ten Commandments numerous times, including Jimmy Carter’s favorite, in my heart, according to the letter of the law, and have violated wholesale most of the Hebraic (Judeo-Christian) dietary laws in the Old Testament, and the ratio of the number of times I’ve broken traffic laws to the number of times the government has bothered to apprehend and prosecute me would put most seriously oppressive autocrats to shame.
And yet I’m walking the streets.
Why, the NSA has all of my commentary at OBWI, and yours, on file regarding our respective views about what oughta be done over heah, and nuttin happens ….. wait, why is someone pounding on my door at this time in the morning …. excuse me, I’ll be right back ….
Max Weber’s conception of the state was rejected by the founders of this country before he ever formulated it…
A claim, even if remotely accurate, that pretty much died in the Whiskey Rebellion.
Max Weber’s conception of the state was rejected by the founders of this country before he ever formulated it…
A claim, even if remotely accurate, that pretty much died in the Whiskey Rebellion.
By the way, is it too much to ask that, if you click on the “recent comment” link, it take you to the page that comment was on, not just the head of the post?
Anyway, just remember: Don’t urge the enactment of a law, and think yourself non-violent. It’s like thinking you don’t kill animals, just because you buy your meat at a grocery store, instead of doing your own slaughtering.
The principle I urge is simple enough: If you would shrink from committing violence yourself to see to it that a law is obeyed, don’t support that law. Don’t delegate what you wouldn’t feel justified in doing yourself.
By the way, is it too much to ask that, if you click on the “recent comment” link, it take you to the page that comment was on, not just the head of the post?
Anyway, just remember: Don’t urge the enactment of a law, and think yourself non-violent. It’s like thinking you don’t kill animals, just because you buy your meat at a grocery store, instead of doing your own slaughtering.
The principle I urge is simple enough: If you would shrink from committing violence yourself to see to it that a law is obeyed, don’t support that law. Don’t delegate what you wouldn’t feel justified in doing yourself.
crack down on people removing the tags from their mattresses?
You are aware, I trust, that the prohibition on removing the mattress tag applies only to merchants before the final sale. And is intended to make sure that you, the retail purchaser, know what in in the mattress you are buying. The phrasing on the tag leaves a lot to be desired. But the restriction itself absolutely does not apply, and was never intended to apply, to the final purchaser.
I go on about this because it is one of the classic cases of people getting worked up about “government infringing on our rights without reason” — when the government has actually done no such thing. A more reasonable objection would be to the seriously poor writing on the tag, which allows such a misconception to arise in the first place.
crack down on people removing the tags from their mattresses?
You are aware, I trust, that the prohibition on removing the mattress tag applies only to merchants before the final sale. And is intended to make sure that you, the retail purchaser, know what in in the mattress you are buying. The phrasing on the tag leaves a lot to be desired. But the restriction itself absolutely does not apply, and was never intended to apply, to the final purchaser.
I go on about this because it is one of the classic cases of people getting worked up about “government infringing on our rights without reason” — when the government has actually done no such thing. A more reasonable objection would be to the seriously poor writing on the tag, which allows such a misconception to arise in the first place.
By the way, is it too much to ask that, if you click on the “recent comment” link, it take you to the page that comment was on, not just the head of the post?
In my experience, if you click on the name of the post in the “recent comment” link, you get to the head of the post. But if you click on the name of the commenter, you get to that specific comment. I misdirect the cursor before clicking occasionally, but when I get it right it does seem to work OK.
By the way, is it too much to ask that, if you click on the “recent comment” link, it take you to the page that comment was on, not just the head of the post?
In my experience, if you click on the name of the post in the “recent comment” link, you get to the head of the post. But if you click on the name of the commenter, you get to that specific comment. I misdirect the cursor before clicking occasionally, but when I get it right it does seem to work OK.
Perfectly aware of that. I was just reaching for a law even a ‘liberal’ wouldn’t be willing to enforce at the point of a gun, and to be certain of coming up with one, I resorted to an absurd hypothetical.
I mean, if I asked if you’d be willing to shoot somebody to keep them from selling an insurance policy that didn’t cover contraceptives, I wouldn’t be at all certain the answer was “no”. There are some pretty silly laws liberals can rationalize shooting people over.
Perfectly aware of that. I was just reaching for a law even a ‘liberal’ wouldn’t be willing to enforce at the point of a gun, and to be certain of coming up with one, I resorted to an absurd hypothetical.
I mean, if I asked if you’d be willing to shoot somebody to keep them from selling an insurance policy that didn’t cover contraceptives, I wouldn’t be at all certain the answer was “no”. There are some pretty silly laws liberals can rationalize shooting people over.
The overwhelming majority of the time, laws are enforced without violence. Sometimes you take your chances and break the law, hoping you won’t get caught. But, if you are caught, you don’t resist, not just because of the threat of violence, but also because you knew you were out of line and accept that you simply got caught. You might not be happy about it, but you’re no anarchist, either.
Some people simply aren’t capable of violence under any but the most immediately existential of circumstances. I suppose for them, the only laws they could support, employing Brett’s principle, are laws prohibiting murder.
It’s really silly to think that I should be against speed limits because I wouldn’t crack someone over the head with a billy club for driving 66 mph in a 65-mph zone. The amount of resistance to being pulled over, paying a fine, showing up for court, or, ultimately, being arrested is what I’d being willing to crack someone over the head with a billy club over, because I don’t want total effing chaos, which would be far more violent right out of the box.
So, yes, most laws are ultimately backed with some threat of violence, but in the vast majority of cases, you have to do a lot more than simply breaking those laws to face such violence. In fact, in the process, you end up breaking a bunch of other laws, which are really the ones backed with the threat of violence (e.g. resisting arrest, assaulting a police officer, attempting to escape, etc).
The overwhelming majority of the time, laws are enforced without violence. Sometimes you take your chances and break the law, hoping you won’t get caught. But, if you are caught, you don’t resist, not just because of the threat of violence, but also because you knew you were out of line and accept that you simply got caught. You might not be happy about it, but you’re no anarchist, either.
Some people simply aren’t capable of violence under any but the most immediately existential of circumstances. I suppose for them, the only laws they could support, employing Brett’s principle, are laws prohibiting murder.
It’s really silly to think that I should be against speed limits because I wouldn’t crack someone over the head with a billy club for driving 66 mph in a 65-mph zone. The amount of resistance to being pulled over, paying a fine, showing up for court, or, ultimately, being arrested is what I’d being willing to crack someone over the head with a billy club over, because I don’t want total effing chaos, which would be far more violent right out of the box.
So, yes, most laws are ultimately backed with some threat of violence, but in the vast majority of cases, you have to do a lot more than simply breaking those laws to face such violence. In fact, in the process, you end up breaking a bunch of other laws, which are really the ones backed with the threat of violence (e.g. resisting arrest, assaulting a police officer, attempting to escape, etc).
“The overwhelming majority of the time, laws are enforced without violence.”
The overwhelming majority of the time, an armed robber doesn’t have to shoot his victim. That doesn’t mean that he can leave the gun at home, and just ask for the money.
“Sometimes you take your chances and break the law, hoping you won’t get caught. But, if you are caught, you don’t resist, not just because of the threat of violence, but also because you knew you were out of line and accept that you simply got caught.”
That may be the case for laws which are seen as legitimate, or perhaps semi-legitimate. (Like speed limits; The concept legitimate, the actual number chosen to maximize revenue, not for safety.)
But it is not the case for laws which are seen by the target of enforcement as fundamentally illegitimate, like that Connecticut law I referenced. There the people violating the law don’t think they are out of line, they think the government out of line for making the demand.
“The overwhelming majority of the time, laws are enforced without violence.”
The overwhelming majority of the time, an armed robber doesn’t have to shoot his victim. That doesn’t mean that he can leave the gun at home, and just ask for the money.
“Sometimes you take your chances and break the law, hoping you won’t get caught. But, if you are caught, you don’t resist, not just because of the threat of violence, but also because you knew you were out of line and accept that you simply got caught.”
That may be the case for laws which are seen as legitimate, or perhaps semi-legitimate. (Like speed limits; The concept legitimate, the actual number chosen to maximize revenue, not for safety.)
But it is not the case for laws which are seen by the target of enforcement as fundamentally illegitimate, like that Connecticut law I referenced. There the people violating the law don’t think they are out of line, they think the government out of line for making the demand.
I’d add that anyone is free to advocate any principle he likes, just as I’m free to disregard a given principle in favor of being sensible and leaving bizarre, abstract constructs out of it.
I’d add that anyone is free to advocate any principle he likes, just as I’m free to disregard a given principle in favor of being sensible and leaving bizarre, abstract constructs out of it.
Laws certainly can be illegitimate, Brett. But it’s not simply because they’re laws and because laws ultimately may be backed up with violence. Your principle is just not necessary. If anything, it’s a distraction. What any given person would be willing to do, personally, to enforce the law on his own has nothing to do with whether or not a law makes sense or is legitimate. It’s just some nifty sounding libertarian baloney AFAIAC.
Laws certainly can be illegitimate, Brett. But it’s not simply because they’re laws and because laws ultimately may be backed up with violence. Your principle is just not necessary. If anything, it’s a distraction. What any given person would be willing to do, personally, to enforce the law on his own has nothing to do with whether or not a law makes sense or is legitimate. It’s just some nifty sounding libertarian baloney AFAIAC.
the problem with this “govt = violence” stuff is that it is the most cynical and corrosive way possible to look at the role and function of govt in society. it’s so absurdly negative and paranoid and it poisons the discussion right away. once “govt = violence” (or its counterpart “taxes = theft”) show up, talking about the govt in rational terms becomes hopeless.
i suspect that’s intentional.
the problem with this “govt = violence” stuff is that it is the most cynical and corrosive way possible to look at the role and function of govt in society. it’s so absurdly negative and paranoid and it poisons the discussion right away. once “govt = violence” (or its counterpart “taxes = theft”) show up, talking about the govt in rational terms becomes hopeless.
i suspect that’s intentional.
Apparently, gun owners in Connecticut are not aware of Connecticut’s interpretation of the Second Amendment:
🙂
Apparently, gun owners in Connecticut are not aware of Connecticut’s interpretation of the Second Amendment:
🙂
I was just reaching for a law even a ‘liberal’ wouldn’t be willing to enforce at the point of a gun, and to be certain of coming up with one, I resorted to an absurd hypothetical.
We an all come up with absurd hypotheticals. Just as we can, no doubt, come up with laws that even you would agree should be enforced by the government with violence. But if you are going to make the point, at least come up with a real law. For one obvious example, take the laws which prevent individuals from growing and privately consuming marijuana. No reason for that, beyond “tradition!” — based on misinformation and the prejudices of a century ago.
At least with an example like that, you have a case where you could get agreement from most people here. Certainly all of the libertarians and liberals, and probably a lot of the conservatives.
I was just reaching for a law even a ‘liberal’ wouldn’t be willing to enforce at the point of a gun, and to be certain of coming up with one, I resorted to an absurd hypothetical.
We an all come up with absurd hypotheticals. Just as we can, no doubt, come up with laws that even you would agree should be enforced by the government with violence. But if you are going to make the point, at least come up with a real law. For one obvious example, take the laws which prevent individuals from growing and privately consuming marijuana. No reason for that, beyond “tradition!” — based on misinformation and the prejudices of a century ago.
At least with an example like that, you have a case where you could get agreement from most people here. Certainly all of the libertarians and liberals, and probably a lot of the conservatives.
“I mean, if I asked if you’d be willing to shoot somebody to keep them from selling an insurance policy that didn’t cover contraceptives, I wouldn’t be at all certain the answer was “no”. There are some pretty silly laws liberals can rationalize shooting people over.”
Not too long ago, I was on the look-out for someone selling insurance policies that didn’t cover contraceptives and while on my rounds one evening a saw this kid who I suspected was going door-to-door in my neighborhood doing that very thing, I mean he was walking and there was something about his complexion that made me suspect he was the type to sell insurance policies without contraceptive coverage, so I started to tail him and, I don’t know, maybe he was one of them types with a libertarian streak who doesn’t like being followed by a scowling stranger who might be, for all he knew, some sort of self-appointed governing official, or just a sh*thead, or both, in a public place and whoa, nellie, before I could say halt who goes there, he’s on top of me like he was frightened and I guess trying to get the jump and the next thing i knew, despite by boxing lessons, was I hadda shoot the f*cker with my gummint-supplied-permitted concealed weapon, so let that be a lesson to folks selling insurance without contraceptive coverage, or at least LOOKING like they might be about to sell insurance without contraceptive coverage, or maybe LOOKING like they might have an overabundance of melanin while selling insurance without contraceptive coverage, not that my wife and girlfriend don’t wish I would buy some insurance WITH insurance coverage, so they don’t get pregnant before they toss my innocent butt into the street.
“I mean, if I asked if you’d be willing to shoot somebody to keep them from selling an insurance policy that didn’t cover contraceptives, I wouldn’t be at all certain the answer was “no”. There are some pretty silly laws liberals can rationalize shooting people over.”
Not too long ago, I was on the look-out for someone selling insurance policies that didn’t cover contraceptives and while on my rounds one evening a saw this kid who I suspected was going door-to-door in my neighborhood doing that very thing, I mean he was walking and there was something about his complexion that made me suspect he was the type to sell insurance policies without contraceptive coverage, so I started to tail him and, I don’t know, maybe he was one of them types with a libertarian streak who doesn’t like being followed by a scowling stranger who might be, for all he knew, some sort of self-appointed governing official, or just a sh*thead, or both, in a public place and whoa, nellie, before I could say halt who goes there, he’s on top of me like he was frightened and I guess trying to get the jump and the next thing i knew, despite by boxing lessons, was I hadda shoot the f*cker with my gummint-supplied-permitted concealed weapon, so let that be a lesson to folks selling insurance without contraceptive coverage, or at least LOOKING like they might be about to sell insurance without contraceptive coverage, or maybe LOOKING like they might have an overabundance of melanin while selling insurance without contraceptive coverage, not that my wife and girlfriend don’t wish I would buy some insurance WITH insurance coverage, so they don’t get pregnant before they toss my innocent butt into the street.
insurance WITH “contraceptive” coverage.
Stream of unconsciousness.
insurance WITH “contraceptive” coverage.
Stream of unconsciousness.
“A well regulated population being necessary to the security of a police state, the right of the government to register and ban arms shall not be infringed.”
I’ll bet they favor this interpretation instead:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/woman-fatally-shot-sorting-clothes-thrift-store
“A poorly regulated sock drawer being necessary to the security of a state full of sh*theads, the right of libertarians to put a sock in it, or to put it in a sock you’re giving away to charity, or to put your arms in a sock, not your feet, shall not be infringed.”
Winkedy-wonk.
“A well regulated population being necessary to the security of a police state, the right of the government to register and ban arms shall not be infringed.”
I’ll bet they favor this interpretation instead:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/woman-fatally-shot-sorting-clothes-thrift-store
“A poorly regulated sock drawer being necessary to the security of a state full of sh*theads, the right of libertarians to put a sock in it, or to put it in a sock you’re giving away to charity, or to put your arms in a sock, not your feet, shall not be infringed.”
Winkedy-wonk.
The point is that whether it is both legitimate and desirable that the government be willing to resort to violence to enforce “the law” is dependent on the nature of the law. Use violence to crack down on murder and rape? Fine. Use violence to crack down on people removing the tags from their mattresses? Not so fine.
I completely agree that force is an appropriate response to rape and murder, and is not an appropriate response to removing mattress tags.
Even if the vendor does it, and not the final buyer.
The idea that we should only pass laws that we would be willing to have the government enforce by threat of violence seems, to me, kind of eccentric, not to say ahistorical.
In other words, it makes no sense.
Should we start shooting people if they run a red light?
If not, should we not have red lights?
I’m not sure you’ve really thought this one through.
The point is that whether it is both legitimate and desirable that the government be willing to resort to violence to enforce “the law” is dependent on the nature of the law. Use violence to crack down on murder and rape? Fine. Use violence to crack down on people removing the tags from their mattresses? Not so fine.
I completely agree that force is an appropriate response to rape and murder, and is not an appropriate response to removing mattress tags.
Even if the vendor does it, and not the final buyer.
The idea that we should only pass laws that we would be willing to have the government enforce by threat of violence seems, to me, kind of eccentric, not to say ahistorical.
In other words, it makes no sense.
Should we start shooting people if they run a red light?
If not, should we not have red lights?
I’m not sure you’ve really thought this one through.
Well, cool; Clicking on the name does bring you direct to the comment. Never occurred to me to do that.
Countme-In, it would be an absurd tragedy indeed if our government were to bring the country to the brink of revolution, simply because liberals couldn’t take seriously the notion that a lot of people really, really do NOT like what they’re doing, and won’t passively permit their rights to be taken away.
Well, cool; Clicking on the name does bring you direct to the comment. Never occurred to me to do that.
Countme-In, it would be an absurd tragedy indeed if our government were to bring the country to the brink of revolution, simply because liberals couldn’t take seriously the notion that a lot of people really, really do NOT like what they’re doing, and won’t passively permit their rights to be taken away.
A good lawyer would explain to the district attorney in the pre-trial hearing that, in fact, the accused was separating the mattress from the mattress tag, not the other way around, a half-assed regulated militia being necessary to keeping one eye open while trying to get a good night’s sleep.
A good lawyer would explain to the district attorney in the pre-trial hearing that, in fact, the accused was separating the mattress from the mattress tag, not the other way around, a half-assed regulated militia being necessary to keeping one eye open while trying to get a good night’s sleep.
I completely agree that force is an appropriate response to rape and murder, and is not an appropriate response to removing mattress tags.
Just so I’m clear, are you saying that we therefore should not have something like a labeling law on mattresses (or anything else)? Or are you saying that we can have laws which are not, in fact, subject to enforcement by force? The former seems like a very libertarian approach of “caveat emptor” applies to anything and everything. And so each individual has to be an expert in everything — because otherwise how can you inspect a prospective purchase in this extremely technological society and know what you are actually getting?
Can you inspect the welds in your car, and tell whether they were done correctly? Can you analyze the contents of your food, and tell whether they contain toxins — they kind that kill you slowly, not the kind that killyou instantly and thus you know from the bodies lined up what happened?
I completely agree that force is an appropriate response to rape and murder, and is not an appropriate response to removing mattress tags.
Just so I’m clear, are you saying that we therefore should not have something like a labeling law on mattresses (or anything else)? Or are you saying that we can have laws which are not, in fact, subject to enforcement by force? The former seems like a very libertarian approach of “caveat emptor” applies to anything and everything. And so each individual has to be an expert in everything — because otherwise how can you inspect a prospective purchase in this extremely technological society and know what you are actually getting?
Can you inspect the welds in your car, and tell whether they were done correctly? Can you analyze the contents of your food, and tell whether they contain toxins — they kind that kill you slowly, not the kind that killyou instantly and thus you know from the bodies lined up what happened?
So, way late to the party, don’t want to disrupt the conversation as it stands, but I asked russell a question and I appreciate his response, as well as the Tony, bobbyp, and the others.
The government is not sovereign here. The people are, or ought to be.
So when you talk about “the individual vs. the government” to some degree what we’re talking about is one person vs other persons.
I like this phrasing and will probably steal it at some point. That is, of course, always the struggle. It’s not jackbooted thugs, its majorities exerting their will on minorities (in my phrasing, feel free to not like it). I’d also agree the constitution does a pretty good job of both laying out those important rights and building a system which both protects them and provides for peaceful transition of power.
Government just ends up being the way we sort it out.
The way we think about things tends to affect the way we respond to them.
I’d agree with both parts of that, and I think the first is why “the government” gets a healthy dose of ire. The government is supposed to be by the people, and I think most people feel incredibly disconnected from the process of governance.
The majority, exercising its will through the government, isn’t your neighbors, its a bunch of partisan hacks you see on TV. Or at least that’s how I imagine most people view it.
I’d say on top of that, there is definitely some corruption in our political process which favors the rich and well-connected, which adds to it as well.
And to touch on what Tony P and bobbyp said:
But they’re neither universal nor eternal. They’re not “non-negotiable” in principle.
and
As a matter of principle-maybe.
…
As a matter of human practice in the dimension of time-no.
I appreciate the response, guys, and I respect that stance. I disagree with it, but do respect and I think understand it.
So, way late to the party, don’t want to disrupt the conversation as it stands, but I asked russell a question and I appreciate his response, as well as the Tony, bobbyp, and the others.
The government is not sovereign here. The people are, or ought to be.
So when you talk about “the individual vs. the government” to some degree what we’re talking about is one person vs other persons.
I like this phrasing and will probably steal it at some point. That is, of course, always the struggle. It’s not jackbooted thugs, its majorities exerting their will on minorities (in my phrasing, feel free to not like it). I’d also agree the constitution does a pretty good job of both laying out those important rights and building a system which both protects them and provides for peaceful transition of power.
Government just ends up being the way we sort it out.
The way we think about things tends to affect the way we respond to them.
I’d agree with both parts of that, and I think the first is why “the government” gets a healthy dose of ire. The government is supposed to be by the people, and I think most people feel incredibly disconnected from the process of governance.
The majority, exercising its will through the government, isn’t your neighbors, its a bunch of partisan hacks you see on TV. Or at least that’s how I imagine most people view it.
I’d say on top of that, there is definitely some corruption in our political process which favors the rich and well-connected, which adds to it as well.
