|
I agree with Jayx1! (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| PivotTechno |
| quote: | Originally posted by VDub
I love reading Jay's arguments...
Pivot I appreciate that you and I are on the same page when it comes to music...
On this issue, however, we aren't even in the same book... |
Jay and I are of the same mind in that we both agree that current government is doing a lousy job of steering the ship.
We just differ on what the solution is. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by PivotTechno
Jay and I are of the same mind in that we both agree that current government is doing a lousy job of steering the ship.
We just differ on what the solution is. |
if you think the government is doing a lousy job, why on earth would you want to give them even more work to do? (and more power?) |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by PivotTechno
So your libertarianism doesn't include any environmental considerations? Just let the cards fall where they may? |
In a sense, yes. Believe it or not, most people (if not all) starting making changes in favour of the environment, or whatever the cause de jour is on their own accord. Not because they are forced or coerced to.
When consumers demand, companies react.
It wasnt the government that forced mcdonalds in the 80s to abandon styrofoam packaging. That was entirely due to consumer demand based on new research done on CFCs at the time.
Its amazing what the free market can achieve on its own! |
|
|
| The Potter |
| quote: | Originally posted by PivotTechno
You know, the more I think about it, the more I agree with Jayx1's assertion that government is paying far too much attention to the needs of a select few. Their constant bowing to the sniveling and complaining of special interest groups is ruining it for the rest of us and something needs to be done about it sooner than later.
With that in mind I think it's high time that government removes the majority of household motor vehicles from the road and leaves this particular minority (and car owners are a minority - less than 10% of the world's population owns a motorised vehicle) to figure out an alternate means to get around.
Thanks to the neverending needs of car owners, we now have another major spill in the Gulf of Mexico, one that is leaking 1000 barrels a day into the ocean and endangering a large wildlife reserve on the Louisiana coast. Time and time again, the needs of those few who constantly petition for their "right" (and regardless of what the books say, owning a car isn't a right, it's a privilege) to drive a car contribute to the degradation of the planet by both the industry that they fuel and their own selfish habits. This minority group of car owners can deflect ("yeah, but what about plastic bags and like that?"), distract ("I shouldn't have to give up my car, "they" need to come up with an alternate fuel source") and plead ignorance (" you , I'm not doing anything wrong!") until they're blue in the face, but their implication in this is undeniable.
So Jay, over time you've convinced me and I'm totally with you on this one - enough with trying to please everyone, we have to start taking a cold, hard looks at what's best for the greater good and stop pandering to a handful of whiners who think that they somehow deserve preferential treatment over everyone else, and are completely oblivious to the very real and obvious consequences of their actions.
Thanks. |
Bravo, I have to commend you for gumption!
I can at least relate to the spirit of your argument, without ascertaining the veracity of the statistics that you use. Sentiments like yours may not be popular, as can be evidenced by the replies on here; however, if the kicking and screaming continues unabated, and people are not willing to at least make incremental changes in their habits, more radical and drastic adjustments may be in the offing in the future.
By the way, as with the moral underpinning about murder laws, my liberty should be regulated when my actions harm others. Criminal laws provide a deterrence against such injustices. Using an economics comparison that good ol' Milton Friedman should be proud of, it is necessary to internalise the negative externality/external cost arising from the individual's rational and utility-maximising/selfish actions, by making them personally responsible for the spillover effects, in terms of the costs imposed on others.
With regard to criminal acts, the only process by which the externality can enter the individual's decision set is through the government involvement and the imposition of a sanction, as an adequate capitalist/market-based solution has yet to be demonstrated; the same strategy should apply to addressing the moral issue of negative and harmful externalities that result from the consumption of fossil fuels, as once again, it is not possible to create market-centred solutions to deter people from impinging on the liberties of others. |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by The Potter
Bravo, I have to commend you for gumption!
I can at least relate to the spirit of your argument, without ascertaining the veracity of the statistics that you use. Sentiments like yours may not be popular, as can be evidenced by the replies on here; however, if the kicking and screaming continues unabated, and people are not willing to at least make incremental changes in their habits, more radical and drastic adjustments may be in the offing in the future.
By the way, as with the moral underpinning about murder laws, my liberty should be regulated when my actions harm others. Criminal laws provide a deterrence against such injustices. Using an economics comparison that good ol' Milton Friedman should be proud of, it is necessary to internalise the negative externality/external cost arising from the individual's rational and utility-maximising/selfish actions, by making them personally responsible for the spillover effects, in terms of the costs imposed on others.
