2010:warmest year ever since records began

[MSimon]

Its about 60/40 "wallet extraction scheme" vs "I'm very worried and SOMETHING must be done".


Me? I have consulted the Oracle of China and he says "we will be burning so much coal soon that nothing you can possibly do including mass suicide will help. We have 1.3 billion people to bring into the 21st Century."

And in a whispered aside he told me, "Cripple yourselves suckers."

[rj40]

I heard a report on NPR several months back where they are interviewing a delegate to a climate summit. His comment is something like:

"You have polluted for years and now you must pay. Now you must pay!!! Weeeeeee!"

I have looked for it online, but cannot find it.

OK, I put in the Weeeee part myself.

But I could almost see the huge grin on his face. Very happy sounding person. Until the summit failed to turn out much of anything but hot air.

[Diogenes]

So what is the consensus of the folks on this board as to why the notion of human induced global warming is being pushed despite all the apparent evidence against it?

It's an excuse for a power grab. For those who wish to rule, nothing is more compelling than exercising massive power while lecturing others about their lack of Morality, and why they are better people than you are, and therefore deserving to rule.

[MSimon]

So what is the consensus of the folks on this board as to why the notion of human induced global warming is being pushed despite all the apparent evidence against it?

It's an excuse for a power grab. For those who wish to rule, nothing is more compelling than exercising massive power while lecturing others about their lack of Morality, and why they are better people than you are, and therefore deserving to rule.

Ah. So you have changed your mind on Drug Prohibition?

[WizWom]

So what is the consensus of the folks on this board as to why the notion of human induced global warming is being pushed despite all the apparent evidence against it?

Money. There is big money to be made in solving a problem. And its safer if the problem doesn't exist.

[Diogenes]

So what is the consensus of the folks on this board as to why the notion of human induced global warming is being pushed despite all the apparent evidence against it?

It's an excuse for a power grab. For those who wish to rule, nothing is more compelling than exercising massive power while lecturing others about their lack of Morality, and why they are better people than you are, and therefore deserving to rule.

Ah. So you have changed your mind on Drug Prohibition?

The Scale is not equivalent (Junkie dollars vs World Economy) the Nature of the threat is not equivalent (Known deaths and wrecked lives vs Theorized and ill defined consequences) And the morality is not equivalent. (Provable damage to innocents vs pseudo echo-worship feel goodism)

The war on drugs is no more a power grab than is any other law, and it targets a specific strain of malefactors. It is the result of a widespread consensus that the use of narcotics is harmful to the best interests of society because narcotics have a long track record of death and calamity stretching far back in history.

I do not see them as equivalent in any meaningful way.

[MSimon]

Ah. Yes. I see now. Drugs are more like alcohol being such a dire threat that giving the distribution of such items over to criminals is the only way the threat can be controlled.

When you explain it like that it makes a lot more sense.

Only government can prevent people from harming themselves by doing things like overeating or taking drugs. Or any number of harmful things that should be (and probably will soon be) outlawed.

Now I was under the impression that a certain religious leader of long ago tried to make the point that government was not a very good vehicle for encouraging morality. Fortunately folks no longer pay that ancient teaching any mind. The fasces of government have replaced the loving hearts of believers. Which is as it should be.

It's an excuse for a power grab. For those who wish to rule, nothing is more compelling than exercising massive power while lecturing others about their lack of Morality, and why they are better people than you are, and therefore deserving to rule.

There is no problem so complex that it can not be solved by force and if that doesn't work mass murder. Ah. But you will not go as far as mass murder? That would be wrong. Then why even start? The criminals need the business? I can buy that.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... scism.html

As bad as the liberals are doing politically in America the conservatives are not held in much higher esteem. Could it be that Americans (in general)are no fonder of moral crusades (moral and scientific panics are becoming harder to generate) than they are of economic crusades?

Liberty is messy. People do things that revolt me (like listen to rap music). But I'd rather suffer the ills of a free country than suffer the ills of one with billions of rules. You know - a secular kind of Islam.

=====

Now if we sold drugs the way we do beer, drugs would be as hard for kids to get as beer. Which would have two effects:

1. Improve the current situation
2. Defund the criminals

Adults? You can hardly keep them from doing anything stupid. Some of them like to jump out of perfectly good airplanes while the aircraft are still flying. Some one could get hurt. Or killed.

[bcglorf]

Now if we sold drugs the way we do beer, drugs would be as hard for kids to get as beer.

Last I checked, kids had much more ready access to beer and alcohol than to illegal narcotics. Last I checked, legal alcohol had killed countless more people than illegal narcotics. You point to that and declare it is proof that narcotics are less dangerous than alcohol. The counter argument is to declare that exact same statistic proof that legalization is far more dangerous.

[Diogenes]

Ah. Yes. I see now. Drugs are more like alcohol being such a dire threat that giving the distribution of such items over to criminals is the only way the threat can be controlled.

For some reason I OFTEN have to make this point on various issues with various people.

The outcome is the unintended consequence of the action, not its purpose.

An example: Suppose I have the windows on my car rolled up and my wife says, "You rolled those windows up so I would burn my butt on the seat!" I respond, No, I rolled the windows up to keep the dust out of the interior, burning your butt was not my purpose, it was the unaviodable and unintended consequence of my action.

Criminals are not "Given" the distribution of drugs. They become criminals by doing it, and in any case, the intent is that drugs are not distributed, not to empower criminals. That result is an unintended consequence.

When you explain it like that it makes a lot more sense.

Only government can prevent people from harming themselves by doing things like overeating or taking drugs. Or any number of harmful things that should be (and probably will soon be) outlawed.