And to touch on what Tony P and bobbyp said:
But they’re neither universal nor eternal. They’re not “non-negotiable” in principle.
and
As a matter of principle-maybe.
…
As a matter of human practice in the dimension of time-no.
I appreciate the response, guys, and I respect that stance. I disagree with it, but do respect and I think understand it.
Not to further sideline the discussion, but touching on the private violence vs. government violence aspect that was discussed.
Both exist, certainly, but IMHO there is a key difference. Most people are ok with exercising government violence in order to prevent (or more regularly, punish) private violence.
The converse is far from true. Even short of armed insurrection (which very few people are ok with), there is a very heavy bar for exercising force against a government agent. Society is, in general, very willing to drop the hammer on someone that threatens violence, or engages in violence, against a government representative.
As well they should, IMHO.
But if a government agent uses force irresponsibly? If they are punished, it’s likely to be minimal. There are some dark things that occur along the border, as well as elsewhere, which if any private actor engaged in, they would be convicted and in a hole for the rest of their life. But LEOs get censured, or put on leave for awhile, sometimes lose their jobs. Rarely, if ever, actually convicted of a crime.
So there is substantial asymmetry to private violence vs government violence. There are some good reasons for that, but we have a system where the mis-application of government force often results in zero consequences.
The government, like all entities, is rarely interested in holding itself accountable.
And what russell said:
What I see is that if you’re not black or maybe hispanic, not overly poor, not in jail, and not an obvious knucklehead, you have to go pretty far out of your way to get any kind of forceful response from anybody in government.
Some significant caveats there, and I wish there were no caveats at all.
I’d say those are very significant caveats. I’ve been pulled over a couple of times, officers ranged from polite to a little aggro, but fine. The two times it was outright unpleasant and bluntly scary: passenger in car driven by friends that were hispanic or indian.
Both for minor traffic stops, both detained for 20-30 min, in one case the officer partially unholstered his weapon (briefly, but still).
And finally:
i’m not sure who core curriculum is intended to sway. from what i can tell, teachers everywhere hate it.
How do we end up with laws that nobody likes? In a system which is supposedly democratic and functioning?
Not to further sideline the discussion, but touching on the private violence vs. government violence aspect that was discussed.
Both exist, certainly, but IMHO there is a key difference. Most people are ok with exercising government violence in order to prevent (or more regularly, punish) private violence.
The converse is far from true. Even short of armed insurrection (which very few people are ok with), there is a very heavy bar for exercising force against a government agent. Society is, in general, very willing to drop the hammer on someone that threatens violence, or engages in violence, against a government representative.
As well they should, IMHO.
But if a government agent uses force irresponsibly? If they are punished, it’s likely to be minimal. There are some dark things that occur along the border, as well as elsewhere, which if any private actor engaged in, they would be convicted and in a hole for the rest of their life. But LEOs get censured, or put on leave for awhile, sometimes lose their jobs. Rarely, if ever, actually convicted of a crime.
So there is substantial asymmetry to private violence vs government violence. There are some good reasons for that, but we have a system where the mis-application of government force often results in zero consequences.
The government, like all entities, is rarely interested in holding itself accountable.
And what russell said:
What I see is that if you’re not black or maybe hispanic, not overly poor, not in jail, and not an obvious knucklehead, you have to go pretty far out of your way to get any kind of forceful response from anybody in government.
Some significant caveats there, and I wish there were no caveats at all.
I’d say those are very significant caveats. I’ve been pulled over a couple of times, officers ranged from polite to a little aggro, but fine. The two times it was outright unpleasant and bluntly scary: passenger in car driven by friends that were hispanic or indian.
Both for minor traffic stops, both detained for 20-30 min, in one case the officer partially unholstered his weapon (briefly, but still).
And finally:
i’m not sure who core curriculum is intended to sway. from what i can tell, teachers everywhere hate it.
How do we end up with laws that nobody likes? In a system which is supposedly democratic and functioning?
How do we end up with laws that nobody likes? In a system which is supposedly democratic and functioning?
When the ‘nobody’ includes some very influential guys for example. Laws are made primarily for four reasons
1) solving a problem
2) pandering to potential voters
3) proving your bona fides to potential donors
4) sticking it to someone you don’t like
Ideally those overlap of course
How do we end up with laws that nobody likes? In a system which is supposedly democratic and functioning?
When the ‘nobody’ includes some very influential guys for example. Laws are made primarily for four reasons
1) solving a problem
2) pandering to potential voters
3) proving your bona fides to potential donors
4) sticking it to someone you don’t like
Ideally those overlap of course
Harmut, thanks, that’s exactly the point I was trying to make.
Harmut, thanks, that’s exactly the point I was trying to make.
“Most people are ok with exercising government violence in order to prevent (or more regularly, punish) private violence.”
See what you’re doing here? If a rapist attacks my wife, that’s “private violence”. If my wife puts a 45 slug through his brain, that, too, is “private violence”. Do you really want to claim that most people are ok with the government exercising violence to keep rape victims from killing their attackers? That most people are ok with the government violently preventing/punishing self defense?
What you’re doing here is simply refusing to acknowledge that “private violence” comes in more than one flavor: Wrongful aggression, AND rightful defense. And the latter has massive support.
“Most people are ok with exercising government violence in order to prevent (or more regularly, punish) private violence.”
See what you’re doing here? If a rapist attacks my wife, that’s “private violence”. If my wife puts a 45 slug through his brain, that, too, is “private violence”. Do you really want to claim that most people are ok with the government exercising violence to keep rape victims from killing their attackers? That most people are ok with the government violently preventing/punishing self defense?
What you’re doing here is simply refusing to acknowledge that “private violence” comes in more than one flavor: Wrongful aggression, AND rightful defense. And the latter has massive support.
Ah, but the government uses violence to prevent private violence by your wife in killing the rapist when it uses violence to punish (or discourage by threat of violence) the private violence of the rapist. The fact that government violence is often for punishment doesn’t mean that it cannot be a matter of prevention. Indeed, most of us would prefer that it be a matter of prevention. (No doubt your wife would, too. 😉
Also, the fact that the government can use violence to punish/prevent private violence doesn’t necessarily implay that it must use violence to punish all private violence. As you say, self-defense is a long-standing justification, and nobody is really pushing to remove it.
Ah, but the government uses violence to prevent private violence by your wife in killing the rapist when it uses violence to punish (or discourage by threat of violence) the private violence of the rapist. The fact that government violence is often for punishment doesn’t mean that it cannot be a matter of prevention. Indeed, most of us would prefer that it be a matter of prevention. (No doubt your wife would, too. 😉
Also, the fact that the government can use violence to punish/prevent private violence doesn’t necessarily implay that it must use violence to punish all private violence. As you say, self-defense is a long-standing justification, and nobody is really pushing to remove it.
When were the law(s) passed making it legal for government to use violence for punishment? I though that was Singapore’s thing. Although, I guess capital punishment would come under that heading.
When were the law(s) passed making it legal for government to use violence for punishment? I though that was Singapore’s thing. Although, I guess capital punishment would come under that heading.
“and nobody is really pushing to remove it.”
Yeah, right, just pushing to deprive people of the capacity for it.
“and nobody is really pushing to remove it.”
Yeah, right, just pushing to deprive people of the capacity for it.
Do you really want to claim that most people are ok with the government exercising violence to keep rape victims from killing their attackers?
Um, no, I don’t. I’m also pretty sure I didn’t, except with the most expansive reading of what I wrote. I apologize I didn’t specifically cite the importance of self-defense, I assumed that was something you’d just be on board with.
Would you be happier if I said most people are willing to allow the government to exercise violence against private *criminal* violence? That was my point.
Do you really want to claim that most people are ok with the government exercising violence to keep rape victims from killing their attackers?
Um, no, I don’t. I’m also pretty sure I didn’t, except with the most expansive reading of what I wrote. I apologize I didn’t specifically cite the importance of self-defense, I assumed that was something you’d just be on board with.
Would you be happier if I said most people are willing to allow the government to exercise violence against private *criminal* violence? That was my point.
Charles:
When were the law(s) passed making it legal for government to use violence for punishment?
Ever met a convict? I assure you our prisons are not violence free. If you want to replace “violence” with “force”, fine.
Charles:
When were the law(s) passed making it legal for government to use violence for punishment?
Ever met a convict? I assure you our prisons are not violence free. If you want to replace “violence” with “force”, fine.
See what you’re doing here?
I don’t. The word “all” wasn’t in the sentence in question.
See what you’re doing here?
If you want to replace “violence” with “force”, fine.
The use of violence (or force) isn’t (necessarily) a matter of punishment. It’s primarily a matter of enforcement, usually at the hands of the police or prison guards, depending on where you are in the criminal-justice system. It’s when people don’t abide by the processes of arrest, criminal prosecution, imprisonment and such that government-sanctioned violence comes into play.
It’s not a matter of receiving an ass-beating as your sentence. That’s what you get when you don’t accept a monetary penalty or restrictions of freedom and you refuse to comply.
See what you’re doing here?
I don’t. The word “all” wasn’t in the sentence in question.
See what you’re doing here?
If you want to replace “violence” with “force”, fine.
The use of violence (or force) isn’t (necessarily) a matter of punishment. It’s primarily a matter of enforcement, usually at the hands of the police or prison guards, depending on where you are in the criminal-justice system. It’s when people don’t abide by the processes of arrest, criminal prosecution, imprisonment and such that government-sanctioned violence comes into play.
It’s not a matter of receiving an ass-beating as your sentence. That’s what you get when you don’t accept a monetary penalty or restrictions of freedom and you refuse to comply.
I was asking if there was any violence for punishment that was legal. Is corporal punishment still legal in some prisons?
I would guess everyone here would consider “street justice” by the police to be illegal.
I was asking if there was any violence for punishment that was legal. Is corporal punishment still legal in some prisons?
I would guess everyone here would consider “street justice” by the police to be illegal.
Italicize that first sentence in your mind’s eye.
Italicize that first sentence in your mind’s eye.
It’s primarily a matter of enforcement, usually at the hands of the police or prison guards, depending on where you are in the criminal-justice system.
Is corporal punishment still legal in some prisons?
Charles is right, we don’t formally have whippings. But we have armed LEOs that will beat, taze, and shoot during an arrest, not always with cause.
We have a prison system with violence baked in. Even if you don’t assume detainment is a form of violence (I think it is, but I’ll grant that’s an expansive definition), you can’t lock up a bunch of people in cramped quarters, many of them for violent crimes, and not know that its going to be bloody.
The government uses violence/force, or the threat of violence/force, against people. That doesn’t strike me as a novel concept, but I’m probably wording it poorly.
My point was that there is something very different about private parties engaging in violence against each other (for good cause or not) than the government engaging in violence against people (for good cause or not).
The government can act as a check against unwarranted private party violence (arresting criminals, etc). But there is very little recourse when a government agent engages in unwarranted violence.
It’s primarily a matter of enforcement, usually at the hands of the police or prison guards, depending on where you are in the criminal-justice system.
Is corporal punishment still legal in some prisons?
Charles is right, we don’t formally have whippings. But we have armed LEOs that will beat, taze, and shoot during an arrest, not always with cause.
We have a prison system with violence baked in. Even if you don’t assume detainment is a form of violence (I think it is, but I’ll grant that’s an expansive definition), you can’t lock up a bunch of people in cramped quarters, many of them for violent crimes, and not know that its going to be bloody.
The government uses violence/force, or the threat of violence/force, against people. That doesn’t strike me as a novel concept, but I’m probably wording it poorly.
My point was that there is something very different about private parties engaging in violence against each other (for good cause or not) than the government engaging in violence against people (for good cause or not).
The government can act as a check against unwarranted private party violence (arresting criminals, etc). But there is very little recourse when a government agent engages in unwarranted violence.
And my point is that I deny that. Except for the “very little recourse” part.
Government is nothing more than an evolved protection racket. Ideally, evolved into something like symbiosis with it’s normal prey, but still fundamentally a protection racket. And, like any protection racket, you are mostly paying to be protected from it, not for it to protect you from anything else. As you’ll learn if you stop paying.
It’s very dangerous to pretend the government is anything else, because it is very easy for government to backslide into a predatory/prey relationship. All it takes is the failure of the incentives that were set up to get it to act better, tilting the balance of power too far in favor of government, or not being fastidious enough about the people we let run it.
Forgetting how dangerous the government is, how close even the most ‘liberal’ government is to turning feral, is something we dare not do, and will pay dearly for having done.
And my point is that I deny that. Except for the “very little recourse” part.
Government is nothing more than an evolved protection racket. Ideally, evolved into something like symbiosis with it’s normal prey, but still fundamentally a protection racket. And, like any protection racket, you are mostly paying to be protected from it, not for it to protect you from anything else. As you’ll learn if you stop paying.
It’s very dangerous to pretend the government is anything else, because it is very easy for government to backslide into a predatory/prey relationship. All it takes is the failure of the incentives that were set up to get it to act better, tilting the balance of power too far in favor of government, or not being fastidious enough about the people we let run it.
Forgetting how dangerous the government is, how close even the most ‘liberal’ government is to turning feral, is something we dare not do, and will pay dearly for having done.
Government is nothing more than an evolved protection racket.
no, it isn’t. and all the cynical hyperbolic paranoid ranting in the world won’t make it so.
Government is nothing more than an evolved protection racket.
no, it isn’t. and all the cynical hyperbolic paranoid ranting in the world won’t make it so.
And my point is that I deny that.
Deny what, exactly? That that the government exercises violence on behalf of the people? Or that that can be justified?
If either one of those is your point, I’m baffled. Only a few threads ago, you said the government wasn’t doing enough to secure the border, unless I misunderstood you.
What’s securing the border if not an application of government force?
I’m hardly starry eyed about the use of force by the government, but are you suggesting there should be no police or military? Or prisons?
Somewhere up in the thread, use of force by the government and use of force by private entities was brought up. My point is they are different things, should be considered differently, and their misuse should be remedied differently.
Further, one of the appropriate uses of government force is to restrain or punish criminal violence. Something which is subject to abuse, as I’ve stated. Specifically, I mentioned that government force, even unwarranted or criminal, is rarely punished.
If there’s something in there that you object to, let me know. But you seem to have misunderstood what I’m trying to express as some sort of exhortation to institute a police state. Which seems like a stretch of what I wrote, but if what I wrote was confusing, I apologize.
And my point is that I deny that.
Deny what, exactly? That that the government exercises violence on behalf of the people? Or that that can be justified?
If either one of those is your point, I’m baffled. Only a few threads ago, you said the government wasn’t doing enough to secure the border, unless I misunderstood you.
What’s securing the border if not an application of government force?
I’m hardly starry eyed about the use of force by the government, but are you suggesting there should be no police or military? Or prisons?
Somewhere up in the thread, use of force by the government and use of force by private entities was brought up. My point is they are different things, should be considered differently, and their misuse should be remedied differently.
Further, one of the appropriate uses of government force is to restrain or punish criminal violence. Something which is subject to abuse, as I’ve stated. Specifically, I mentioned that government force, even unwarranted or criminal, is rarely punished.
If there’s something in there that you object to, let me know. But you seem to have misunderstood what I’m trying to express as some sort of exhortation to institute a police state. Which seems like a stretch of what I wrote, but if what I wrote was confusing, I apologize.
Government is nothing more than an evolved protection racket.
If you say so.
But apparently, it’s one that all humans, everywhere, have embraced, in all times and places, whenever there have been more of them in one place than you could fit into the average high school gymnasium.
Whenever an effective government hasn’t been in place – i.e., a government capable of enforcing compliance with its laws, by force if need be – we’ve created one.
So, crappy as it may be, we’re obviously getting something out of it.
Government is nothing more than an evolved protection racket.
If you say so.
But apparently, it’s one that all humans, everywhere, have embraced, in all times and places, whenever there have been more of them in one place than you could fit into the average high school gymnasium.
Whenever an effective government hasn’t been in place – i.e., a government capable of enforcing compliance with its laws, by force if need be – we’ve created one.
So, crappy as it may be, we’re obviously getting something out of it.
It might also be worth considering what our experience is when that “evolved protection racket” is not in place. The closest example I am aware of (feel free to argue that it isn’t a very good example) is Somalia.
Does anyone have a better example? Especially those who are most opposed to government. Do you have an example of where your libertarian (or other) ideal has actually happened?
It might also be worth considering what our experience is when that “evolved protection racket” is not in place. The closest example I am aware of (feel free to argue that it isn’t a very good example) is Somalia.
Does anyone have a better example? Especially those who are most opposed to government. Do you have an example of where your libertarian (or other) ideal has actually happened?
We have a prison system with violence baked in. Even if you don’t assume detainment is a form of violence (I think it is, but I’ll grant that’s an expansive definition), you can’t lock up a bunch of people in cramped quarters, many of them for violent crimes, and not know that its going to be bloody.
If you can forgive me interjecting anecdata into the discussion… In addition to creating an environment conducive to prisoner-on-prisoner violence, there’s the matter of the correctional personnel. As well as some civilian corrections officers I’ve known since high school, I spent 18 months doing admin work in a military prison, which I hasten to assure you was a kid glove affair compared to civilian prisons of equivalent custodial level. Correctional personnel are not the most pacific people you’ll ever meet, and there’s more than a few sadistic bullies who are drawn to the job specifically because it grants them a context where they can be violent with few or no consequences. Even when the state-imposed punishment for a crime is not explicitly violence, state agents will often engage in (sanctioned) violence against prisoners on very thin pretexts. It is, as you said, baked into the system.
We have a prison system with violence baked in. Even if you don’t assume detainment is a form of violence (I think it is, but I’ll grant that’s an expansive definition), you can’t lock up a bunch of people in cramped quarters, many of them for violent crimes, and not know that its going to be bloody.
If you can forgive me interjecting anecdata into the discussion… In addition to creating an environment conducive to prisoner-on-prisoner violence, there’s the matter of the correctional personnel. As well as some civilian corrections officers I’ve known since high school, I spent 18 months doing admin work in a military prison, which I hasten to assure you was a kid glove affair compared to civilian prisons of equivalent custodial level. Correctional personnel are not the most pacific people you’ll ever meet, and there’s more than a few sadistic bullies who are drawn to the job specifically because it grants them a context where they can be violent with few or no consequences. Even when the state-imposed punishment for a crime is not explicitly violence, state agents will often engage in (sanctioned) violence against prisoners on very thin pretexts. It is, as you said, baked into the system.
NomVide:
Thanks for adding that, I’d agree. I’ve known some ex-convicts (some extended family, a neighbor, etc).
All of them reformed, but they said some pretty horrible stuff about being in prison. Generally in a weirdly matter of fact way, which I found disturbing.
It really changed how I thought about criminal justice and how we punish people.
state agents will often engage in (sanctioned) violence against prisoners on very thin pretexts.
Yes. Which is something I think few people understand.
NomVide:
Thanks for adding that, I’d agree. I’ve known some ex-convicts (some extended family, a neighbor, etc).
All of them reformed, but they said some pretty horrible stuff about being in prison. Generally in a weirdly matter of fact way, which I found disturbing.
It really changed how I thought about criminal justice and how we punish people.
state agents will often engage in (sanctioned) violence against prisoners on very thin pretexts.
Yes. Which is something I think few people understand.
“Does anyone have a better example?”
Panglossia, which shares a border with Galt’s Gulch.
The border runs down the middle of a gigantic pothole, again shared by both, but never filled because the first denies the very possibility that potholes exist and the latter refuses to fill their share of the pothole because of the word “share”, and the fact that John Galt never seems to finish lecturing everyone on the optimum method of filling a pothole.
If the pothole has balconies, a favorite frill of the Panglossians, Galt is out.
The countries may one day merge if they can decide on a name. Suggestions floated include Galtglossia, Pangaltia, Potholia, Shutupia, and Irritatea.
If they end up fighting over the name, the No Man’s Land default moniker will be Somalia.
“Does anyone have a better example?”
Panglossia, which shares a border with Galt’s Gulch.
The border runs down the middle of a gigantic pothole, again shared by both, but never filled because the first denies the very possibility that potholes exist and the latter refuses to fill their share of the pothole because of the word “share”, and the fact that John Galt never seems to finish lecturing everyone on the optimum method of filling a pothole.
If the pothole has balconies, a favorite frill of the Panglossians, Galt is out.
The countries may one day merge if they can decide on a name. Suggestions floated include Galtglossia, Pangaltia, Potholia, Shutupia, and Irritatea.
If they end up fighting over the name, the No Man’s Land default moniker will be Somalia.
Just to be clear, my point wasn’t that prisons aren’t violent, or that the violence isn’t unnecessary brutality committed by the guards. My point was simply that it is not was the law prescribes, even if only in theory.
Charles used the phrase “street justice.” Essentially, that’s what we’re talking about – well, that or worse (“street injustice,” maybe). But that’s not legal. It may be done because there’s no one around to stop it. I may be done because no one cares to stop it. But it’s not *what the law prescribes.*
What I’d say is that what *the system* often prescribes as punishment is violence, but *the system* has both legal and extralegal aspects to it.
My father was a cop. I know what some of them are like. And I’ve had my own personal experiences with Philly cops, who aren’t all the most by-the-book sorts you’ll ever meet.
I don’t have much experience with prison guards, but I imagine them to be no better – likely worse.