With regard to criminal acts, the only process by which the externality can enter the individual's decision set is through the government involvement and the imposition of a sanction, as an adequate capitalist/market-based solution has yet to be demonstrated; the same strategy should apply to addressing the moral issue of negative and harmful externalities that result from the consumption of fossil fuels, as once again, it is not possible to create market-centred solutions to deter people from impinging on the liberties of others. |
so who determines the threshold of acceptable impact? Obviously when you shoot someone u have a direct hand in killing them. The problem is when this is applied to 2nd party, 3rd party and 4th party causation and so on.
In dictatorships the decision lies with the dictator. And the country has to bow to his idea what is acceptable. Is this what you want? Otherwise what is the threshold? |
|
|
| Halycon |
 |
|
|
| Kamka |
| quote: | Originally posted by cammaxwell
Now what about the argument that this way of producing organic meat is actually more harmful to the environment? In the fact that it takes much more land, more resources, to produce smaller quantities over a longer period of time?
I've heard people argue that if all of our food was produced organically that the world would starve because we couldn't produce enough food. |
??? |
|
|
| Kamka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
Seems like you are well informed yet continue to make the choice to eat meat. Similar to the judgement i make when choosing which mode of transport to use.
Very interesting |
But he just said earlier that he consumes meat which is locally produced "in green pastures" - that means that the negative impact on the environment of the production of this meat is downgraded substantially - one of the ways that cattle and other farmed animals contribute to CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere is if they are industrially farmed, housed in large warehouse type buildings where their breath, waste etc. accumulates in such large quantities that it becomes methane gas (if I understand it correctly) - therefore, by choosing to consume meat from an animal that was not industrially farmed, he is not in fact supporting the damage to the environment that you are mentioning.
Aren't you being a little selective and un-objective in the responses and your arguments back to Pivot? |
|
|
| Kamka |
| quote: | Originally posted by LightsOut
2 billion people would starve...
|
Humans also can't be multiplying forever in an exponential manner, as has been the case in the latter half of the twentieth century (and continuing in the 21st). There are limits to the planet's resources and capabilities and in order to maintain and preserve the delicate balance of our natural ecosystems, we should try to limit our propensity to reproduce and multiply exponentially. It's in everyone's best interest (that includes humans and other living animal and plant species). |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kamka
But he just said earlier that he consumes meat which is locally produced "in green pastures" - that means that the negative impact on the environment of the production of this meat is downgraded substantially - one of the ways that cattle and other farmed animals contribute to CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere is if they are industrially farmed, housed in large warehouse type buildings where their breath, waste etc. accumulates in such large quantities that it becomes methane gas (if I understand it correctly) - therefore, by choosing to consume meat from an animal that was not industrially farmed, he is not in fact supporting the damage to the environment that you are mentioning. |
one could argue that eating any kind of meat puts undue strain on the environment since all that grain and energy that is put into the food could go right to the table. But others would agree with what you just stated. Its all a matter of where one puts their threshold of acceptance.
| quote: | | Aren't you being a little selective and un-objective in the responses and your arguments back to Pivot? |
no.. it's called playing the devil's advocate ;) |
|
|
| Jayx1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Kamka
Humans also can't be multiplying forever in an exponential manner, as has been the case in the latter half of the twentieth century (and continuing in the 21st). There are limits to the planet's resources and capabilities and in order to maintain and preserve the delicate balance of our natural ecosystems, we should try to limit our propensity to reproduce and multiply exponentially. It's in everyone's best interest (that includes humans and other living animal and plant species). |
i take it you dont plan on having kids then? |
|
|
| Kamka |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jayx1
i take it you dont plan on having kids then? |
I knew you were gonna say that... I just knew that this type of argument will come up as a response to my statement. You only forgot (or did not want to :))to include the suggestion about someone killing themselves to reduce the current population levels that there are.
No, I do plan on having children in the future eventually (if possible). The difference is that I don't plan to have an (unreasonably) large number of children (i.e. four and up). Two children / two parents (makes sense from the biological and mathematical viewpoint, no?) does not make the population increase grow at all in the long run, never mind exponentially. |
|
|
|
|