The threshold of libertarian tolerance, (and common sense) is "if it harm none." The problem is, it doesn't. Addicts rob and steal, and rely on other people to feed and clothe them because all they want to do is get high.

You getting fat only harms other people if they have to pay to feed and clothe you because you are too fat to work. If you are paying for your own upkeep, it will not seriously bother anyone if you get as fat as you want to be.

Now I was under the impression that a certain religious leader of long ago tried to make the point that government was not a very good vehicle for encouraging morality. Fortunately folks no longer pay that ancient teaching any mind. The fasces of government have replaced the loving hearts of believers. Which is as it should be.

I'm not sure what you're talking about. Government has ALWAYS been the final arbiter of morality. "L'etat, c'est moi" has always been the motto of rulers. Laws are nothing but legislated morality. Period. The only topic of debate is which morality, and what it is based on.

It's an excuse for a power grab. For those who wish to rule, nothing is more compelling than exercising massive power while lecturing others about their lack of Morality, and why they are better people than you are, and therefore deserving to rule.

There is no problem so complex that it can not be solved by force and if that doesn't work mass murder. Ah. But you will not go as far as mass murder? That would be wrong. Then why even start? The criminals need the business? I can buy that.

http://powerandcontrol.blogspot.com/201 ... scism.html

There you go again mistaking consequences for intent. In any case, the Chinese used the mass murder solution to their opium problem. I guess they thought the disease was pretty serious to resort to such a drastic measure.

As bad as the liberals are doing politically in America the conservatives are not held in much higher esteem. Could it be that Americans (in general)are no fonder of moral crusades (moral and scientific panics are becoming harder to generate) than they are of economic crusades?

No, they are just ignorant and apathetic. Mostly the product of getting all their information spoon fed to them by vile leftist libertines. By today's standards, the moderate of the 1940s would be the conservative extremist of today. I dare say we were a better people before the nation moved left. If the people of today had learned the lessons that their ancestors understood, they would not be so ambivalent about what is nowadays called a "moral crusade" and what was called in years past, "normalcy."

Liberty is messy. People do things that revolt me (like listen to rap music). But I'd rather suffer the ills of a free country than suffer the ills of one with billions of rules. You know - a secular kind of Islam.

I agree we have too many rules, but people should agree on what the fundamental ones are.

Now if we sold drugs the way we do beer, drugs would be as hard for kids to get as beer. Which would have two effects:

1. Improve the current situation
2. Defund the criminals

Maybe. Just as like it would fund a different set of criminals. Doesn't the state get a healthy chunk of the Alcohol tax?

Adults? You can hardly keep them from doing anything stupid. Some of them like to jump out of perfectly good airplanes while the aircraft are still flying. Some one could get hurt. Or killed.

I have no issue with people being stupid. I have issue with people harming others because they want to do something stupid. Jump out of a plane with a parachute, and you're not likely to hurt anyone but yourself. More power to you. Jump out of a plane without a parachute, and you might fall on someone and kill them, or fall on their house and damage it.

I think people should not be allowed to jump out of a plane without a parachute if they are over a populated area. (or dump rocks or any other falling debris)

Does that make me a fascist? I don't see it as unreasonable, and I don't think anyone else would either.

Let's keep in mind the libertarian philosophy. "If it harm none..."

[MSimon]

The outcome is the unintended consequence of the action, not its purpose.

Ah. Then good intentions are enough? I thought that was one of the roads to hell.

[MSimon]

The more polite term for fascist these days is statist. i.e. the idea that sufficient government force can cure any social problem. If we beat the miscreants with sticks or lop off a few heads we can change behavior. Which is to say: put the fasces to use.

[MSimon]

I don't think "If it harm no one...." is sufficiently libertarian for me. What ever you do is going to harm someone. Ford put a big hurt on the manufacturers of buggy whips.

I'm more into "Do what thou wilt" without the preface. Of course taken to the extreme it has its own problems. So a system of consenting adults (free trade if you will) is in order.

[Diogenes]

The outcome is the unintended consequence of the action, not its purpose.

Ah. Then good intentions are enough? I thought that was one of the roads to hell.

I knew your response would be to cite "good intentions." I could have written it for you, but of course I would have added a lot more verbiage.

I am not trying to address "good intentions", I am pointing out that when someone is intending to do x, you cannot claim they are intending to do y, even if y is the result.

It is dishonest to claim that the government WANTS to empower criminals, (because they don't.) But is instead the consequential result of
the only course of action that they can undertake. It also relies a great deal on the ambition of the criminal to make it happen. If the criminals would simply use some of their own product, we wouldn't have to worry about them being empowered. Indeed, we wouldn't have to worry about them at all.

It is an amusing dichotomy that those people who distribute this poison know better than to use it themselves.

[Diogenes]

The more polite term for fascist these days is statist. i.e. the idea that sufficient government force can cure any social problem. If we beat the miscreants with sticks or lop off a few heads we can change behavior. Which is to say: put the fasces to use.

You have a binary perception of the role of government. It is either all or nothing. Government is actually an analog system, and it can be adjusted up and down (preferably with some form of negative feedback) to the level necessary to meet its normal and proper mandate.

Optimally, it should be as small as possible while performing it's essential mandate. (Protecting it's citizens from the aggression and stupidity of other citizens.)

[bcglorf]

It is either all or nothing. Government is actually an analog system, and it can be adjusted up and down (preferably with some form of negative feedback) to the level necessary to meet its normal and proper mandate.

And I think that negative feedback is one of the main things that has kept America one of the best places to live. The right to bear arms is probably the single best negative feedback to ensure the government meets its proper mandate.