Just to be clear, my point wasn’t that prisons aren’t violent, or that the violence isn’t unnecessary brutality committed by the guards. My point was simply that it is not was the law prescribes, even if only in theory.
Charles used the phrase “street justice.” Essentially, that’s what we’re talking about – well, that or worse (“street injustice,” maybe). But that’s not legal. It may be done because there’s no one around to stop it. I may be done because no one cares to stop it. But it’s not *what the law prescribes.*
What I’d say is that what *the system* often prescribes as punishment is violence, but *the system* has both legal and extralegal aspects to it.
My father was a cop. I know what some of them are like. And I’ve had my own personal experiences with Philly cops, who aren’t all the most by-the-book sorts you’ll ever meet.
I don’t have much experience with prison guards, but I imagine them to be no better – likely worse.
it would probably be worthwhile for someone to kick off a thread about the US prison system. it’s FUBAR.
if I get a few minutes, I’ll see if I can get something up in the next couple of days.
IMO it’s a topic worthy of a thread all of its own.
it would probably be worthwhile for someone to kick off a thread about the US prison system. it’s FUBAR.
if I get a few minutes, I’ll see if I can get something up in the next couple of days.
IMO it’s a topic worthy of a thread all of its own.
“… the US prison system. it’s FUBAR.”
In so many ways.
One being solitary confinement. Especially when tough-on-crime types send juveniles to adult prisons and the prisons put them in solitary confinement for months to years on end to protect them from the adults. This is not only psychologically damaging, but physically damaging to brains that are still developing.
New York State to Curb Solitary Confinement
“… the US prison system. it’s FUBAR.”
In so many ways.
One being solitary confinement. Especially when tough-on-crime types send juveniles to adult prisons and the prisons put them in solitary confinement for months to years on end to protect them from the adults. This is not only psychologically damaging, but physically damaging to brains that are still developing.
New York State to Curb Solitary Confinement
On the other hand, it does a supurb job of providing a post-ghraduate training program in crime to those who are in prison. Do we really want to lose that in pursuit of actually trying to rehabilitate those who are in prison?
On the other hand, it does a supurb job of providing a post-ghraduate training program in crime to those who are in prison. Do we really want to lose that in pursuit of actually trying to rehabilitate those who are in prison?
HSH:
If I may take your point and run the opposite direction with it:
but *the system* has both legal and extralegal aspects to it.
If I may, that is one of the key concepts of what drives fairly moderate libertarians, such as myself. The system, in general, any system of governance, has both the legal parts and the extralegal parts.
And its often close to impossible to mitigate the extralegal components of a system without greatly reducing what the system is supposed to do.
If you look at CA correctional facilities, they are overburdened. Convicts are so crowded a federal judge forced us to release a boatload of convicts. At that level of crowding, it becomes harder to control convict violence, which pretty much means the guards are going to have to be more brutal in order to keep control.
What could solve that is either a massive increase in spending or just sending less people to prison, for example by making recreational drug use legal.
Similar things run through many aspects of the government. The more we ask the government to do, the more cracks there are for ‘extralegal’ activities.
Anyway, I was just struck by the phrase, and how it sums up something I’m frequently trying to say. I do not assume, of course, you would read into that phrase the same way. Like I said, I took it and ran the other direction.
russell:
IMO it’s a topic worthy of a thread all of its own.
Absolutely. Reforming our corrections system is an underdiscussed topic. Because, sadly, felons are the ultimate ‘other’: very few can be bothered to think about conditions they live in.
HSH:
If I may take your point and run the opposite direction with it:
but *the system* has both legal and extralegal aspects to it.
If I may, that is one of the key concepts of what drives fairly moderate libertarians, such as myself. The system, in general, any system of governance, has both the legal parts and the extralegal parts.
And its often close to impossible to mitigate the extralegal components of a system without greatly reducing what the system is supposed to do.
If you look at CA correctional facilities, they are overburdened. Convicts are so crowded a federal judge forced us to release a boatload of convicts. At that level of crowding, it becomes harder to control convict violence, which pretty much means the guards are going to have to be more brutal in order to keep control.
What could solve that is either a massive increase in spending or just sending less people to prison, for example by making recreational drug use legal.
Similar things run through many aspects of the government. The more we ask the government to do, the more cracks there are for ‘extralegal’ activities.
Anyway, I was just struck by the phrase, and how it sums up something I’m frequently trying to say. I do not assume, of course, you would read into that phrase the same way. Like I said, I took it and ran the other direction.
russell:
IMO it’s a topic worthy of a thread all of its own.
Absolutely. Reforming our corrections system is an underdiscussed topic. Because, sadly, felons are the ultimate ‘other’: very few can be bothered to think about conditions they live in.
Brett, it’d be helpful if you gave actual examples of government using violence or stupid laws to harass or jail or hurt innocent people. Or else you could point to cases where people were guilty but were given much stiffer sentences than any rational person would think was deserved.
Funny thing is, I think there are probably a huge number of such cases. The New Yorker had an article some months back about some county sheriffs down South who were arresting and jailing and basically stealing the property of innocent people, using the war on drugs as a pretext. It wasn’t the Feds. But I was genuinely shocked.
I think black Americans could probably give a few million examples of unfair treatment at the hands of the government.
I don’t expect the government will do anything to me, but I’m a middle class white person whose criticism of the government is limited to some online ranting. If I had classified information on how the government screwed up in killing some innocent people in the drone program, I’d frankly be terrified of being a whistleblower and supplying what I knew to Glenn Greenwald or Jeremy Scahill. The government comes down much much harder on whistleblowers who violate the law then it does on, say, torturers.
Brett, it’d be helpful if you gave actual examples of government using violence or stupid laws to harass or jail or hurt innocent people. Or else you could point to cases where people were guilty but were given much stiffer sentences than any rational person would think was deserved.
Funny thing is, I think there are probably a huge number of such cases. The New Yorker had an article some months back about some county sheriffs down South who were arresting and jailing and basically stealing the property of innocent people, using the war on drugs as a pretext. It wasn’t the Feds. But I was genuinely shocked.
I think black Americans could probably give a few million examples of unfair treatment at the hands of the government.
I don’t expect the government will do anything to me, but I’m a middle class white person whose criticism of the government is limited to some online ranting. If I had classified information on how the government screwed up in killing some innocent people in the drone program, I’d frankly be terrified of being a whistleblower and supplying what I knew to Glenn Greenwald or Jeremy Scahill. The government comes down much much harder on whistleblowers who violate the law then it does on, say, torturers.
Said civil forfeiture article.
Said civil forfeiture article.
DJ:
You weren’t addressing me, but this is the kind of thing that Popehat brings up on a regular basis, with varying quality. The libertarian rant gets a little strong on popehat, but I find one of the bloggers (Ken White) is pretty good at breaking down complex legal issues. You could troll popehat yourself, but some posts specifically about government agents engaging in questionable behavior are below. Maybe not your thing, and I haven’t personally verified every story there, but when I’ve checked against other sources they seem to be reasonable.
http://www.popehat.com/2014/02/05/rhode-island-cops-vigilant-in-face-of-scourge-of-people-making-fun-of-state-representative-scott-guthrie/
http://www.popehat.com/2014/02/04/how-commonwealths-attorney-paul-b-ebert-touched-people/
http://www.popehat.com/2014/01/22/government-weighs-government-role-in-coercing-confessions-from-innocent-citizens/
http://www.popehat.com/2014/01/20/kelly-thomas/
http://www.popehat.com/2014/01/16/update-the-quantum-of-recovery-for-rape-and-torture-by-police-in-new-mexico-is-1-6-million/
http://www.popehat.com/2014/01/09/a-funny-joke/
http://www.popehat.com/2013/12/20/best-article-best-headline-on-our-rape-happy-police-state/
The list goes on…
The government comes down much much harder on whistleblowers who violate the law then it does on, say, torturers.
Whistleblowers and torturing prisoners are two other good examples where the government ” using violence or stupid laws to harass or jail or hurt innocent people. Or else you could point to cases where people were guilty but were given much stiffer sentences than any rational person would think was deserved.”
Aaron Schwartz also comes to mind.
DJ:
You weren’t addressing me, but this is the kind of thing that Popehat brings up on a regular basis, with varying quality. The libertarian rant gets a little strong on popehat, but I find one of the bloggers (Ken White) is pretty good at breaking down complex legal issues. You could troll popehat yourself, but some posts specifically about government agents engaging in questionable behavior are below. Maybe not your thing, and I haven’t personally verified every story there, but when I’ve checked against other sources they seem to be reasonable.
http://www.popehat.com/2014/02/05/rhode-island-cops-vigilant-in-face-of-scourge-of-people-making-fun-of-state-representative-scott-guthrie/
http://www.popehat.com/2014/02/04/how-commonwealths-attorney-paul-b-ebert-touched-people/
http://www.popehat.com/2014/01/22/government-weighs-government-role-in-coercing-confessions-from-innocent-citizens/
http://www.popehat.com/2014/01/20/kelly-thomas/
http://www.popehat.com/2014/01/16/update-the-quantum-of-recovery-for-rape-and-torture-by-police-in-new-mexico-is-1-6-million/
http://www.popehat.com/2014/01/09/a-funny-joke/
http://www.popehat.com/2013/12/20/best-article-best-headline-on-our-rape-happy-police-state/
The list goes on…
The government comes down much much harder on whistleblowers who violate the law then it does on, say, torturers.
Whistleblowers and torturing prisoners are two other good examples where the government ” using violence or stupid laws to harass or jail or hurt innocent people. Or else you could point to cases where people were guilty but were given much stiffer sentences than any rational person would think was deserved.”
Aaron Schwartz also comes to mind.
What could solve that is either a massive increase in spending or just sending less people to prison, for example by making recreational drug use legal.
Or there is a third possibility: drop the draconian length of sentences that have been added over the years in the name of being “tough on crime.” Not to say that the guilty should not be punished. But some of the sentences which get handed down, mandatory sentences in most cases.
If you cut down the length of time people are in prison to something rational, that cuts the prison population just as dumping the War on Drugs nonsense would.
What could solve that is either a massive increase in spending or just sending less people to prison, for example by making recreational drug use legal.
Or there is a third possibility: drop the draconian length of sentences that have been added over the years in the name of being “tough on crime.” Not to say that the guilty should not be punished. But some of the sentences which get handed down, mandatory sentences in most cases.
If you cut down the length of time people are in prison to something rational, that cuts the prison population just as dumping the War on Drugs nonsense would.
If you cut down the length of time people are in prison to something rational, that cuts the prison population just as dumping the War on Drugs nonsense would.
Why not both?
If you cut down the length of time people are in prison to something rational, that cuts the prison population just as dumping the War on Drugs nonsense would.
Why not both?
Ah, and another great example of government overreach against a minimally guilty individual:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/nyregion/unarmed-man-is-charged-with-wounding-bystanders-shot-by-police-near-times-square.html?_r=1&
Ah, and another great example of government overreach against a minimally guilty individual:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/05/nyregion/unarmed-man-is-charged-with-wounding-bystanders-shot-by-police-near-times-square.html?_r=1&
Some states, like Texas, are reducing their prison populations. This likely has a lot more to do with budgetary constraints than any kind of humanitarian impulse on the part of politicians.
Some states, like Texas, are reducing their prison populations. This likely has a lot more to do with budgetary constraints than any kind of humanitarian impulse on the part of politicians.
“It might also be worth considering what our experience is when that “evolved protection racket” is not in place. The closest example I am aware of (feel free to argue that it isn’t a very good example) is Somalia.”
I will argue that Somalia is a terrible example of a place lacking government. The problem with Somalia is that it has multiple governments, fighting over who gets to be the top dog. You don’t prove that crime gangs are nice by pointing to a turf war. And I don’t have to claim that being in the middle of a turf war is somehow better than having one dominant gang lording it over you. Unless maybe that gang is of a genocidal bent.
This is the dilemma of government, IMO: Government is a nasty institution, AND it is largely unavoidable. Get rid of your own, and your neighbor’s takes over, or the local crime gangs grow up to take it’s place.
But being inevitable is not the same as being good. Government is a very nasty institution, we have to invent new names for the nasty things government does, just to avoid this being in our face all the time. “Tax” instead of “rob”. “Arrest” instead of “kidnap”. We’ve bifurcated our vocabulary to avoid what’s really going on being too painfully obvious.
Being inevitable doesn’t mean that government is good, but it does force us to make the best of a bad situation.
There are two basic approaches to making the best of this bad situation:
1. Try to get some good out of the government. Insist, for instance, that, if you’re going to pay for “protection”, the Don actually provides it. Naturally, the courts have ruled that the Don doesn’t have to provide it, but you can usually, if you’re lucky, set up the incentives so that it gets provided anyway. It helps that it is usually in the government’s own interest to suppress (other people’s) attacks on it’s citizens, it can extract more surplus from them that way.
2. Try to chain and neuter government, keep around one, but hobbled to the point where it’s only capable of fending off alternative governments, but not up to doing too much damage itself.
You can see that these approaches have a certain tension between them. You keep Godzilla chained up in the mountain, he’s not very useful for digging harbors or sending into battle against Roddan. And, if Godzilla IS chained up in the mountain, not leaving a trail of crushed bodies everywhere he goes, some people get to thinking Godzilla is nice, he’d never do that sort of thing, and urge that the chains be loosened so he can do more good.
That’s what Democrats are up to, with some unfortunate assistance from Republicans: Unchaining Godzilla, because they think he’s nice. Well, he’s not, he’s a bloody monster, and we’ll find that out fast enough if you get enough of the chains removed.
“Brett, it’d be helpful if you gave actual examples of government using violence or stupid laws to harass or jail or hurt innocent people.
Why, I did. I cited the new gun control laws in Connecticut. They’ve made possession of a few ounces of sheet metal and spring into a felony, equivalent to sexual assault. Own an inanimate object, without hurting anyone. Sexually assault somebody. See the equivalence? I don’t. Felonies ought to be things that hurt people, or have high probability of doing so, not acts that are inherently harmless, where any harm derives from a later decision to do harm.
But when you ask me to demonstrate my claim that people are being hurt over stupid laws, and start citing the experience of people who were factually innocent, I think you’ve missed the point.
“It might also be worth considering what our experience is when that “evolved protection racket” is not in place. The closest example I am aware of (feel free to argue that it isn’t a very good example) is Somalia.”
I will argue that Somalia is a terrible example of a place lacking government. The problem with Somalia is that it has multiple governments, fighting over who gets to be the top dog. You don’t prove that crime gangs are nice by pointing to a turf war. And I don’t have to claim that being in the middle of a turf war is somehow better than having one dominant gang lording it over you. Unless maybe that gang is of a genocidal bent.
This is the dilemma of government, IMO: Government is a nasty institution, AND it is largely unavoidable. Get rid of your own, and your neighbor’s takes over, or the local crime gangs grow up to take it’s place.
But being inevitable is not the same as being good. Government is a very nasty institution, we have to invent new names for the nasty things government does, just to avoid this being in our face all the time. “Tax” instead of “rob”. “Arrest” instead of “kidnap”. We’ve bifurcated our vocabulary to avoid what’s really going on being too painfully obvious.
Being inevitable doesn’t mean that government is good, but it does force us to make the best of a bad situation.
There are two basic approaches to making the best of this bad situation:
1. Try to get some good out of the government. Insist, for instance, that, if you’re going to pay for “protection”, the Don actually provides it. Naturally, the courts have ruled that the Don doesn’t have to provide it, but you can usually, if you’re lucky, set up the incentives so that it gets provided anyway. It helps that it is usually in the government’s own interest to suppress (other people’s) attacks on it’s citizens, it can extract more surplus from them that way.
2. Try to chain and neuter government, keep around one, but hobbled to the point where it’s only capable of fending off alternative governments, but not up to doing too much damage itself.
You can see that these approaches have a certain tension between them. You keep Godzilla chained up in the mountain, he’s not very useful for digging harbors or sending into battle against Roddan. And, if Godzilla IS chained up in the mountain, not leaving a trail of crushed bodies everywhere he goes, some people get to thinking Godzilla is nice, he’d never do that sort of thing, and urge that the chains be loosened so he can do more good.
That’s what Democrats are up to, with some unfortunate assistance from Republicans: Unchaining Godzilla, because they think he’s nice. Well, he’s not, he’s a bloody monster, and we’ll find that out fast enough if you get enough of the chains removed.
“Brett, it’d be helpful if you gave actual examples of government using violence or stupid laws to harass or jail or hurt innocent people.
Why, I did. I cited the new gun control laws in Connecticut. They’ve made possession of a few ounces of sheet metal and spring into a felony, equivalent to sexual assault. Own an inanimate object, without hurting anyone. Sexually assault somebody. See the equivalence? I don’t. Felonies ought to be things that hurt people, or have high probability of doing so, not acts that are inherently harmless, where any harm derives from a later decision to do harm.
But when you ask me to demonstrate my claim that people are being hurt over stupid laws, and start citing the experience of people who were factually innocent, I think you’ve missed the point.
Why do you think government is going to be any better or worse than the human beings who participate in it, and who are governed by it?
You talk about “government” as if it was some weird institution imposed on us by an alien life form.
10,000 years of recorded human history indicates that government is *a thing that humans do*. It’s not going to be any better or worse than we are, because we create it and we participate in it.
The problem isn’t “government”, the problem is human beings. Remove government from the picture, and the problem(s) – the propensity for violence and corruption, power games, take your pick – don’t go away. They just find other channels.
The presence of government, if anything, constrains those tendencies. That’s why it persists as an institution.
What you want is not less government, or no government. What you want are different humans.
Why do you think government is going to be any better or worse than the human beings who participate in it, and who are governed by it?
You talk about “government” as if it was some weird institution imposed on us by an alien life form.
10,000 years of recorded human history indicates that government is *a thing that humans do*. It’s not going to be any better or worse than we are, because we create it and we participate in it.
The problem isn’t “government”, the problem is human beings. Remove government from the picture, and the problem(s) – the propensity for violence and corruption, power games, take your pick – don’t go away. They just find other channels.
The presence of government, if anything, constrains those tendencies. That’s why it persists as an institution.
What you want is not less government, or no government. What you want are different humans.
They’ve made possession of a few ounces of sheet metal and spring into a felony
A very”>http://www.democraticunderground.com/12621917″>very brief summary of the law in question.
A fairly detailed summary of the law in question.
Basically:
No magazines holding more than 10 rounds
No AR-15s, although IIUC if you already own one and register it, you can keep it
All sales including private sales require a NICS check
You gotta be 21 to buy ammunition, although IIUC if you hold a gun permit currently you’re good to go
Just trying to keep it real.
They’ve made possession of a few ounces of sheet metal and spring into a felony
A very”>http://www.democraticunderground.com/12621917″>very brief summary of the law in question.
A fairly detailed summary of the law in question.
Basically:
No magazines holding more than 10 rounds
No AR-15s, although IIUC if you already own one and register it, you can keep it
All sales including private sales require a NICS check
You gotta be 21 to buy ammunition, although IIUC if you hold a gun permit currently you’re good to go
Just trying to keep it real.
sorry, hosed the tag.
Very brief summary of the law.
sorry, hosed the tag.
Very brief summary of the law.
“But when you ask me to demonstrate my claim that people are being hurt over stupid laws, and start citing the experience of people who were factually innocent, I think you’ve missed the point.”
Well, no, I’ve given real examples that demonstrate why one should be legitimately wary of government. Here’s the thing–when one has real examples you don’t have to use euphemisms, like “a piece of sheet metal with a spring” when you’re talking about a magazine for a rifle. Instead, you could say “someone got x years in jail for the crime of possessing or using some drug even though he hadn’t hurt anyone else.” Or you could say, as I did, that the police sometimes use the drug war as an excuse for actual theft. Or you could say that the government takes crimes against its own “right” to do things of questionable morality in secret far more seriously than it takes war crimes committed by itself. Or you could talk about the use of Tasers on people where it doesn’t seem justified–the liberal blogger digby frequently writes about that.
Some libertarians make really good arguments on issues that would appeal to people across all party lines, because they talk about real injustices committed by government that hurt people or in some cases kill them. But if it’s middle class white people who think taxation is the same as theft, then it’s just another extremist political philosophy that isn’t going to work in the real world, like communism.
Thanks for the links, Thompson. I’ll look at at least some of them later.
“But when you ask me to demonstrate my claim that people are being hurt over stupid laws, and start citing the experience of people who were factually innocent, I think you’ve missed the point.”
Well, no, I’ve given real examples that demonstrate why one should be legitimately wary of government. Here’s the thing–when one has real examples you don’t have to use euphemisms, like “a piece of sheet metal with a spring” when you’re talking about a magazine for a rifle. Instead, you could say “someone got x years in jail for the crime of possessing or using some drug even though he hadn’t hurt anyone else.” Or you could say, as I did, that the police sometimes use the drug war as an excuse for actual theft. Or you could say that the government takes crimes against its own “right” to do things of questionable morality in secret far more seriously than it takes war crimes committed by itself. Or you could talk about the use of Tasers on people where it doesn’t seem justified–the liberal blogger digby frequently writes about that.
Some libertarians make really good arguments on issues that would appeal to people across all party lines, because they talk about real injustices committed by government that hurt people or in some cases kill them. But if it’s middle class white people who think taxation is the same as theft, then it’s just another extremist political philosophy that isn’t going to work in the real world, like communism.
Thanks for the links, Thompson. I’ll look at at least some of them later.
Who here is arguing in favor of stupid laws that unduly punish people who don’t deserve it, as a general matter? I’m sure there’s room for disagreement on particular laws and whether they could be characterized that way, but I don’t think anyone is starting out with the goal of putting (what s/he thinks are) stupid laws on the books, or that anyone (here, at least) wants to enable abuses of power.
The more we ask the government to do, the more cracks there are for ‘extralegal’ activities.
While this may be true, it doesn’t necessarily mean that we shouldn’t ask government to do more. The reason we may be asking the government to do more is that the human world continues to become more complex, with increasing interdependencies. So the question isn’t simply whether we should avoid the greater possibility of undesirable extralegal government activity, but also a question of whether the alternatives to *more government* are even worse.
Who here is arguing in favor of stupid laws that unduly punish people who don’t deserve it, as a general matter? I’m sure there’s room for disagreement on particular laws and whether they could be characterized that way, but I don’t think anyone is starting out with the goal of putting (what s/he thinks are) stupid laws on the books, or that anyone (here, at least) wants to enable abuses of power.
The more we ask the government to do, the more cracks there are for ‘extralegal’ activities.
While this may be true, it doesn’t necessarily mean that we shouldn’t ask government to do more. The reason we may be asking the government to do more is that the human world continues to become more complex, with increasing interdependencies. So the question isn’t simply whether we should avoid the greater possibility of undesirable extralegal government activity, but also a question of whether the alternatives to *more government* are even worse.
“Who here is arguing in favor of stupid laws that unduly punish people who don’t deserve it, as a general matter? I’m sure there’s room for disagreement on particular laws and whether they could be characterized that way”
Exactly: Nobody admits to favoring stupid laws that punish people who don’t deserve it. They invent BS rationalizations for enacting laws like that one in Connecticut. And then other people, who don’t particularly like the group being screwed with buy the BS rationalizations, because, hey, it’s skin off nose of somebody they don’t really like.
“Who here is arguing in favor of stupid laws that unduly punish people who don’t deserve it, as a general matter? I’m sure there’s room for disagreement on particular laws and whether they could be characterized that way”
Exactly: Nobody admits to favoring stupid laws that punish people who don’t deserve it. They invent BS rationalizations for enacting laws like that one in Connecticut. And then other people, who don’t particularly like the group being screwed with buy the BS rationalizations, because, hey, it’s skin off nose of somebody they don’t really like.
I guess I’d have to know what sort of screwing is being done in CT before deciding whether the law was stupid or not. Even then, if we were to disagree, would that necessarily mean I was inventing or buying a BS rationalization, rather than simply formning a different opinion in good faith?
I guess I’d have to know what sort of screwing is being done in CT before deciding whether the law was stupid or not. Even then, if we were to disagree, would that necessarily mean I was inventing or buying a BS rationalization, rather than simply formning a different opinion in good faith?
There are a few cases on the books of stupid laws that were intentioanlly stupid. E.g. I know of one case where a lawmaker wanted to make a point that his colleagues did not take their job seriously and proposed a bill that went through (and iirc is still valid). It says that when more than one car arrive at a crossing no one may proceed until every other car has (a deliberate ‘jam every other day’ situation).
The pi!=3 case is at minimum disputed.
And then there are the ‘poison pill’ amendments of course.
There are a few cases on the books of stupid laws that were intentioanlly stupid. E.g. I know of one case where a lawmaker wanted to make a point that his colleagues did not take their job seriously and proposed a bill that went through (and iirc is still valid). It says that when more than one car arrive at a crossing no one may proceed until every other car has (a deliberate ‘jam every other day’ situation).
The pi!=3 case is at minimum disputed.
And then there are the ‘poison pill’ amendments of course.
Some libertarians make really good arguments on issues that would appeal to people across all party lines, because they talk about real injustices committed by government that hurt people or in some cases kill them.
Radley Balko.
They invent BS rationalizations for enacting laws like that one in Connecticut.
Maybe a significant number of people in CT wanted the law. Is a stronger “rationalization” needed than that?
And, what’s it to you? You live in SC. I thought you were all about devolving government to the lowest, most accountable level.
Some libertarians make really good arguments on issues that would appeal to people across all party lines, because they talk about real injustices committed by government that hurt people or in some cases kill them.
Radley Balko.
They invent BS rationalizations for enacting laws like that one in Connecticut.
Maybe a significant number of people in CT wanted the law. Is a stronger “rationalization” needed than that?
And, what’s it to you? You live in SC. I thought you were all about devolving government to the lowest, most accountable level.
Different Humans is a good band name.
But would they play the same instruments?
Brett dances to the beat of a different human drummer.
Russell actually is a drummer and one of them regular-type humans and please don’t change.
Beatidude and the Different Humans, opening tonight at Vic’s Irish Rice Paddy and Conch Bar.
Guns don’t kill people, people kill different humans.
Therefore, different humans need bigger guns that don’t kill people to defend themselves against people with guns that don’t kill people.
To be continued.
“Exactly: Nobody admits to favoring stupid laws that punish people who don’t deserve it.”
Who is this “Nobody” person you speak of?
For example, somebody somewhere (probably the lawmaker who sponsored the legislation who has consumed one too many drinks and who is flagged down at a random DUI checkpoint) favors an upper limit on blood alcohol levels for drivers whether or not the blood alcohol levels have contributed to any driving infractions which deserve punishment, and even many of those infractions are subjective, particularly if nobody (that guy again) has been harmed while the infracting is underway, and punish people who don’t deserve it.
The number of drinks is the number of bullets in the clip and the car is the gun, but until someone else is harmed, our boy Nobody doesn’t deserve to be punished, does he? (we won’t complicate matters by finding a gun in the car, too)
Well, yeah he does.
I admit to favoring those stupid laws. In fact, I’ve admitted to a lot more than that.
But then my middle name is Nobody.
Different Humans is a good band name.
But would they play the same instruments?
Brett dances to the beat of a different human drummer.
Russell actually is a drummer and one of them regular-type humans and please don’t change.
Beatidude and the Different Humans, opening tonight at Vic’s Irish Rice Paddy and Conch Bar.
Guns don’t kill people, people kill different humans.
Therefore, different humans need bigger guns that don’t kill people to defend themselves against people with guns that don’t kill people.
To be continued.
“Exactly: Nobody admits to favoring stupid laws that punish people who don’t deserve it.”
Who is this “Nobody” person you speak of?
For example, somebody somewhere (probably the lawmaker who sponsored the legislation who has consumed one too many drinks and who is flagged down at a random DUI checkpoint) favors an upper limit on blood alcohol levels for drivers whether or not the blood alcohol levels have contributed to any driving infractions which deserve punishment, and even many of those infractions are subjective, particularly if nobody (that guy again) has been harmed while the infracting is underway, and punish people who don’t deserve it.
The number of drinks is the number of bullets in the clip and the car is the gun, but until someone else is harmed, our boy Nobody doesn’t deserve to be punished, does he? (we won’t complicate matters by finding a gun in the car, too)
Well, yeah he does.
I admit to favoring those stupid laws. In fact, I’ve admitted to a lot more than that.
But then my middle name is Nobody.
I will argue that Somalia is a terrible example of a place lacking government. The problem with Somalia is that it has multiple governments, fighting over who gets to be the top dog.
But isn’t that exactly the point? Somalia got to this position by having the government collapse and nothing there to take its place — initially. And now, as you say, we have multiple would-be governments contending, militarily, for power.
And what lesson could we draw from this? If you get rid of government, even just mostly rather than entirely, what you get is not a libertarian paradise. What you get is armed groups forming and fighting to set up a government that they want/can control. (You may have what amounts to armed anarchy initially. But that doesn’t last.)
And note that the various would-be governments, in a place where there are lots of weapons freely available, are not trying to convince people to support them. They are fighting it out, as best they can, to force people to accept them.
I will argue that Somalia is a terrible example of a place lacking government. The problem with Somalia is that it has multiple governments, fighting over who gets to be the top dog.
But isn’t that exactly the point? Somalia got to this position by having the government collapse and nothing there to take its place — initially. And now, as you say, we have multiple would-be governments contending, militarily, for power.
And what lesson could we draw from this? If you get rid of government, even just mostly rather than entirely, what you get is not a libertarian paradise. What you get is armed groups forming and fighting to set up a government that they want/can control. (You may have what amounts to armed anarchy initially. But that doesn’t last.)
And note that the various would-be governments, in a place where there are lots of weapons freely available, are not trying to convince people to support them. They are fighting it out, as best they can, to force people to accept them.
And that would be a good point, were I advocating getting rid of government, rather than reducing it in size.
“Maybe a significant number of people in CT wanted the law. Is a stronger “rationalization” needed than that?”
Where an explicitly guaranteed civil liberty is involved? I would like to think so.
And that would be a good point, were I advocating getting rid of government, rather than reducing it in size.
“Maybe a significant number of people in CT wanted the law. Is a stronger “rationalization” needed than that?”
Where an explicitly guaranteed civil liberty is involved? I would like to think so.
The presence of government, if anything, constrains those tendencies. That’s why it persists as an institution.
What you want is not less government, or no government. What you want are different humans.
Eh, I am underwhelmed by those statements.
First of all, the presence of government does many things, some good, some bad.
Second, its not a zero sum game. It’s not simply: more government means less violent gangs and less government means more violent gangs.
Government is a tool that can be useful, is often required, and can be dangerous in some situations.
A circular saw is really useful, but I wouldn’t trim my nails with it.
Third, “different people” is such a cop out. Do you think people have been voting and appointing bad people deliberately all these years?
Prison guards are beating inmates under thin pretext? Why don’t we hire better ones? It’s so obvious!
What we need is a government that acts as a check against itself, and is limited enough in scope that the people can act as a further check.
The presence of government, if anything, constrains those tendencies. That’s why it persists as an institution.
What you want is not less government, or no government. What you want are different humans.
Eh, I am underwhelmed by those statements.
First of all, the presence of government does many things, some good, some bad.
Second, its not a zero sum game. It’s not simply: more government means less violent gangs and less government means more violent gangs.
Government is a tool that can be useful, is often required, and can be dangerous in some situations.
A circular saw is really useful, but I wouldn’t trim my nails with it.
Third, “different people” is such a cop out. Do you think people have been voting and appointing bad people deliberately all these years?
Prison guards are beating inmates under thin pretext? Why don’t we hire better ones? It’s so obvious!
What we need is a government that acts as a check against itself, and is limited enough in scope that the people can act as a further check.
OK, if you just want to reduce it in size, how big (small?) do you think it should be? Or (as seems to be true of most of the libertarians I have encountered, but may not be for you) does is always need to be smaller?
Because it occurs to me that the there is a lower threshold, below which it appears that the place gets into trouble. That’s well below the size of our current government, of course. But the discussion would seem to need some idea of where the limit is.
OK, if you just want to reduce it in size, how big (small?) do you think it should be? Or (as seems to be true of most of the libertarians I have encountered, but may not be for you) does is always need to be smaller?
Because it occurs to me that the there is a lower threshold, below which it appears that the place gets into trouble. That’s well below the size of our current government, of course. But the discussion would seem to need some idea of where the limit is.
“OK, if you just want to reduce it in size, how big (small?) do you think it should be?”
Hold on a sec, let me check how deep the water is in my bathtub. 😉
No, seriously? I think the federal government ought to be big enough, ideally, to prevent either Mexico or Canada from invading, and stop the Bloods or the Crips from taking it’s place. And small enough that doing that kept it too busy to go looking for anything more to do.
“OK, if you just want to reduce it in size, how big (small?) do you think it should be?”
Hold on a sec, let me check how deep the water is in my bathtub. 😉
No, seriously? I think the federal government ought to be big enough, ideally, to prevent either Mexico or Canada from invading, and stop the Bloods or the Crips from taking it’s place. And small enough that doing that kept it too busy to go looking for anything more to do.
Thanks for the serious answer. I may disagree with the threshold you prefer, but at least we can discuss that independently of the other arguments about specific things that we think (and often agree) the government should not be doing.
Thanks for the serious answer. I may disagree with the threshold you prefer, but at least we can discuss that independently of the other arguments about specific things that we think (and often agree) the government should not be doing.
OK, if you just want to reduce it in size, how big (small?) do you think it should be?
This is where one dimensionality gets in the way. It’s not just the size of the government. It’s the size and reach and methodology of the thousands of different government components.
Each one of those needs to be considered independently. And each one of those has trade offs.
Me, personally? I’d say a lot of aspects of government need to be trimmed back. I’d say other aspects need to be restructured to provide for better internal checks.
And I may lump all that together into a “government needs to be smaller” rant, because in many/most of those areas I feel the government is either too large or too poorly regulated. But in actuality each aspect of it needs to be evaluated independently.
OK, if you just want to reduce it in size, how big (small?) do you think it should be?
This is where one dimensionality gets in the way. It’s not just the size of the government. It’s the size and reach and methodology of the thousands of different government components.
Each one of those needs to be considered independently. And each one of those has trade offs.
Me, personally? I’d say a lot of aspects of government need to be trimmed back. I’d say other aspects need to be restructured to provide for better internal checks.
And I may lump all that together into a “government needs to be smaller” rant, because in many/most of those areas I feel the government is either too large or too poorly regulated. But in actuality each aspect of it needs to be evaluated independently.
And to expand on that a little: I’d also think there are some things the government needs to do more of (all though admittedly fewer). And I view the overreach of government in some areas leading to the underfunding and underfocus on some critical areas.
Infrastructure is a good example, I think.
And to expand on that a little: I’d also think there are some things the government needs to do more of (all though admittedly fewer). And I view the overreach of government in some areas leading to the underfunding and underfocus on some critical areas.
Infrastructure is a good example, I think.
Where an explicitly guaranteed civil liberty is involved?
Which leaves the question of what, precisely, the explicitly guaranteed civil liberty is, open.
As it has been for decades if not centuries.
Stupid commas, how do they work?
Eh, I am underwhelmed by those statements.
Hey, I do my best. I’ll try to clarify.
My point is not “all we need to do is put better people in government”. There are folks who will make that argument, I am not among them.
My point is that disparaging government because governments often do bad things fails to notice that every human institution, anywhere, ever, has often done bad things, because it’s a *human* institution.
Saying that “government is a necessary evil” is like saying that human family structure is a necessary evil, or building houses is a necessary evil, or cooking food is a necessary evil, or investigating the natural world is a necessary evil.
It is, I suppose, one way to look at it, but it’s kind of negative, and I’m not sure what the point is.
Humans, when present in numbers greater than, say, a few hundred, organize themselves into polities. It’s what we do.
For reference, please see all of recorded human history.
Man is a political animal. Where have I heard that before?
And, humans are a mixed lot, and the work of their minds and hands, likewise.
I agree, what’s desirable are governments structured such that there are useful checks and curbs on the scope of responsibility and the exercise of power, and where the ultimate seat of power and authority lies with those governed.
Where an explicitly guaranteed civil liberty is involved?
Which leaves the question of what, precisely, the explicitly guaranteed civil liberty is, open.
As it has been for decades if not centuries.
Stupid commas, how do they work?
Eh, I am underwhelmed by those statements.
Hey, I do my best. I’ll try to clarify.
My point is not “all we need to do is put better people in government”. There are folks who will make that argument, I am not among them.
My point is that disparaging government because governments often do bad things fails to notice that every human institution, anywhere, ever, has often done bad things, because it’s a *human* institution.
Saying that “government is a necessary evil” is like saying that human family structure is a necessary evil, or building houses is a necessary evil, or cooking food is a necessary evil, or investigating the natural world is a necessary evil.
It is, I suppose, one way to look at it, but it’s kind of negative, and I’m not sure what the point is.
Humans, when present in numbers greater than, say, a few hundred, organize themselves into polities. It’s what we do.
For reference, please see all of recorded human history.
Man is a political animal. Where have I heard that before?
And, humans are a mixed lot, and the work of their minds and hands, likewise.
I agree, what’s desirable are governments structured such that there are useful checks and curbs on the scope of responsibility and the exercise of power, and where the ultimate seat of power and authority lies with those governed.
russell:
Thanks for clarifying.
It is, I suppose, one way to look at it, but it’s kind of negative, and I’m not sure what the point is.
The point, I guess, is as a counterpoint to those (not you) that see any wrong perpetrated by the government as the sole responsibility of a low level jerk that abused their power, and not as a pretty predictable consequence of giving any organization constructed of humans power without rigorous checks and oversight.
I’d say statements like that don’t do justice to the complexity of the situation, even if I am guilty of using them.
They further turn the discussion into the one dimensional ‘should government be bigger or smaller’, which is also a disservice to the complexity of the task.
I agree, what’s desirable are governments structured such that there are useful checks and curbs on the scope of responsibility and the exercise of power, and where the ultimate seat of power and authority lies with those governed.
Well said.
russell:
Thanks for clarifying.
It is, I suppose, one way to look at it, but it’s kind of negative, and I’m not sure what the point is.
The point, I guess, is as a counterpoint to those (not you) that see any wrong perpetrated by the government as the sole responsibility of a low level jerk that abused their power, and not as a pretty predictable consequence of giving any organization constructed of humans power without rigorous checks and oversight.
I’d say statements like that don’t do justice to the complexity of the situation, even if I am guilty of using them.
They further turn the discussion into the one dimensional ‘should government be bigger or smaller’, which is also a disservice to the complexity of the task.
I agree, what’s desirable are governments structured such that there are useful checks and curbs on the scope of responsibility and the exercise of power, and where the ultimate seat of power and authority lies with those governed.
Well said.
I’d agree that simply saying “government should be smaller” usually over-simplifies the situation. But, as Brett appears AFAIKT to demonstrate, there is a serious contingent for whom it actually does reflect their view of the world. Their preferred size of government is such taht it is much faster to just enumerate the handful of things that they will approve of, than to work thru everything government does and evaluate each one.
I’d agree that simply saying “government should be smaller” usually over-simplifies the situation. But, as Brett appears AFAIKT to demonstrate, there is a serious contingent for whom it actually does reflect their view of the world. Their preferred size of government is such taht it is much faster to just enumerate the handful of things that they will approve of, than to work thru everything government does and evaluate each one.
“Saying that “government is a necessary evil” is like saying that human family structure is a necessary evil, or building houses is a necessary evil, or cooking food is a necessary evil, or investigating the natural world is a necessary evil.”
I think it’s more like saying that amputation for gangrene is a necessary evil. The stuff the government does, that distinguishes it from non-government, is nasty stuff. Inherently so. It’s not the sort of thing you’d do for yucks on a Saturday night if it weren’t needed.
It’s not like you’d say, “Hey, we don’t really need to, but why don’t we conscript a few hundred thousand people, and send them off to kill or be killed? I could be fun!” Sure, there are people who enjoy the things that make government, government.
They’re SICK.
“Saying that “government is a necessary evil” is like saying that human family structure is a necessary evil, or building houses is a necessary evil, or cooking food is a necessary evil, or investigating the natural world is a necessary evil.”
I think it’s more like saying that amputation for gangrene is a necessary evil. The stuff the government does, that distinguishes it from non-government, is nasty stuff. Inherently so. It’s not the sort of thing you’d do for yucks on a Saturday night if it weren’t needed.
It’s not like you’d say, “Hey, we don’t really need to, but why don’t we conscript a few hundred thousand people, and send them off to kill or be killed? I could be fun!” Sure, there are people who enjoy the things that make government, government.
They’re SICK.
The stuff the government does, that distinguishes it from non-government, is nasty stuff.
indeed, food and restaurant health and safety inspections can probably be pretty nasty. and violent.
and maintaining safe and well-marked roads can probably get pretty sweaty and smelly. and violent.
The stuff the government does, that distinguishes it from non-government, is nasty stuff.
indeed, food and restaurant health and safety inspections can probably be pretty nasty. and violent.
and maintaining safe and well-marked roads can probably get pretty sweaty and smelly. and violent.
“It’s not the sort of thing you’d do for yucks on a Saturday night if it weren’t needed.”
The Beavis and Butthead theory of government.
Neither is brain surgery, cleaning out the grease traps at the McDonalds franchise, or drilling a hole in a widget on a drill press, but I guess folks are falling all over themselves in the private sector on a Saturday night to step up for the fun.
Now, government sewage IS nasty. Must be something in their diet.
Private sector sewage they should bottle as cologne or craft balsamic vinegar.
No wonder they segregate them into different pipes so we tell whose sh*t goes down the tubes faster.
Is the thread exhausted or is it the arguments that went belly up a few days ago?
You can always tell when we men have gone on too long chewing the fat when you look up and notice all of the women have slipped out of the room some time ago to sample the cooking sherry.
“It’s not the sort of thing you’d do for yucks on a Saturday night if it weren’t needed.”
The Beavis and Butthead theory of government.
Neither is brain surgery, cleaning out the grease traps at the McDonalds franchise, or drilling a hole in a widget on a drill press, but I guess folks are falling all over themselves in the private sector on a Saturday night to step up for the fun.
Now, government sewage IS nasty. Must be something in their diet.
Private sector sewage they should bottle as cologne or craft balsamic vinegar.
No wonder they segregate them into different pipes so we tell whose sh*t goes down the tubes faster.
Is the thread exhausted or is it the arguments that went belly up a few days ago?
You can always tell when we men have gone on too long chewing the fat when you look up and notice all of the women have slipped out of the room some time ago to sample the cooking sherry.
THE ROADZ!!!1!1!
THE ROADZ!!!1!1!
As even that old proto-fascist Platon knew, an army strong enough to deal with foreign invasion is also strong enough to take over at home. The main problem government (as an extension of the citizenry) has to deal with is to keep said army from doing just that. He compared it to the training of dogs that will attack the enemy without hesitation but never their master. His solution was (as noted) in essence enlightened fascism working under the assumption that people could be trained like dogs with proper indoctrination.
The basic problem has stayed the same but we have refined the solution a bit in some regions of the world.
Still, a government that can fulfill even the most basic functions that even most libertarians are willing to accept it to do, is by nature strong enough to do serious harm. A government that can do no great evil is one not worthy even considering forming because it cannot do its job.
As even that old proto-fascist Platon knew, an army strong enough to deal with foreign invasion is also strong enough to take over at home. The main problem government (as an extension of the citizenry) has to deal with is to keep said army from doing just that. He compared it to the training of dogs that will attack the enemy without hesitation but never their master. His solution was (as noted) in essence enlightened fascism working under the assumption that people could be trained like dogs with proper indoctrination.
The basic problem has stayed the same but we have refined the solution a bit in some regions of the world.
Still, a government that can fulfill even the most basic functions that even most libertarians are willing to accept it to do, is by nature strong enough to do serious harm. A government that can do no great evil is one not worthy even considering forming because it cannot do its job.
A government that can do no great evil is one not worthy even considering forming because it cannot do its job.
At long last, we have a winner.
A government that can do no great evil is one not worthy even considering forming because it cannot do its job.
At long last, we have a winner.
Maybe one should add an ‘either’ at the end of that or someone could assume (that I meant) that doing evil IS the job.
Maybe one should add an ‘either’ at the end of that or someone could assume (that I meant) that doing evil IS the job.
“indeed, food and restaurant health and safety inspections can probably be pretty nasty. and violent.”
I really hadn’t noticed that Underwriter’s Laboratory was all that nasty and brutish. Though, for all I know, Michelin may be short.
The government, in its endless search to find something more to do, does many things that aren’t nasty, and aren’t distinctively governmental, either. And it has many optional traits, such as democracy. But the fact remains that the things that are distinctively governmental are essentially nasty, and at best necessary evils.
“indeed, food and restaurant health and safety inspections can probably be pretty nasty. and violent.”
I really hadn’t noticed that Underwriter’s Laboratory was all that nasty and brutish. Though, for all I know, Michelin may be short.
The government, in its endless search to find something more to do, does many things that aren’t nasty, and aren’t distinctively governmental, either. And it has many optional traits, such as democracy. But the fact remains that the things that are distinctively governmental are essentially nasty, and at best necessary evils.
it’s easy to be right: all you need to do is define terms to mean exactly what you want them to mean.
it’s easy to be right: all you need to do is define terms to mean exactly what you want them to mean.
I really hadn’t noticed that Underwriter’s Laboratory was all that nasty and brutish.
Heh. Tell that to a low cost Chinese light fixture manufacturer would couldn’t get the sticker. Many specifiers and building code writers build UL into the specs. Government building officials and inspectors enforce these requirements. So what you have is a government sanctioned quasi monopoly.
Not that I’m complaining all that much.
You might also note that UL is now a for-profit concern. The long, storied, and respected reputation of this watchdog will soon be garbage. They will be subjected to the same pressures as the staid investment rating agencies who gave billions of dollars* of bundled housing bubble securities dreck a grade of “AAA”.
(You might notice these failures are still around. The wonders of teh free market never cease to amaze.)
Subjected to the pressure to make a profit, and meet Street expectations (if they go public) UL cachet will soon be ‘for sale’ to the highest bidder.
*face value
I really hadn’t noticed that Underwriter’s Laboratory was all that nasty and brutish.
Heh. Tell that to a low cost Chinese light fixture manufacturer would couldn’t get the sticker. Many specifiers and building code writers build UL into the specs. Government building officials and inspectors enforce these requirements. So what you have is a government sanctioned quasi monopoly.
Not that I’m complaining all that much.
You might also note that UL is now a for-profit concern. The long, storied, and respected reputation of this watchdog will soon be garbage. They will be subjected to the same pressures as the staid investment rating agencies who gave billions of dollars* of bundled housing bubble securities dreck a grade of “AAA”.
(You might notice these failures are still around. The wonders of teh free market never cease to amaze.)
Subjected to the pressure to make a profit, and meet Street expectations (if they go public) UL cachet will soon be ‘for sale’ to the highest bidder.
*face value
what’s distinctly governmental about standardizing weights and measures? any standards body could do it.
what’s distinctly governmental about a postal service? UPS could do it.
what’s distinctly governmental about printing money? bitcoin could do it, right? banks used to do it all the time, in this country.
that stuff is Article I Section 8. Take it up with the sainted founders.
and what about nasty stuff.
police? there are private police forces.
army? there are private armies. the second largest employer in the freaking world is a private army. and they’re not some weird third world bizarro bunch of freakazoids, it’s a publicly traded company based in the UK.
you invent a bogus category like “distinctly governmental” and continue on as if it holds any weight. it’s a load of crap.
governments have always done things that don’t involve “nasty stuff”. the US government is specifically authorized to do stuff – specifically enumerated stuff, not hand-wavy kumbaya liberal imagination living document stuff – that isn’t nasty but is merely useful, right there in the constitution.
and lots and lots and lots of private actors have stepped up to the nasty stuff when it suited them, including today, in this country and elsewhere.
you’re welcome to say your piece, but you don’t get to make stuff up.
what’s distinctly governmental about standardizing weights and measures? any standards body could do it.
what’s distinctly governmental about a postal service? UPS could do it.
what’s distinctly governmental about printing money? bitcoin could do it, right? banks used to do it all the time, in this country.
that stuff is Article I Section 8. Take it up with the sainted founders.
and what about nasty stuff.
police? there are private police forces.
army? there are private armies. the second largest employer in the freaking world is a private army. and they’re not some weird third world bizarro bunch of freakazoids, it’s a publicly traded company based in the UK.
you invent a bogus category like “distinctly governmental” and continue on as if it holds any weight. it’s a load of crap.
governments have always done things that don’t involve “nasty stuff”. the US government is specifically authorized to do stuff – specifically enumerated stuff, not hand-wavy kumbaya liberal imagination living document stuff – that isn’t nasty but is merely useful, right there in the constitution.
and lots and lots and lots of private actors have stepped up to the nasty stuff when it suited them, including today, in this country and elsewhere.
you’re welcome to say your piece, but you don’t get to make stuff up.
Ok, so you don’t think there’s anything distinctly “governmental” about taxation, conscription, waging war, and generally all the issuing orders backed by threats of violence. Why do we have this word “government”, then, if there’s nothing that distinguishes it from anybody in the private sector?
Ok, so you don’t think there’s anything distinctly “governmental” about taxation, conscription, waging war, and generally all the issuing orders backed by threats of violence. Why do we have this word “government”, then, if there’s nothing that distinguishes it from anybody in the private sector?
int he private sector, taxation is sometimes known as “paying your dues”.
conscription happens in private military, too. they used to call it being “Shanghaied”.
waging war? yes of course private armies wage war. gangs are private armies and sometimes fight other gangs.
government is distinguished from the private sector in many ways. firstly, it’s not private. it’s a non-commercial enterprise which acts in the name of the country, not in the name of shareholders. it’s the thing we set up to administer the laws we live under for that purpose, with those constraints.
int he private sector, taxation is sometimes known as “paying your dues”.
conscription happens in private military, too. they used to call it being “Shanghaied”.
waging war? yes of course private armies wage war. gangs are private armies and sometimes fight other gangs.
government is distinguished from the private sector in many ways. firstly, it’s not private. it’s a non-commercial enterprise which acts in the name of the country, not in the name of shareholders. it’s the thing we set up to administer the laws we live under for that purpose, with those constraints.
Why do we have this word “government”, then, if there’s nothing that distinguishes it from anybody in the private sector?
The question is not whether the private and public sectors are distinguishable.
You assert that we should only have government do things which require the threat of force. We should never ask government to do anything which we would not be willing to have government implement via the cracking of heads. Because, of course, you are convinced that government is nothing more than a protection racket, that’s obviously its only purpose.
When folks point out a very wide range of things that governments do that do not involve the threat of force, you further assert that those things aren’t properly the responsibility of government, and that government has somehow metastatized, illegitimately, to take them on.
It’s a circular and self-serving argument, and it’s bullshit.
Governments do, and have always done, an extremely broad range of things that have nothing to do with cracking heads, but which are simply useful and beneficial.
Governments can legitimately do whatever the governed consent for them to do. Full stop.
And yes, I know, TENTH AMENDMENT DAMMIT, but state and local governments are still governments.
In my world, government builds and operates schools and libraries, maintains a force of policemen and firemen, operates some excellent public parks, sponsors hospitals, builds and maintains roads bridges tunnels and ferries, sponsors or operates reasonably priced and useful public transportation, establishes and enforces standards for sound construction practices and wholesome food and drugs, delivers very good water to my tap, oversees the delivery of heating gas and electricity to my home, and runs the dump where everyone in town meets on Saturday to toss their garden waste and talk about the weather.
And that’s just off the top of my head. And it’s all totally legitimate.
It’s your prerogative to see everything through the lens of your somewhat eccentric obsessions, but the rest of us are not obliged to play along.
Why do we have this word “government”, then, if there’s nothing that distinguishes it from anybody in the private sector?
The question is not whether the private and public sectors are distinguishable.
You assert that we should only have government do things which require the threat of force. We should never ask government to do anything which we would not be willing to have government implement via the cracking of heads. Because, of course, you are convinced that government is nothing more than a protection racket, that’s obviously its only purpose.
When folks point out a very wide range of things that governments do that do not involve the threat of force, you further assert that those things aren’t properly the responsibility of government, and that government has somehow metastatized, illegitimately, to take them on.
It’s a circular and self-serving argument, and it’s bullshit.
Governments do, and have always done, an extremely broad range of things that have nothing to do with cracking heads, but which are simply useful and beneficial.
Governments can legitimately do whatever the governed consent for them to do. Full stop.
And yes, I know, TENTH AMENDMENT DAMMIT, but state and local governments are still governments.
In my world, government builds and operates schools and libraries, maintains a force of policemen and firemen, operates some excellent public parks, sponsors hospitals, builds and maintains roads bridges tunnels and ferries, sponsors or operates reasonably priced and useful public transportation, establishes and enforces standards for sound construction practices and wholesome food and drugs, delivers very good water to my tap, oversees the delivery of heating gas and electricity to my home, and runs the dump where everyone in town meets on Saturday to toss their garden waste and talk about the weather.
And that’s just off the top of my head. And it’s all totally legitimate.
It’s your prerogative to see everything through the lens of your somewhat eccentric obsessions, but the rest of us are not obliged to play along.
Ever heard of the publicani or tax farmers? Taxation has been a private business for most of history and I could imagine that the idea would be hugely poular in some circles even today. It has also been some of the most effective ways to trigger actual revolutions. I guess that was one reason to take it out of the private market and hand it over to the government, although we hear that the real blooduckers are actually there and not in the saintly open and free market.
Btw, the term government derives from the Latin word for helmsman, the one sterring the ship. Not the one actually in command, that would be the captain (headman)or master (the one who is bigger).
Ever heard of the publicani or tax farmers? Taxation has been a private business for most of history and I could imagine that the idea would be hugely poular in some circles even today. It has also been some of the most effective ways to trigger actual revolutions. I guess that was one reason to take it out of the private market and hand it over to the government, although we hear that the real blooduckers are actually there and not in the saintly open and free market.
Btw, the term government derives from the Latin word for helmsman, the one sterring the ship. Not the one actually in command, that would be the captain (headman)or master (the one who is bigger).
“You assert that we should only have government do things which require the threat of force. We should never ask government to do anything which we would not be willing to have government implement via the cracking of heads.”
Because that IS how the government implements things, almost all of the time. The government has this hammer, and it treats almost all jobs given it as nails.
Is the state of Connecticut asking people to register their normal capacity magazines? Suggesting that they not buy any more of them? No, it’s threatening people who don’t do as their told with jail time. It’s cracking heads.
Why even involve the government, if you don’t need the threat of force? Just because you think the government is cool, or something?
“You assert that we should only have government do things which require the threat of force. We should never ask government to do anything which we would not be willing to have government implement via the cracking of heads.”
Because that IS how the government implements things, almost all of the time. The government has this hammer, and it treats almost all jobs given it as nails.
Is the state of Connecticut asking people to register their normal capacity magazines? Suggesting that they not buy any more of them? No, it’s threatening people who don’t do as their told with jail time. It’s cracking heads.
Why even involve the government, if you don’t need the threat of force? Just because you think the government is cool, or something?
wow. talk about hammer and nails…
wow. talk about hammer and nails…
No, it’s threatening people who don’t do as their told with jail time. It’s cracking heads.
Except that it’s not. Any law needs some sort of penalty if it is to be enforced, but that doesn’t make it “cracking heads” if what the law requires is reasonable. The law doesn’t say, “You have a gun or some ammo, so come over here and get your head split open.” It doesn’t say that about jay-walking or littering or picking up after your dog, either, in case anyone was wondering
No, it’s threatening people who don’t do as their told with jail time. It’s cracking heads.
Except that it’s not. Any law needs some sort of penalty if it is to be enforced, but that doesn’t make it “cracking heads” if what the law requires is reasonable. The law doesn’t say, “You have a gun or some ammo, so come over here and get your head split open.” It doesn’t say that about jay-walking or littering or picking up after your dog, either, in case anyone was wondering
Taxation has been a private business for most of history and I could imagine that the idea would be hugely poular in some circles even today.
The notion of privatizing toll roads was bandied about frequently not so long ago, but it seems to have died down, AFAICT. Either way, it leaped to mind quickly after reading that, Hartmut.
Taxation has been a private business for most of history and I could imagine that the idea would be hugely poular in some circles even today.
The notion of privatizing toll roads was bandied about frequently not so long ago, but it seems to have died down, AFAICT. Either way, it leaped to mind quickly after reading that, Hartmut.
Toll roads may seem, in theory, like a great way to privatize that part of our infrastructure. But take it from one who grew up in the West, they have two major problems:
First, having to keep piles of change in the car, and stop constantly to pay, is a real hassle. Perhaps those who have always had to deal with it find it tolerable. But every time I go east and try to drive, I find my blood pressure rising.
Second, they are only suitable for places with fairly high traffic density, in order to support adequate revenue. Which huge parts of this part of the country don’t have. (And which is also why they are only used, even in the east, on major thoroughfares.)
Toll roads may seem, in theory, like a great way to privatize that part of our infrastructure. But take it from one who grew up in the West, they have two major problems:
First, having to keep piles of change in the car, and stop constantly to pay, is a real hassle. Perhaps those who have always had to deal with it find it tolerable. But every time I go east and try to drive, I find my blood pressure rising.
Second, they are only suitable for places with fairly high traffic density, in order to support adequate revenue. Which huge parts of this part of the country don’t have. (And which is also why they are only used, even in the east, on major thoroughfares.)
Because that IS how the government implements things, almost all of the time.
False.
Why even involve the government, if you don’t need the threat of force? Just because you think the government is cool, or something?
If something is useful, but not necessarily profitable.
If it’s very important that something is done rather than not, whether it’s profitable or not.
If people want something to be universally, or at least very broadly, available, regardless of any given individual’s ability to pay for it.
If something involves resources that constitute a commons.
If it enables participation in the political process or other public function, e.g. voting.
If it’s naturally a monopoly, where redundant services or infrastructure don’t add value, e.g. railroads, highways, water, sewer, electric power, and I’d add broadband.
If people freaking want it, and the private sector doesn’t feel like making it happen, for whatever reason.
Off the top of my head.
Because that IS how the government implements things, almost all of the time.
False.
Why even involve the government, if you don’t need the threat of force? Just because you think the government is cool, or something?
If something is useful, but not necessarily profitable.
If it’s very important that something is done rather than not, whether it’s profitable or not.
If people want something to be universally, or at least very broadly, available, regardless of any given individual’s ability to pay for it.
If something involves resources that constitute a commons.
If it enables participation in the political process or other public function, e.g. voting.
If it’s naturally a monopoly, where redundant services or infrastructure don’t add value, e.g. railroads, highways, water, sewer, electric power, and I’d add broadband.
If people freaking want it, and the private sector doesn’t feel like making it happen, for whatever reason.
Off the top of my head.
Yeah, what’s reasonable is, tautologically, reasonable. If you think it’s “reasonable” to threaten people with 2 years jail and loss of their civil rights over not telling you about owning an inanimate object that was perfectly legal a year ago, and is used in the exercise of one of those civil liberties, I think YOU are unreasonable. Stark raving bonkers.
How about we enact a law requiring all paper feeders to hold no more than ten sheets? And then make into a felon anyone who doesn’t report owning one? Perfectly reasonable, right? Might, in somebody’s fevered imagination, inconvenience a counterfeiter, and it wouldn’t actually prevent anyone from printing anything. You could still run a newspaper, you’d just be mildly inconvenienced.
I don’t think you would call this reasonable, if the right under attack were one you valued.
Yeah, what’s reasonable is, tautologically, reasonable. If you think it’s “reasonable” to threaten people with 2 years jail and loss of their civil rights over not telling you about owning an inanimate object that was perfectly legal a year ago, and is used in the exercise of one of those civil liberties, I think YOU are unreasonable. Stark raving bonkers.
How about we enact a law requiring all paper feeders to hold no more than ten sheets? And then make into a felon anyone who doesn’t report owning one? Perfectly reasonable, right? Might, in somebody’s fevered imagination, inconvenience a counterfeiter, and it wouldn’t actually prevent anyone from printing anything. You could still run a newspaper, you’d just be mildly inconvenienced.
I don’t think you would call this reasonable, if the right under attack were one you valued.
all guns, all the time.
all guns, all the time.
How about we enact a law requiring all paper feeders to hold no more than ten sheets? And then make into a felon anyone who doesn’t report owning one?
When someone kills a bunch of first-graders with one, let me know.
If, in your mind, having to report something is the same as being cracked on the head, stark raving bonkers might be more rightly applied to you, Brett.
Your over-reliance on silly analogies and metaphors, coupled with false equivalencies is Just. Getting. Old.
How about we enact a law requiring all paper feeders to hold no more than ten sheets? And then make into a felon anyone who doesn’t report owning one?
When someone kills a bunch of first-graders with one, let me know.
If, in your mind, having to report something is the same as being cracked on the head, stark raving bonkers might be more rightly applied to you, Brett.
Your over-reliance on silly analogies and metaphors, coupled with false equivalencies is Just. Getting. Old.
As old as your determination to treat a civil liberty like a dispensible privilege.
“If people freaking want it, and the private sector doesn’t feel like making it happen, for whatever reason.”
Precisely: If you want something sold, and people don’t want it enough to pay for it, you want the power to force them to buy it.
You treasure government, because you want to over-ride other people’s choices, it’s as simple as that.
As old as your determination to treat a civil liberty like a dispensible privilege.
“If people freaking want it, and the private sector doesn’t feel like making it happen, for whatever reason.”
Precisely: If you want something sold, and people don’t want it enough to pay for it, you want the power to force them to buy it.
You treasure government, because you want to over-ride other people’s choices, it’s as simple as that.
Any law needs some sort of penalty if it is to be enforced
Just last week I had to pay 17 cents in overdue fines to the library.
Plus, $65 to the town for my annual park and recreation sticker. And if I don’t get the sticker, they won’t let me park in the beach parking lot. Plus, they won’t let me take my grass clippings to the dump!
Tyranny!
To the barricades, y’all.
And for the record, “no magazines with more than 10 rounds” is not the same as “disarm”. “Register your firearm” is not the same as “disarm”.
Disarm means TAKE ALL OF YOU FIREARMS AWAY, and NOT ALLOW YOU TO GET ANY MORE, AT ALL.
That’s what “disarm” means.
And yes, it’s a PITA, because lots of firearms come out of the box with magazine capacities greater than 10 rounds. And, if you want to shoot lots and lots of bullets for whatever reason, you might have to swap in a fresh magazine more often than you do now.
But, as we’ve told countless times when this stupid tired topic comes up, it’s trivially easy – seamless, takes less than a second – to swap in a new magazine.
Right? Isn’t that why there’s no freaking point to a limit on magazine capacity?
In any case, “PITA” is not the same as “violates my civil liberties”.
Is it an overreaction? Maybe so. A couple dozen dead little kids brings that out in people.
Jeebus, am I ever sick of talking about f***ing guns.
No nut like a gun nut.
Any law needs some sort of penalty if it is to be enforced
Just last week I had to pay 17 cents in overdue fines to the library.
Plus, $65 to the town for my annual park and recreation sticker. And if I don’t get the sticker, they won’t let me park in the beach parking lot. Plus, they won’t let me take my grass clippings to the dump!
Tyranny!
To the barricades, y’all.
And for the record, “no magazines with more than 10 rounds” is not the same as “disarm”. “Register your firearm” is not the same as “disarm”.
Disarm means TAKE ALL OF YOU FIREARMS AWAY, and NOT ALLOW YOU TO GET ANY MORE, AT ALL.
That’s what “disarm” means.
And yes, it’s a PITA, because lots of firearms come out of the box with magazine capacities greater than 10 rounds. And, if you want to shoot lots and lots of bullets for whatever reason, you might have to swap in a fresh magazine more often than you do now.
But, as we’ve told countless times when this stupid tired topic comes up, it’s trivially easy – seamless, takes less than a second – to swap in a new magazine.
Right? Isn’t that why there’s no freaking point to a limit on magazine capacity?
In any case, “PITA” is not the same as “violates my civil liberties”.
Is it an overreaction? Maybe so. A couple dozen dead little kids brings that out in people.
Jeebus, am I ever sick of talking about f***ing guns.
No nut like a gun nut.
You treasure government, because you want to over-ride other people’s choices, it’s as simple as that.
Nobody’s gonna make you ride the bus, Brett.
You treasure government, because you want to over-ride other people’s choices, it’s as simple as that.
Nobody’s gonna make you ride the bus, Brett.
Precisely: If you want something sold, and people don’t want it enough to pay for it, you want the power to force them to buy it.
You treasure government, because you want to over-ride other people’s choices, it’s as simple as that.
How does this apply to, say, the national highway system (or most of the many examples russell provided)? Is there a market mechanism whereby people can choose to buy one? Do you deny the existence of collective-action problems? Are the positive externalities provided by national infrastructure the inventions of liberals – a coordinated ruse to fool people into thinking they need the government?
Precisely: If you want something sold, and people don’t want it enough to pay for it, you want the power to force them to buy it.
You treasure government, because you want to over-ride other people’s choices, it’s as simple as that.
How does this apply to, say, the national highway system (or most of the many examples russell provided)? Is there a market mechanism whereby people can choose to buy one? Do you deny the existence of collective-action problems? Are the positive externalities provided by national infrastructure the inventions of liberals – a coordinated ruse to fool people into thinking they need the government?
I think we’re back to this:
…then it’s just another extremist political philosophy that isn’t going to work in the real world, like communism.
Posted by: Donald Johnson | March 10, 2014 at 09:00 AM
I think we’re back to this:
…then it’s just another extremist political philosophy that isn’t going to work in the real world, like communism.
Posted by: Donald Johnson | March 10, 2014 at 09:00 AM
so now he’s an anarchist.
so now he’s an anarchist.
“Are the positive externalities provided by national infrastructure the inventions of liberals – a coordinated ruse to fool people into thinking they need the government?”
Are the positive externalities provided by infrastructure supposed to carry the weight of having a drug war, the EPA banning wood stoves, and so on? I’m perfectly willing to admit the government does some useful, worthwhile stuff.
If only it would stop at that point, and not do the other stuff, too…
“Are the positive externalities provided by national infrastructure the inventions of liberals – a coordinated ruse to fool people into thinking they need the government?”
Are the positive externalities provided by infrastructure supposed to carry the weight of having a drug war, the EPA banning wood stoves, and so on? I’m perfectly willing to admit the government does some useful, worthwhile stuff.
If only it would stop at that point, and not do the other stuff, too…
If only it would stop at that point, and not do the other stuff, too…
you’ll get no argument from me on this.
so now he’s an anarchist.
just as long he’s not an antichrist.
If only it would stop at that point, and not do the other stuff, too…
you’ll get no argument from me on this.
so now he’s an anarchist.
just as long he’s not an antichrist.
I’m perfectly willing to admit the government does some useful, worthwhile stuff.
If only it would stop at that point, and not do the other stuff, too…
That’s cool. It’s also completely at odds with the absolutism of what you previously wrote.
I, too, am generally against the drug war. I haven’t looked into the wood-stove issue enough to have an opinion.
I’m perfectly willing to admit the government does some useful, worthwhile stuff.
If only it would stop at that point, and not do the other stuff, too…
That’s cool. It’s also completely at odds with the absolutism of what you previously wrote.
I, too, am generally against the drug war. I haven’t looked into the wood-stove issue enough to have an opinion.
The “absolutism” of what I previously wrote?
I’ve noticed that some liberals seem to have a problem with the concept of a “necessary evil”. The thought seems to be that if something is necessary, it can’t really be evil, or that, if you recognize that something is evil, you must be denying that it’s necessary. Or some such.
Government is evil, AND it is necessary. To affirm the first part of that dillemna is not to deny the second part, it is to recognize a tragedy.
But that doesn’t mean wen have to accept any more government than IS necessary. The excess is just evil.
The “absolutism” of what I previously wrote?
I’ve noticed that some liberals seem to have a problem with the concept of a “necessary evil”. The thought seems to be that if something is necessary, it can’t really be evil, or that, if you recognize that something is evil, you must be denying that it’s necessary. Or some such.
Government is evil, AND it is necessary. To affirm the first part of that dillemna is not to deny the second part, it is to recognize a tragedy.
But that doesn’t mean wen have to accept any more government than IS necessary. The excess is just evil.
I turn the tap, water comes out.
Necessary, and not evil.
In any case, my personal point of no return has been achieved. Carry on as you wish, I’ll just thank you to keep your “drown it in a bathtub” schtick down there in SC.
I turn the tap, water comes out.
Necessary, and not evil.
In any case, my personal point of no return has been achieved. Carry on as you wish, I’ll just thank you to keep your “drown it in a bathtub” schtick down there in SC.
But, Brett, who is it that wants to pay for highways, and whom do they want to pay to provide them? Somebody – liberals, I suppose – like forcing people to buy things they don’t want to pay for. You object to that. But that’s exactly the case in a national system of highways.
There is no viable private-transaction, free-market solution. No one in the private sector wants to sell anyone a national system of highways, and no one in the private sector wants to pay a private actor to do it. So we use government to do it, and we collect taxes. If that’s not what you’re talking about, then I guess I don’t understand what you’re getting at.
In any case, that’s what sounds absolute to me.
It’s not a question of not understanding what a necessary evil is. If anything is a necessary evil, it is a military, it is a criminal justice system, it is the bureaucracy of regulation.
But I’m not seeing how highways are evil, or that government is being evil when it builds them. Maybe they aren’t even necessary, but only really, really useful.
So I think your Venn diagram of government, which I think has a necessary circle fully within a larger evil circle, needs some work.
But, Brett, who is it that wants to pay for highways, and whom do they want to pay to provide them? Somebody – liberals, I suppose – like forcing people to buy things they don’t want to pay for. You object to that. But that’s exactly the case in a national system of highways.
There is no viable private-transaction, free-market solution. No one in the private sector wants to sell anyone a national system of highways, and no one in the private sector wants to pay a private actor to do it. So we use government to do it, and we collect taxes. If that’s not what you’re talking about, then I guess I don’t understand what you’re getting at.
In any case, that’s what sounds absolute to me.
It’s not a question of not understanding what a necessary evil is. If anything is a necessary evil, it is a military, it is a criminal justice system, it is the bureaucracy of regulation.
But I’m not seeing how highways are evil, or that government is being evil when it builds them. Maybe they aren’t even necessary, but only really, really useful.
So I think your Venn diagram of government, which I think has a necessary circle fully within a larger evil circle, needs some work.
“But I’m not seeing how highways are evil, or that government is being evil when it builds them.”
Building highways causes environmental damage, violates personal property rights, destroys neighborhoods and communities. Building the interstate highway system did a great deal of environmental damage.
You have to balance the good against the evil and decide switch side of the ledger comes out ahead.
“But I’m not seeing how highways are evil, or that government is being evil when it builds them.”
Building highways causes environmental damage, violates personal property rights, destroys neighborhoods and communities. Building the interstate highway system did a great deal of environmental damage.
You have to balance the good against the evil and decide switch side of the ledger comes out ahead.
Why do we have this word “government”, then, if there’s nothing that distinguishes it from anybody in the private sector?
Dunno, maybe the language bifurcated?
Why do we have this word “government”, then, if there’s nothing that distinguishes it from anybody in the private sector?
Dunno, maybe the language bifurcated?
Building the interstate highway system may have done a lot of environmental damage in itself. But you have to look at the alternatives. Consider what we had before, and would presumably continue to have now, without it. I drove Route 66 back in the day. As total environmental impact goes, it seemed a lot worse than I-44/I-40.
And that’s before we consider the damage either expanding what we had then to deal with increased traffic now, or constraining the economy and manufacturing a lot more stuff in multiple locations closer to each market. Multiple small manufacturing locations are less efficient, and do more environmental damage, than one large one.
So it’s not as open and shut a case as one might think at first glance.
Building the interstate highway system may have done a lot of environmental damage in itself. But you have to look at the alternatives. Consider what we had before, and would presumably continue to have now, without it. I drove Route 66 back in the day. As total environmental impact goes, it seemed a lot worse than I-44/I-40.
And that’s before we consider the damage either expanding what we had then to deal with increased traffic now, or constraining the economy and manufacturing a lot more stuff in multiple locations closer to each market. Multiple small manufacturing locations are less efficient, and do more environmental damage, than one large one.
So it’s not as open and shut a case as one might think at first glance.
“But I’m not seeing how highways are evil, or that government is being evil when it builds them.”
It takes money from people against their will to pay for it. It forces people to sell their land, whether or not they want to.
Do you really want to claim that either of these actions aren’t evil? If they’re necessary to achieve some other good, they may be necessary evils, but still, are they the sort of thing you’d excuse being done if they weren’t necessary?
“But I’m not seeing how highways are evil, or that government is being evil when it builds them.”
It takes money from people against their will to pay for it. It forces people to sell their land, whether or not they want to.
Do you really want to claim that either of these actions aren’t evil? If they’re necessary to achieve some other good, they may be necessary evils, but still, are they the sort of thing you’d excuse being done if they weren’t necessary?
The EPA has not made wood burning stoves illegal. That is simply not true.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/24/3321941/epa-wood-stoves-2/#
Bellmore needs to get out of Plato’s cave and stop boxing shadows. A good dose of fresh air mandated by those totalitarians in the EPA could do wonders.
Ya’ never know.
The EPA has not made wood burning stoves illegal. That is simply not true.
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/02/24/3321941/epa-wood-stoves-2/#
Bellmore needs to get out of Plato’s cave and stop boxing shadows. A good dose of fresh air mandated by those totalitarians in the EPA could do wonders.
Ya’ never know.
Do you really want to claim that either of these actions aren’t evil?
The system of private property is pure evil. Discuss.
Do you really want to claim that either of these actions aren’t evil?
The system of private property is pure evil. Discuss.
So eminent domain and taxation are necessary evils. And since taxation is a necessary evil, government must be a necessary evil in each and every endeavor it undertakes, including building highways (and rescuing victims of natural disasters, providing social services for the handicapped, feeding poor children) because at least some people don’t want to pay taxes. They are forced to do so, regardless of being represented within their government. It doesn’t even matter that the money being taken in the form of taxes would have been unobtainable as income without the benefit of the good and necessary (but also evil) things the (evil) government does.
So what the hell isn’t evil? It seems just about everything is once you have self-aware being with will in the universe, since just about everything affects something else in some way, and certainly not everyone has consented to those effects. You can’t make anything without consuming resources. Nothing can live without consuming resources.
Birds, evil. Electrons, evil. Thoughts, evil. Ambiguous gestures, evil. Bow ties, evil. Toaster ovens, evil. Mathematicians, evil. Blogs, evil. Puppies, super-duper evil.
So eminent domain and taxation are necessary evils. And since taxation is a necessary evil, government must be a necessary evil in each and every endeavor it undertakes, including building highways (and rescuing victims of natural disasters, providing social services for the handicapped, feeding poor children) because at least some people don’t want to pay taxes. They are forced to do so, regardless of being represented within their government. It doesn’t even matter that the money being taken in the form of taxes would have been unobtainable as income without the benefit of the good and necessary (but also evil) things the (evil) government does.
So what the hell isn’t evil? It seems just about everything is once you have self-aware being with will in the universe, since just about everything affects something else in some way, and certainly not everyone has consented to those effects. You can’t make anything without consuming resources. Nothing can live without consuming resources.
Birds, evil. Electrons, evil. Thoughts, evil. Ambiguous gestures, evil. Bow ties, evil. Toaster ovens, evil. Mathematicians, evil. Blogs, evil. Puppies, super-duper evil.
what russell said
what russell said
Birds, evil.
Our local crew of robins eats the winterberries, then craps all over our cars.
Nasty, brutish little gooey red turds.
The rabbits are eating the bottom foot or so of leaves off of the euonymus.
Evil, everywhere.
Birds, evil.
Our local crew of robins eats the winterberries, then craps all over our cars.
Nasty, brutish little gooey red turds.
The rabbits are eating the bottom foot or so of leaves off of the euonymus.
Evil, everywhere.
Evil wabbits, and tall too.
Conversation overheard in the Garden of Eden:
Serpent: Share an apple, you two.
Adam: Sounds good to me, but wouldn’t that be, um, you know …. evil.
Eve: Well, maybe it’s a necessary evil, all things considered, wink, wink.
Adam: Wait, that’s supposed to be my line.
Serpent: Tastes good, too.
Eve: See, Adam. Can you spell “necessary”?
Adam: Yes, I can and yes, I do see, and I’m seeing a lot more than I bargained for. You take the first bite, Evey, honeybunch.
Eve: No, you.
Adam: waggling his fanny, batting his eyes, and introducing a mince into his voice like Groucho Marx, the great Hebrew Prophet, making fun of Margaret Dumont’s coyness: No, you! Go ahead. Just give it a little kiss.
Eve: I suppose that’s necessary, too?
Adam: It is, my dear, it is.
Eve: Well, alright.
God: EVIL!!!!!
Adam: Damn!!!
God: Precisely.
Eve
Evil wabbits, and tall too.
Conversation overheard in the Garden of Eden:
Serpent: Share an apple, you two.
Adam: Sounds good to me, but wouldn’t that be, um, you know …. evil.
Eve: Well, maybe it’s a necessary evil, all things considered, wink, wink.
Adam: Wait, that’s supposed to be my line.
Serpent: Tastes good, too.
Eve: See, Adam. Can you spell “necessary”?
Adam: Yes, I can and yes, I do see, and I’m seeing a lot more than I bargained for. You take the first bite, Evey, honeybunch.
Eve: No, you.
Adam: waggling his fanny, batting his eyes, and introducing a mince into his voice like Groucho Marx, the great Hebrew Prophet, making fun of Margaret Dumont’s coyness: No, you! Go ahead. Just give it a little kiss.
Eve: I suppose that’s necessary, too?
Adam: It is, my dear, it is.
Eve: Well, alright.
God: EVIL!!!!!
Adam: Damn!!!
God: Precisely.
Eve
“The whole point of the EPA’s proposed regulations, however, is that there are not currently stoves that pass the emissions test.”
Sure, they’re not kicking down doors and confiscating wood stoves, any more than they went door to door confiscating light bulbs. They’ve “merely” issued a regulation no existing wood stove on the market can meet. That’s “all”.
The EPA, which does not manufacture wood stoves, figures the new regulation won’t be that hard to comply with. Meanwhile, have fun buying a wood stove next year.
“The whole point of the EPA’s proposed regulations, however, is that there are not currently stoves that pass the emissions test.”
Sure, they’re not kicking down doors and confiscating wood stoves, any more than they went door to door confiscating light bulbs. They’ve “merely” issued a regulation no existing wood stove on the market can meet. That’s “all”.
The EPA, which does not manufacture wood stoves, figures the new regulation won’t be that hard to comply with. Meanwhile, have fun buying a wood stove next year.
Intrusive government destroyed the famous London fog with its tyrannical ban of coal with high sulphur content. Millions of people get disappointed every year when they go there and can’t find what their predecessors so gloriously described. So much tourist-drawing history would not have happened if brave citizens had not fought tooth and nail (in a desperate rearguard action) to keep it the old way. Btw, coal tar keeps railroad sleepers/ties from rotting and sulphurous oxide raisins so impregnating your lungs with them must obviously be a boost for health.
Intrusive government destroyed the famous London fog with its tyrannical ban of coal with high sulphur content. Millions of people get disappointed every year when they go there and can’t find what their predecessors so gloriously described. So much tourist-drawing history would not have happened if brave citizens had not fought tooth and nail (in a desperate rearguard action) to keep it the old way. Btw, coal tar keeps railroad sleepers/ties from rotting and sulphurous oxide raisins so impregnating your lungs with them must obviously be a boost for health.
If roads and highways are evil, then potholes must be good, since they are, in their essence, the absence of said road or highway.
If government is evil but necessary, then that must make the private sector good and unnecessary.
I, for one, am glad that the heaping piles of codswallop (The EPA is banning wood stoves, by golly!) being trucked out of the Carolinas are conveyed over the Internet, which I’m not forced to pay for, it being privately provided (I’ll bet I’m wrong there, in large part) and therefore unnecessary, instead of on the Interstate Highway System, which I’m forced to pay for, even the parts my car tires don’t touch.
If roads and highways are evil, then potholes must be good, since they are, in their essence, the absence of said road or highway.
If government is evil but necessary, then that must make the private sector good and unnecessary.
I, for one, am glad that the heaping piles of codswallop (The EPA is banning wood stoves, by golly!) being trucked out of the Carolinas are conveyed over the Internet, which I’m not forced to pay for, it being privately provided (I’ll bet I’m wrong there, in large part) and therefore unnecessary, instead of on the Interstate Highway System, which I’m forced to pay for, even the parts my car tires don’t touch.
They’ve “merely” issued a regulation no existing wood stove on the market can meet.
For the second time, that is not true. How many times do we have to go down this road, Bret?
https://www.chimneysweeponline.com/hoepareg.htm
They’ve “merely” issued a regulation no existing wood stove on the market can meet.
For the second time, that is not true. How many times do we have to go down this road, Bret?
https://www.chimneysweeponline.com/hoepareg.htm
Via bobbyp’s link:
21 pages of stoves that meet EPA requirements.
Not 21 stoves, 21 pages of stoves.
Looks like many are out of production. So, a mere 10 or 15 pages.
Where do you get this stuff Brett?
Next up – 72 killed resisting gun confiscation in Massachusetts!!.
If you haven’t seen it yet, check it out, it’s a hoot.
Via bobbyp’s link:
21 pages of stoves that meet EPA requirements.
Not 21 stoves, 21 pages of stoves.
Looks like many are out of production. So, a mere 10 or 15 pages.
Where do you get this stuff Brett?
Next up – 72 killed resisting gun confiscation in Massachusetts!!.
If you haven’t seen it yet, check it out, it’s a hoot.
Oh, dear me, how dare I quote your own link. How dare I point out what the regulations do in 2015, when it’s only 2014 yet.
Oh, dear me, how dare I quote your own link. How dare I point out what the regulations do in 2015, when it’s only 2014 yet.
Similar to coal, the “abomination”, inefficient wood stoves can cause harmful pollution effects, and both seem akin to the fires of Hades, which is nevertheless necessary to keep everyone in their proper relation to the big “E”.
I don’t know where government stands on this scale, but maybe, for some, it could be viewed as divine intervention.
Similar to coal, the “abomination”, inefficient wood stoves can cause harmful pollution effects, and both seem akin to the fires of Hades, which is nevertheless necessary to keep everyone in their proper relation to the big “E”.
I don’t know where government stands on this scale, but maybe, for some, it could be viewed as divine intervention.
It takes money from people against their will to pay for it. It forces people to sell their land, whether or not they want to.
Do you really want to claim that either of these actions aren’t evil? If they’re necessary to achieve some other good, they may be necessary evils, but still, are they the sort of thing you’d excuse being done if they weren’t necessary?
Brett, if forcing someone to do something they don’t want to against a fear of bodily harm is evil, than your precious capitalist economy, built up around the wage-labor system, is pure, unadulterated evil, for it forces people to do work, whether they want to or not, or starve.
As the others point out, you’ve set the bar so low that almost everything is “evil”. You’ve reduced the meaning of “evil” to “undesired”. By someone. For some reason.
It takes money from people against their will to pay for it. It forces people to sell their land, whether or not they want to.
Do you really want to claim that either of these actions aren’t evil? If they’re necessary to achieve some other good, they may be necessary evils, but still, are they the sort of thing you’d excuse being done if they weren’t necessary?
Brett, if forcing someone to do something they don’t want to against a fear of bodily harm is evil, than your precious capitalist economy, built up around the wage-labor system, is pure, unadulterated evil, for it forces people to do work, whether they want to or not, or starve.
As the others point out, you’ve set the bar so low that almost everything is “evil”. You’ve reduced the meaning of “evil” to “undesired”. By someone. For some reason.
The new EPA requirement.
Basically, it’ll be 4.5 grams of particulate per hour initially, then 1.3 grams per hour in five years.
4.5 grams per hour is currently the standard in WA. I assume you can buy some kind of woodstove in WA, if so, then there are stoves currently commercially available that will meet the near term EPA standard.
Wait, let me go look….
16 seconds later:
Wood stoves that are legal for sale in WA state.
Amazingly enough, another 21-pager.
This stuff is dead easy to find out, all you have to do is read.
C’mon Brett, don’t believe everything you read on Town Hall.
I may go find out who makes stoves that are legal in WA and invest in those companies. Because I’m a crony capitalist!!
The new EPA requirement.
Basically, it’ll be 4.5 grams of particulate per hour initially, then 1.3 grams per hour in five years.
4.5 grams per hour is currently the standard in WA. I assume you can buy some kind of woodstove in WA, if so, then there are stoves currently commercially available that will meet the near term EPA standard.
Wait, let me go look….
16 seconds later:
Wood stoves that are legal for sale in WA state.
Amazingly enough, another 21-pager.
This stuff is dead easy to find out, all you have to do is read.
C’mon Brett, don’t believe everything you read on Town Hall.
I may go find out who makes stoves that are legal in WA and invest in those companies. Because I’m a crony capitalist!!
Bret,
The EPA has issued a proposed rule base on the fact that newer wood stoves have improved greatly since the first regulations back in 1988. You know what that word “proposed” means, do you not?
The proposed rules would go into effect gradually over 5 years. You know what “gradually” means, yes?
Good.
You imply there will be a great stove shortage next year. You imply that stove manufacturers and our rural populace are helpless in the face of this government juggernaut. You stated clearly and unambiguously that stoves would be “outlawed” without any further explanation-implying government agents and black helicopters going hither and yon to confiscate old wood burners.
To put it politely, you dissemble, sir.
Please stop.
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-12/documents/proposed_wood_heater_nsps_overview_fact_sheet_1.pdf
Bret,
The EPA has issued a proposed rule base on the fact that newer wood stoves have improved greatly since the first regulations back in 1988. You know what that word “proposed” means, do you not?
The proposed rules would go into effect gradually over 5 years. You know what “gradually” means, yes?
Good.
You imply there will be a great stove shortage next year. You imply that stove manufacturers and our rural populace are helpless in the face of this government juggernaut. You stated clearly and unambiguously that stoves would be “outlawed” without any further explanation-implying government agents and black helicopters going hither and yon to confiscate old wood burners.
To put it politely, you dissemble, sir.
Please stop.
http://www2.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2013-12/documents/proposed_wood_heater_nsps_overview_fact_sheet_1.pdf
Russell: We in the Soviet of Washington thank you.
Nombrilisme Vide: Well sure. Work or starve. But under pure free market capitalism as endorsed by nearly all of its prosperous practitioners, given that situation, one chooses to starve!
Hence Liberty!
Russell: We in the Soviet of Washington thank you.
Nombrilisme Vide: Well sure. Work or starve. But under pure free market capitalism as endorsed by nearly all of its prosperous practitioners, given that situation, one chooses to starve!
Hence Liberty!
Don’t you see, it’s a deliberately slow garrotting of the wood stove sector. Every few years they turn the screw further gloating over the ever increasing agony they cause. As in ‘torture to death’ the skill lies in how long the pain can be maintained. It would be a pity if the industry died prematurely.
EPA: [sing-songie] Mr. Wood Stovie…
Stovie: [moans]
EPA: You died, Mr. Wood Stovie.
Stovie: Seemed like the thing to do.
EPA: When you die, I can’t hurt you any more. And I want two decades at least, minimum.
Don’t you see, it’s a deliberately slow garrotting of the wood stove sector. Every few years they turn the screw further gloating over the ever increasing agony they cause. As in ‘torture to death’ the skill lies in how long the pain can be maintained. It would be a pity if the industry died prematurely.
EPA: [sing-songie] Mr. Wood Stovie…
Stovie: [moans]
EPA: You died, Mr. Wood Stovie.
Stovie: Seemed like the thing to do.
EPA: When you die, I can’t hurt you any more. And I want two decades at least, minimum.
You’ve reduced the meaning of “evil” to “undesired”. By someone. For some reason.
by Brett, for whatever reason he can stir up to counter whatever example you can think of. it’s a teleological thing.
You’ve reduced the meaning of “evil” to “undesired”. By someone. For some reason.
by Brett, for whatever reason he can stir up to counter whatever example you can think of. it’s a teleological thing.
The EPA could have a much greater impact if it would set and enforce particulate limits for forest fires.
The EPA could have a much greater impact if it would set and enforce particulate limits for forest fires.
The EPA could have a much greater impact if it would set and enforce particulate limits for forest fires.
The pyromaniac lobby is simply too powerful, Charles. One does what one can.
Similarly, the totalitarian environmental community no longer demands emissions regulations be enforced at the point of a gun to volcanos.
The EPA could have a much greater impact if it would set and enforce particulate limits for forest fires.
The pyromaniac lobby is simply too powerful, Charles. One does what one can.
Similarly, the totalitarian environmental community no longer demands emissions regulations be enforced at the point of a gun to volcanos.
A clear triumph of the libertarian Icelandic volcanos that would rather block all air travel in the North Atlantic than submit to emission controls. The forest fires could unfortunately not participate since all the forests have been cut down by those prototypically libertarian Vikings at the end of the last beneficial global warming episode.
A clear triumph of the libertarian Icelandic volcanos that would rather block all air travel in the North Atlantic than submit to emission controls. The forest fires could unfortunately not participate since all the forests have been cut down by those prototypically libertarian Vikings at the end of the last beneficial global warming episode.
Why do we still humor Brett the way Sunday morning talk shows humor Dick Cheney?
Cheney is evil — a motiveless malignancy in Hilzoy’s immortal words. Brett is not evil, just boring at this point.
–TP
Why do we still humor Brett the way Sunday morning talk shows humor Dick Cheney?
Cheney is evil — a motiveless malignancy in Hilzoy’s immortal words. Brett is not evil, just boring at this point.
–TP
At this point?? Susmariajosep, Tony, where have you been the last few years?
At this point?? Susmariajosep, Tony, where have you been the last few years?
“Why do we still humor Brett the way Sunday morning talk shows humor Dick Cheney?”
Because, even as you strive to impose a Borg like uniformity of thought, you’re still trying to maintain an outward appearance of treasuring freedom of speech and diversity of opinion?
So, bobby, I guess what you’re saying is that your own link, which I was merely quoting from, was full of bovine excrement?
“Why do we still humor Brett the way Sunday morning talk shows humor Dick Cheney?”
Because, even as you strive to impose a Borg like uniformity of thought, you’re still trying to maintain an outward appearance of treasuring freedom of speech and diversity of opinion?
So, bobby, I guess what you’re saying is that your own link, which I was merely quoting from, was full of bovine excrement?
and now we’re secretly trying to limit his freedom of speech and squelch his opinion!
(nevermind that the past 300 comments have been all about Brett)
and now we’re secretly trying to limit his freedom of speech and squelch his opinion!
(nevermind that the past 300 comments have been all about Brett)
Is this all just a matter of excessive literalism, and maybe categorical thinking, regarding the phrase “necessary evil,” particularly with regard to the “evil” part? I mean, that expression usually applies to things people otherwise wouldn’t want, but for their necessity, and not things that those same people would consider to be truly evil in the way, say, Richard Ramirez would be considered evil.
That would be somewhat consistent with the metaphor-as-truth line of thinking that seems to pop up rather frequently.
Is this all just a matter of excessive literalism, and maybe categorical thinking, regarding the phrase “necessary evil,” particularly with regard to the “evil” part? I mean, that expression usually applies to things people otherwise wouldn’t want, but for their necessity, and not things that those same people would consider to be truly evil in the way, say, Richard Ramirez would be considered evil.
That would be somewhat consistent with the metaphor-as-truth line of thinking that seems to pop up rather frequently.
But these ARE things that are truly evil. They might not be evil on a genocide is evil scale, but they’re evil enough that anybody who’d do them without the excuse of necessity is, yes, a bad person. Not just impolite, or pushy, but morally bad.
But these ARE things that are truly evil. They might not be evil on a genocide is evil scale, but they’re evil enough that anybody who’d do them without the excuse of necessity is, yes, a bad person. Not just impolite, or pushy, but morally bad.
So, Brett thinks that the vast majority of the country is morally bad. Good to know.
Because the vast majority of the country, even those of us who would like significantly smaller government than we have now, thinks having government do a lot of this stuff, from interstate highways to truth in labeling laws to public education, is not only not evil but a good thing. Not always well executed, of course. But that is seen as a problem of implementation, not a problem of the idea itself being evil.
So, Brett thinks that the vast majority of the country is morally bad. Good to know.
Because the vast majority of the country, even those of us who would like significantly smaller government than we have now, thinks having government do a lot of this stuff, from interstate highways to truth in labeling laws to public education, is not only not evil but a good thing. Not always well executed, of course. But that is seen as a problem of implementation, not a problem of the idea itself being evil.
i have to say that brett is OK in my book.
i’m hard pressed to think of any point on which i agree with him, but he takes his lumps without complaint, and argues in reasonably good faith for his point of view.
i mean, we’re something like 400 comments into this thread, and here he is, still fighting the good fight.
the point of view itself seems eccentric to the point of wackiness, sometimes, to me, but i’m sure mine seems that way to lots of other folks, too.
cranks, fanatics, and true believers are who keep things honest and interesting.
that’s my story, and i’m sticking to it.
i have to say that brett is OK in my book.
i’m hard pressed to think of any point on which i agree with him, but he takes his lumps without complaint, and argues in reasonably good faith for his point of view.
i mean, we’re something like 400 comments into this thread, and here he is, still fighting the good fight.
the point of view itself seems eccentric to the point of wackiness, sometimes, to me, but i’m sure mine seems that way to lots of other folks, too.
cranks, fanatics, and true believers are who keep things honest and interesting.
that’s my story, and i’m sticking to it.
Brett’s hurdle for government action is higher.
I’m sure if Congress abolished, say, the Department of Education and used the savings from the budget to throw themselves a year long party complete with hookers and blow (to the extent that is different than what they do now), people might object.
As it is, it seems that others think a hurdle of “would you be willing to cause physical harm to person X if he didn’t e.g., pay his parking ticket, if not the government shouldn’t do it” is a little too high for most folks, in part because it’s the wrong frame and skips all the steps in between and before.
Brett’s hurdle for government action is higher.
I’m sure if Congress abolished, say, the Department of Education and used the savings from the budget to throw themselves a year long party complete with hookers and blow (to the extent that is different than what they do now), people might object.
As it is, it seems that others think a hurdle of “would you be willing to cause physical harm to person X if he didn’t e.g., pay his parking ticket, if not the government shouldn’t do it” is a little too high for most folks, in part because it’s the wrong frame and skips all the steps in between and before.
I would ask Brett if he could point to a nation in the world that currently has his preferred level of government in place (this might have come up in the thread, I’ll confess to not having read the whole thing through).
Is there one, Brett?
I would ask Brett if he could point to a nation in the world that currently has his preferred level of government in place (this might have come up in the thread, I’ll confess to not having read the whole thing through).
Is there one, Brett?
And if, as I suspect, no country currently has what Brett prefers, perhaps he could tell us which one comes (or came, if it is no longer around) closest? However far away it still is.
And if, as I suspect, no country currently has what Brett prefers, perhaps he could tell us which one comes (or came, if it is no longer around) closest? However far away it still is.
That socialist empire to the north, Canada, is looking better by comparison to the the US lately. Canada’s government spending is about 11% of GDP. About half of what the US government is spending. Even countries like Sweden seem to be headed back in the opposite direction to the direction the US seems to be headed.
And no, there’s no single country that has all the elements the average libertarian might like. However, many countries have gotten a lot closer in recent decades. And more than a few are beginning to pass the US in appeal.
That socialist empire to the north, Canada, is looking better by comparison to the the US lately. Canada’s government spending is about 11% of GDP. About half of what the US government is spending. Even countries like Sweden seem to be headed back in the opposite direction to the direction the US seems to be headed.
And no, there’s no single country that has all the elements the average libertarian might like. However, many countries have gotten a lot closer in recent decades. And more than a few are beginning to pass the US in appeal.
Canada’s government spending is about 11% of GDP.
So, if we could have universal health insurance with total federal spending at 11% of GDP, would that pass conservative or libertarian muster?
Canada’s government spending is about 11% of GDP.
So, if we could have universal health insurance with total federal spending at 11% of GDP, would that pass conservative or libertarian muster?
Canada’s government spending is about 11% of GDP.
Aggregating all levels of government spending, US and Canada are roughly the same as a % of GDP. Importantly, the socialist empire to the north has not tasked itself with defending the free world, and it keeps a pretty tight lid on health care costs.
The do pretty good with what they have. We do not.
Canada’s government spending is about 11% of GDP.
Aggregating all levels of government spending, US and Canada are roughly the same as a % of GDP. Importantly, the socialist empire to the north has not tasked itself with defending the free world, and it keeps a pretty tight lid on health care costs.
The do pretty good with what they have. We do not.
Nah, it would demonstrate that 11% was too much.
I’ve stated that, IMO, the proper size for government is just big enough to prevent other countries from invading, or smaller protection rackets within the country growing up and displacing the large one. I don’t expect to see government this small within my lifetime, barring some highly speculative developments in medical technology.
Getting there would involve most people agreeing with me, and I’m under no illusion that they do, or will soon. The government does, after all, give itself the opportunity to engage in extended indoctrination of practically every child, during their formative years. That’s hard to beat, the government has practically made itself into your second mommy, and who rejects their mommy?
Further, there are no frontiers at the moment, the only unsettled continent is currently barred from colonization by existing governments, who don’t want any new entries to the club. So, there’s nowhere at the moment for people who want smaller government than the majority to go, to try it out.
I expect this to change when we get into space in a big way, in the latter part of this century. Then it will actually be possible to experiment with forms of government (And non-government!) again, and put these ideas to an empirical test.
And they might fail. As somebody said once of communism, “Nice theory, wrong species.”, maybe we’re the wrong species for minarchism, too.
I would, however, like to see it tried.
Nah, it would demonstrate that 11% was too much.
I’ve stated that, IMO, the proper size for government is just big enough to prevent other countries from invading, or smaller protection rackets within the country growing up and displacing the large one. I don’t expect to see government this small within my lifetime, barring some highly speculative developments in medical technology.
Getting there would involve most people agreeing with me, and I’m under no illusion that they do, or will soon. The government does, after all, give itself the opportunity to engage in extended indoctrination of practically every child, during their formative years. That’s hard to beat, the government has practically made itself into your second mommy, and who rejects their mommy?
Further, there are no frontiers at the moment, the only unsettled continent is currently barred from colonization by existing governments, who don’t want any new entries to the club. So, there’s nowhere at the moment for people who want smaller government than the majority to go, to try it out.
I expect this to change when we get into space in a big way, in the latter part of this century. Then it will actually be possible to experiment with forms of government (And non-government!) again, and put these ideas to an empirical test.
And they might fail. As somebody said once of communism, “Nice theory, wrong species.”, maybe we’re the wrong species for minarchism, too.
I would, however, like to see it tried.
So Brett suppose you managed to get sufficient like minded people elected to be in charge of the government, how would you propose to, say, transition the current system of public education to whatever your preferred system is (since you mentioned education)?
So Brett suppose you managed to get sufficient like minded people elected to be in charge of the government, how would you propose to, say, transition the current system of public education to whatever your preferred system is (since you mentioned education)?
I would, however, like to see it tried.
I feel the same way about a $15/hr minimum wage.
I would, however, like to see it tried.
I feel the same way about a $15/hr minimum wage.
the only unsettled continent is currently barred from colonization by existing governments, who don’t want any new entries to the club.
Do you really think there would be any demand to move to Antarctica if colonization were allowed? I’m really having trouble seeing any interest. Not to mention that the economics rather elude me.
Other places where people could arguably move to in order to get away from government in the past were places were someone could raise or hunt adequate food, find fuel for heating and cooking, gather materials for clothing and shelter, etc. But Antarctica? So how would that work, exactly? And what would they trade to the rest of the world in order to buy all the stuff that you have to have to survive there.
the only unsettled continent is currently barred from colonization by existing governments, who don’t want any new entries to the club.
Do you really think there would be any demand to move to Antarctica if colonization were allowed? I’m really having trouble seeing any interest. Not to mention that the economics rather elude me.
Other places where people could arguably move to in order to get away from government in the past were places were someone could raise or hunt adequate food, find fuel for heating and cooking, gather materials for clothing and shelter, etc. But Antarctica? So how would that work, exactly? And what would they trade to the rest of the world in order to buy all the stuff that you have to have to survive there.
I hear penguins are libertarians, but I still like the idea of Libertarians in Space more. There’s something randy about it.
I hear penguins are libertarians, but I still like the idea of Libertarians in Space more. There’s something randy about it.
“how would you propose to, say, transition the current system of public education to whatever your preferred system is (since you mentioned education)?”
The system of government education is doing a dandy job of driving people to transition, all on it’s own. Just by being so lousy and at times insane, that people are fleeing it. Really, the only thing keeping people in it right now, is that their money doesn’t follow them when they leave. So, I don’t think that’s a difficult transaction to accomplish.
“I feel the same way about a $15/hr minimum wage.”
I do tend to think there’s a difference between wanting to try NOT ordering people about, and wanting to try new, even more intrusive orders. But maybe that’s just me.
“how would you propose to, say, transition the current system of public education to whatever your preferred system is (since you mentioned education)?”
The system of government education is doing a dandy job of driving people to transition, all on it’s own. Just by being so lousy and at times insane, that people are fleeing it. Really, the only thing keeping people in it right now, is that their money doesn’t follow them when they leave. So, I don’t think that’s a difficult transaction to accomplish.
“I feel the same way about a $15/hr minimum wage.”
I do tend to think there’s a difference between wanting to try NOT ordering people about, and wanting to try new, even more intrusive orders. But maybe that’s just me.
Getting there would involve most people agreeing with me, and I’m under no illusion that they do, or will soon.
I feel your pain, buddy.
Do you really think there would be any demand to move to Antarctica if colonization were allowed?
I’m sure as hell not going there.
And I’m not all that crazy about flying in airplanes, let alone traveling through space.
Personally, I figure I’m stuck with making the best of what’s in front of me.
Getting there would involve most people agreeing with me, and I’m under no illusion that they do, or will soon.
I feel your pain, buddy.
Do you really think there would be any demand to move to Antarctica if colonization were allowed?
I’m sure as hell not going there.
And I’m not all that crazy about flying in airplanes, let alone traveling through space.
Personally, I figure I’m stuck with making the best of what’s in front of me.
“Do you really think there would be any demand to move to Antarctica if colonization were allowed?”
There are extensive mineral resources there, along with plenty of wind power. And people have colonized plenty of places that weren’t a walk in the park, just to have a chance to try out a different way of living. So, yes, I think if it were permitted, Antarctica would get colonized.
“Do you really think there would be any demand to move to Antarctica if colonization were allowed?”
There are extensive mineral resources there, along with plenty of wind power. And people have colonized plenty of places that weren’t a walk in the park, just to have a chance to try out a different way of living. So, yes, I think if it were permitted, Antarctica would get colonized.
I do tend to think there’s a difference between wanting to try NOT ordering people about, and wanting to try new, even more intrusive orders. But maybe that’s just me.
I agree. I was just thinking along the lines of seeing if it would work or not, in the same way you want to try minarchism, acknowleging that it might not work.
But you could posit that minarchism requires that people not organize in ways that we currently describe as “governments” of one kind or another, so you’re still left with ordering people about. Someone somehow has to keep people from doing what, as russell has noted many times already, people have tended to do throughout human history, once the population in question reaches a certain critical mass.
This free will is tricky business.
I do tend to think there’s a difference between wanting to try NOT ordering people about, and wanting to try new, even more intrusive orders. But maybe that’s just me.
I agree. I was just thinking along the lines of seeing if it would work or not, in the same way you want to try minarchism, acknowleging that it might not work.
But you could posit that minarchism requires that people not organize in ways that we currently describe as “governments” of one kind or another, so you’re still left with ordering people about. Someone somehow has to keep people from doing what, as russell has noted many times already, people have tended to do throughout human history, once the population in question reaches a certain critical mass.
This free will is tricky business.
People have certainly colonized places which were challenging. But nowhere that was nearly as challenging as Antarctica. The closest I can think of would be Greenland. And even there, it was possible to do some little bit of agriculture at the time; when it got colder, the colony failed.
And note that the settlement there came with a government structure from the beginning. Places which got settled by individuals, not already in a structured group, were far more hospitable.
What might well happen, if Antarctica were thrown open, would be a few company-run settlements for mineral exploration (seriously heirarchical, run from elsewhere). And maybe some science research stations like are already there (also run from elsewhere, and dependent economically on those remote bosses).
If there is any way for an individual (or very small group of like-minded people) to move there and set up, I’m not seeing it. Note that if some wealthy individual or individual offers to sponsor them (or join them), they automatially becomes the autocrat/aristocracy. And if everybody is all wealthy enough to self-sponsor, they are probably well past the ideal age for colonization.
People have certainly colonized places which were challenging. But nowhere that was nearly as challenging as Antarctica. The closest I can think of would be Greenland. And even there, it was possible to do some little bit of agriculture at the time; when it got colder, the colony failed.
And note that the settlement there came with a government structure from the beginning. Places which got settled by individuals, not already in a structured group, were far more hospitable.
What might well happen, if Antarctica were thrown open, would be a few company-run settlements for mineral exploration (seriously heirarchical, run from elsewhere). And maybe some science research stations like are already there (also run from elsewhere, and dependent economically on those remote bosses).
If there is any way for an individual (or very small group of like-minded people) to move there and set up, I’m not seeing it. Note that if some wealthy individual or individual offers to sponsor them (or join them), they automatially becomes the autocrat/aristocracy. And if everybody is all wealthy enough to self-sponsor, they are probably well past the ideal age for colonization.
There are still people on Greenland, some 50K+ of them. On the biggest island in the world, which I guess makes it bigger than Australia.
But, there is a government, and lots of rules and regulations.
Very cool flag, though.
There are still people on Greenland, some 50K+ of them. On the biggest island in the world, which I guess makes it bigger than Australia.
But, there is a government, and lots of rules and regulations.
Very cool flag, though.
Brett: The system of government education is doing a dandy job of driving people to transition, all on it’s own. Just by being so lousy and at times insane, that people are fleeing it. Really, the only thing keeping people in it right now, is that their money doesn’t follow them when they leave. So, I don’t think that’s a difficult transaction to accomplish.
“Their” money? Interesting concept.
Brett: The system of government education is doing a dandy job of driving people to transition, all on it’s own. Just by being so lousy and at times insane, that people are fleeing it. Really, the only thing keeping people in it right now, is that their money doesn’t follow them when they leave. So, I don’t think that’s a difficult transaction to accomplish.
“Their” money? Interesting concept.
Australia vs Greenland:
Australia vs Greenland:
Antarctica is inhospitable as hell. And it’s so cold that ordinary tools will shatter like glass.
I would not be a colonist volunteer. Growing your own food would be a major challenge. Plus: 30 days of night. If there’s one thing I can’t stand about the South Pole, it’s all the damned vampires.
Antarctica is inhospitable as hell. And it’s so cold that ordinary tools will shatter like glass.
I would not be a colonist volunteer. Growing your own food would be a major challenge. Plus: 30 days of night. If there’s one thing I can’t stand about the South Pole, it’s all the damned vampires.
thanks for the correction slarti. it was my inference, obviously incorrect.
still a big patch for 50K people, though.
Antarctica is inhospitable as hell.
Yes, I suspect there’s a reason it remains the only unsettled continent.
thanks for the correction slarti. it was my inference, obviously incorrect.
still a big patch for 50K people, though.
Antarctica is inhospitable as hell.
Yes, I suspect there’s a reason it remains the only unsettled continent.
Yes, I suspect there’s a reason it remains the only unsettled continent.
One World Government prevents it … you know, to quash competition from minarchists.
Yes, I suspect there’s a reason it remains the only unsettled continent.
One World Government prevents it … you know, to quash competition from minarchists.
as soon as global warming melts all that pesky ice off it, all the self-reliant manarchists will flock there to set up Galt’s Moraine Field. i’m sure of it.
as soon as global warming melts all that pesky ice off it, all the self-reliant manarchists will flock there to set up Galt’s Moraine Field. i’m sure of it.
it’s not due to sheer remoteness, antarctica is about 600 miles from the tip of south america, and about 1200 from australia.
and there are lots of islands between antarctica and the other continents, to provide stepping-stones on the way to discovery and habitation, if that were desired.
easter island, by comparison, is a mere 2000+ miles off the coast of chile. and, somehow or other, folks found there way there.
sometimes there’s a really good reason why something is the way it is.
it’s not due to sheer remoteness, antarctica is about 600 miles from the tip of south america, and about 1200 from australia.
and there are lots of islands between antarctica and the other continents, to provide stepping-stones on the way to discovery and habitation, if that were desired.
easter island, by comparison, is a mere 2000+ miles off the coast of chile. and, somehow or other, folks found there way there.
sometimes there’s a really good reason why something is the way it is.
Right, right, the Antarctic Treaty has nothing to do with it.
Right, right, the Antarctic Treaty has nothing to do with it.
I would not be a colonist volunteer.
One of the most interesting guys I know is a friend of a friend who has, at various times, lived in Antarctica, netted mountain goats from a chopper to tag them, went to a small agricultural college, worked on a forest fire crew, and I’m probably forgetting some things.
I see him once every couple of years and, damn, the stories that man has.
But he really enjoyed Antarctica.
I would not be a colonist volunteer.
One of the most interesting guys I know is a friend of a friend who has, at various times, lived in Antarctica, netted mountain goats from a chopper to tag them, went to a small agricultural college, worked on a forest fire crew, and I’m probably forgetting some things.
I see him once every couple of years and, damn, the stories that man has.
But he really enjoyed Antarctica.
Ben …. Ben. I have one word for you. Just one word ….. Avocados.
Ben: Just exactly how do you mean, sir?
There’s a great future in avocados grown in Antarctica. Just think about it. Will you do that for me?
Ben: Yes, sir.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSxihhBzCjk
Ben …. Ben. I have one word for you. Just one word ….. Avocados.
Ben: Just exactly how do you mean, sir?
There’s a great future in avocados grown in Antarctica. Just think about it. Will you do that for me?
Ben: Yes, sir.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PSxihhBzCjk
The reason Antarctica is largely uninhabited is that governments got there before the technology to live in some kind of comfort did.
The reason Antarctica is largely uninhabited is that governments got there before the technology to live in some kind of comfort did.
Right, right, the Antarctic Treaty has nothing to do with it.
I’m making this reply partly just to see if we can set a new record for “most bizarre topic to jack a thread”. We’ve already been down the alien space bat path once or twice, let’s see what we can do with “why don’t humans live in Antarctica?”
Here goes:
Brett, you are aware that the Antarctic Treaty dates from 1959, right?
And that human habitation on every other continent dates from millenia before that?
And that many of even the most remote islands on earth have been settled by humans since, like, hundreds or thousands of years ago?
So, given all of that, doesn’t it strike you that, perhaps, there are reasons other than the Antarctic Treaty for the remarkable lack of human settlement on Antarctica? And not just since 1959, but *ever*?
I mean, if we’re going to argue cause and effect, doesn’t the cause have to precede the effect?
I got five bucks that says we’ll get 50 comments out this. Just because it’s ObWi.
Right, right, the Antarctic Treaty has nothing to do with it.
I’m making this reply partly just to see if we can set a new record for “most bizarre topic to jack a thread”. We’ve already been down the alien space bat path once or twice, let’s see what we can do with “why don’t humans live in Antarctica?”
Here goes:
Brett, you are aware that the Antarctic Treaty dates from 1959, right?
And that human habitation on every other continent dates from millenia before that?
And that many of even the most remote islands on earth have been settled by humans since, like, hundreds or thousands of years ago?
So, given all of that, doesn’t it strike you that, perhaps, there are reasons other than the Antarctic Treaty for the remarkable lack of human settlement on Antarctica? And not just since 1959, but *ever*?
I mean, if we’re going to argue cause and effect, doesn’t the cause have to precede the effect?
I got five bucks that says we’ll get 50 comments out this. Just because it’s ObWi.
people have lived above the arctic circle for a long time.
we’re just soft these days.
maybe the free-willers could settle on Bouvet Island. show us the power of freedom. i think Norway owns it, but they don’t do anything with it.
people have lived above the arctic circle for a long time.
we’re just soft these days.
maybe the free-willers could settle on Bouvet Island. show us the power of freedom. i think Norway owns it, but they don’t do anything with it.
There’s also a great number of countries that aren’t signatories to the Antarctic Treaty.
There’s also a great number of countries that aren’t signatories to the Antarctic Treaty.
There are still people on Greenland, some 50K+ of them.
And they are there on the back of a distant country (Denmark) — $580 million per year, last I looked. Which, per capita, comes to . . . .
But I was referring to the Norse colonies originally established there. I.e. without the sort of oclonial support (and control) we have seen in the past couple of centuries. Those colonies suffered seriously when the climate got a little colder and they could no longer grow their own food.
If you can’t grow food, you have to sell something so you can buy it. And you have to sell more, so you can buy all the other stuff that you need in order to live in a harsh climate.
The demand for penguin pelts is limited (and nobody is offering to buy ice), so you have to go with minerals. Which, other than oil, you would have to dig out from under the ice — running up the mining costs prohibitively. Unless you have an enormous amount of oil, and it is relatively cheap to extract, you have no chance.
There are still people on Greenland, some 50K+ of them.
And they are there on the back of a distant country (Denmark) — $580 million per year, last I looked. Which, per capita, comes to . . . .
But I was referring to the Norse colonies originally established there. I.e. without the sort of oclonial support (and control) we have seen in the past couple of centuries. Those colonies suffered seriously when the climate got a little colder and they could no longer grow their own food.
If you can’t grow food, you have to sell something so you can buy it. And you have to sell more, so you can buy all the other stuff that you need in order to live in a harsh climate.
The demand for penguin pelts is limited (and nobody is offering to buy ice), so you have to go with minerals. Which, other than oil, you would have to dig out from under the ice — running up the mining costs prohibitively. Unless you have an enormous amount of oil, and it is relatively cheap to extract, you have no chance.
russell, you aren’t winning any sucker bets here today. Sorry.
russell, you aren’t winning any sucker bets here today. Sorry.
maybe the free-willers could settle on Bouvet Island.
There’s a whole long list of antarctic and sub-antarctic islands, many if not most of them currently uninhabited.
They aren’t very big, but they might suit for a demonstration project.
More seriously, if you want to try to set up some kind of libertarian republic, IMO your best bet is New Hampshire.
russell, you aren’t winning any sucker bets here today.
hey, it was worth a try. 🙂
maybe the free-willers could settle on Bouvet Island.
There’s a whole long list of antarctic and sub-antarctic islands, many if not most of them currently uninhabited.
They aren’t very big, but they might suit for a demonstration project.
More seriously, if you want to try to set up some kind of libertarian republic, IMO your best bet is New Hampshire.
russell, you aren’t winning any sucker bets here today.
hey, it was worth a try. 🙂
New Hampshire as a libertarian area? And yet Vermot, which is right next door, has a Senator who describes himself as a socialist. And keeps getting reelected. Hmmm…..
New Hampshire as a libertarian area? And yet Vermot, which is right next door, has a Senator who describes himself as a socialist. And keeps getting reelected. Hmmm…..
New Hampshire
New Hampshire
New Hampshire
Yes, it’s next to Vermont, and Massachusetts, and Maine, and Quebec for that matter.
Has nothing to do with the culture of NH.
Live free or die, y’all.
New Hampshire
New Hampshire
New Hampshire
Yes, it’s next to Vermont, and Massachusetts, and Maine, and Quebec for that matter.
Has nothing to do with the culture of NH.
Live free or die, y’all.
I was hoping for a longish thread on space travel for colonization “by the end of the century”.
If this counts, it’s #8.
I was hoping for a longish thread on space travel for colonization “by the end of the century”.
If this counts, it’s #8.
This thread is both taxing and J-shaped.
This thread is both taxing and J-shaped.
The only way Brett’s prediction comes true (beyond LEO, which it would need to be) is that either
– someone finds a really, really valuable resource out there. One which can be shipped back here profitably. (Of course, the only way such a thing would be found is via a government-funded exploration mission.)
– some country decides, for whatever reason, to spend enormous tax dollars in order to “plant the flag” somewhere. Which probably requires them first abrogating the current treaty which forbids any country to do so on the moon.
Because the up-front costs are otherwise prohibitive. Even if you are Bill Gates or Warren Buffett, no private individual is going to be able to fund it. It’s straining the resources of the billionaires who are working on it, just to develop a private launch capability to LEO. Going beyond there….
Am I the only one who notices a distinctly non-libertarian pattern here?
The only way Brett’s prediction comes true (beyond LEO, which it would need to be) is that either
– someone finds a really, really valuable resource out there. One which can be shipped back here profitably. (Of course, the only way such a thing would be found is via a government-funded exploration mission.)
– some country decides, for whatever reason, to spend enormous tax dollars in order to “plant the flag” somewhere. Which probably requires them first abrogating the current treaty which forbids any country to do so on the moon.
Because the up-front costs are otherwise prohibitive. Even if you are Bill Gates or Warren Buffett, no private individual is going to be able to fund it. It’s straining the resources of the billionaires who are working on it, just to develop a private launch capability to LEO. Going beyond there….
Am I the only one who notices a distinctly non-libertarian pattern here?
As long as we ARE humoring Brett, I would like to hear his ideas on how a minarchist space station, or Moon base, or Mars settlement, would deal with light bulbs, chicken coops, wood stoves, and so forth. Not to mention guns, of course.
Earth is a spaceship. It’s a humongous spaceship, but Brett’s brand of Liberty in Space could surely be scaled up — if it works.
–TP
As long as we ARE humoring Brett, I would like to hear his ideas on how a minarchist space station, or Moon base, or Mars settlement, would deal with light bulbs, chicken coops, wood stoves, and so forth. Not to mention guns, of course.
Earth is a spaceship. It’s a humongous spaceship, but Brett’s brand of Liberty in Space could surely be scaled up — if it works.
–TP
“As long as we ARE humoring Brett, I would like to hear his ideas on how a minarchist space station, or Moon base, or Mars settlement, would deal with light bulbs, chicken coops, wood stoves, and so forth.”
You know, part of the point of not being a control freak is that you DON’T have to micro-manage. And it misses the point of not having a command economy if you demand a detailed plan.
“As long as we ARE humoring Brett, I would like to hear his ideas on how a minarchist space station, or Moon base, or Mars settlement, would deal with light bulbs, chicken coops, wood stoves, and so forth.”
You know, part of the point of not being a control freak is that you DON’T have to micro-manage. And it misses the point of not having a command economy if you demand a detailed plan.
Conversation among libertarian settlers as they arrive on Mars:
L1: Anyone bring lightbulbs?
L2: I have an old incandescent in my space pack.
L1: Just one? I thought the plan was to use LEDs.
L3: The plan was to NOT have a plan. Plan free or die is my motto. I don’t know why I have to keep micromanaging our goal of not micromanaging.
L1: So what do we do about light. Anyone?
L4: God said, let there be light.
L5: I’m an objectivist atheist and your God-bothering offends me.
L2: Who asked the Randian along on the Christian Libertarian space camp outing is what I’d like to know? Get your own settlement.
L1: Alright, pipe down. Did the non-plan plan include provision of a generator, since we’re talking light. And whatta bout heat?
L3: Control freak!
L1: Minarchist! Who’s got the firewood?
L6: We’re fully nuclear.
L3: Who said? You’re not the boss of me either.
L7: I’m hungry. L1, did you bring the chickens like we talked about in the planning meeting?
L1: Shhh …. don’t …..
L3 and L2, in block harmony: Planning meeting? Why don’t we just call up the f*cking United Nations?
L1: As it happens, I don’t care for chicken. I brought kale, but only enough for moi, since we planned in the planning meeting that each of us would pack a lunch for ourselves and then something would develop.
L7: I brought a gun. Maybe we could shoot a Martian chicken?
L3: We all brought guns, and ammo. That’s one reason we had trouble escaping the Earth’s atmosphere, the sheer weight of the payload. Plus, you never know if there might be hijackers on board. It’s the only thing we could agree on upfront.
L1: There are no Martians and there are no Martian chickens, but we have out guns.
They all look at one another.
Conversation among libertarian settlers as they arrive on Mars:
L1: Anyone bring lightbulbs?
L2: I have an old incandescent in my space pack.
L1: Just one? I thought the plan was to use LEDs.
L3: The plan was to NOT have a plan. Plan free or die is my motto. I don’t know why I have to keep micromanaging our goal of not micromanaging.
L1: So what do we do about light. Anyone?
L4: God said, let there be light.
L5: I’m an objectivist atheist and your God-bothering offends me.
L2: Who asked the Randian along on the Christian Libertarian space camp outing is what I’d like to know? Get your own settlement.
L1: Alright, pipe down. Did the non-plan plan include provision of a generator, since we’re talking light. And whatta bout heat?
L3: Control freak!
L1: Minarchist! Who’s got the firewood?
L6: We’re fully nuclear.
L3: Who said? You’re not the boss of me either.
L7: I’m hungry. L1, did you bring the chickens like we talked about in the planning meeting?
L1: Shhh …. don’t …..
L3 and L2, in block harmony: Planning meeting? Why don’t we just call up the f*cking United Nations?
L1: As it happens, I don’t care for chicken. I brought kale, but only enough for moi, since we planned in the planning meeting that each of us would pack a lunch for ourselves and then something would develop.
L7: I brought a gun. Maybe we could shoot a Martian chicken?
L3: We all brought guns, and ammo. That’s one reason we had trouble escaping the Earth’s atmosphere, the sheer weight of the payload. Plus, you never know if there might be hijackers on board. It’s the only thing we could agree on upfront.
L1: There are no Martians and there are no Martian chickens, but we have out guns.
They all look at one another.
You do know the difference between “not having a plan”, and “not imposing a plan from above at gun point”?
I suppose you figure that, every year crops get planted, because of orders issued by the department of agriculture? And, that if they forgot to order X number of acres planted in okra, that year nobody would get to eat gumbo?
Do you get up every morning to go to work, because of a wakeup call from the department of labor?
You do know the difference between “not having a plan”, and “not imposing a plan from above at gun point”?
I suppose you figure that, every year crops get planted, because of orders issued by the department of agriculture? And, that if they forgot to order X number of acres planted in okra, that year nobody would get to eat gumbo?
Do you get up every morning to go to work, because of a wakeup call from the department of labor?
I say it’s worth a try.
The Free State Project folks are giving it a go in NH, although even that bulwark of “don’t tread on me” has its share of intrusive nanny-statisms.
There’s gotta be some isolated, off-the-grid patch of Nevada or Utah or Idaho that some critical mass of libertarians could occupy and show us all how it’s done.
I’m skeptical that things would turn out they way they think, but I’m always open to pleasant surprises.
Get your buddies and take your shot, Brett. Or, if not Brett specifically, somebody.
Show us all how it’s done.
I say it’s worth a try.
The Free State Project folks are giving it a go in NH, although even that bulwark of “don’t tread on me” has its share of intrusive nanny-statisms.
There’s gotta be some isolated, off-the-grid patch of Nevada or Utah or Idaho that some critical mass of libertarians could occupy and show us all how it’s done.
I’m skeptical that things would turn out they way they think, but I’m always open to pleasant surprises.
Get your buddies and take your shot, Brett. Or, if not Brett specifically, somebody.
Show us all how it’s done.
or, just move here:
do it
or, just move here:
do it
Count, that was hysterical! ROTFLMAO
Count, that was hysterical! ROTFLMAO
‘You do know the difference between “not having a plan”, and “not imposing a plan from above at gun point”?’
And, you do know the difference between a loose affiliation of heavily armed poseur crackpots “not having a plan” an an unarmed agricultural extension agent from the government suggesting a planting regime for next Spring’s crops to farmers in a representative democracy?
Or is that too much gray for you? You like the primary colors, black and white, I guess.
Aww, humor is wasted on the earnest, literalist libertarians. 😉
By the way, I had to take my son to the airport, else I would have included an L8 who raises his hand and says he thought this was the Antarctica excursion, and now you’re telling me it’s Mars? The brochure was not properly worded, or punctuated, libertarians always inserting those feral commas in their pronouncements.
He’d like his money back, but since the good offices of rudimentary government and certainly no attorneys were invited along (by what reasoning would libertarians believe a limited invitation list excluding certain individuals would be just, let alone consistent with their philosophy, since freedom for all is the deal here?), he’s going to have his hands full with this armed bunch.
Russell wrote:
“The Free State Project folks are giving it a go in NH, although even that bulwark of “don’t tread on me” has its share of intrusive nanny-statisms.”
Ack, they remind of this, not that I’m any different than the Brando character:
http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/video/339145/Wild-One-The-Movie-Clip-Whadda-Ya-Got-.html
I suppose the interlopers believe they are going to impose their ideology by majority rule.
And enforce it how?
‘You do know the difference between “not having a plan”, and “not imposing a plan from above at gun point”?’
And, you do know the difference between a loose affiliation of heavily armed poseur crackpots “not having a plan” an an unarmed agricultural extension agent from the government suggesting a planting regime for next Spring’s crops to farmers in a representative democracy?
Or is that too much gray for you? You like the primary colors, black and white, I guess.
Aww, humor is wasted on the earnest, literalist libertarians. 😉
By the way, I had to take my son to the airport, else I would have included an L8 who raises his hand and says he thought this was the Antarctica excursion, and now you’re telling me it’s Mars? The brochure was not properly worded, or punctuated, libertarians always inserting those feral commas in their pronouncements.
He’d like his money back, but since the good offices of rudimentary government and certainly no attorneys were invited along (by what reasoning would libertarians believe a limited invitation list excluding certain individuals would be just, let alone consistent with their philosophy, since freedom for all is the deal here?), he’s going to have his hands full with this armed bunch.
Russell wrote:
“The Free State Project folks are giving it a go in NH, although even that bulwark of “don’t tread on me” has its share of intrusive nanny-statisms.”
Ack, they remind of this, not that I’m any different than the Brando character:
http://www.tcm.com/mediaroom/video/339145/Wild-One-The-Movie-Clip-Whadda-Ya-Got-.html
I suppose the interlopers believe they are going to impose their ideology by majority rule.
And enforce it how?
And enforce it how?
self-evident a priori truths and teleological certainty enforces itself through the power of reason and enlightened self-interest. and guns. lots of guns.
but no violence.
And enforce it how?
self-evident a priori truths and teleological certainty enforces itself through the power of reason and enlightened self-interest. and guns. lots of guns.
but no violence.
Why use an existent territory? Launch Jules Verne’s Propeller Island (do not use an English edition of that book. It got heavily bowdlerized in order not to offend American sensibilities. The English wikipedia entry also leaves out the juicy bits).
Libertaria would be a rich (male) guy project in any case.
Why use an existent territory? Launch Jules Verne’s Propeller Island (do not use an English edition of that book. It got heavily bowdlerized in order not to offend American sensibilities. The English wikipedia entry also leaves out the juicy bits).
Libertaria would be a rich (male) guy project in any case.