Climate Denialism paid by Exxon

[thaumaturgy]

In other words, you cant help yourself. Charming by nature, I suppose. If you think so little of my skills, why waste your time with someone so intellectually inferior? As for your arguments, after 50 pages of my trying, your only moral justification for the expansion of state power is to produce evidence of state power. So aside from your 'charming' pretense, you have put forth nothing at all.

So you still couldn't bring yourself to address any specific point of any given law I raised? You will yet not discuss in detail any specific laws which I have raised which you are under the control of?

You focused on the last paragraph to the exclusion of the detailed discussion of laws?

Excellent.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Libertarianism: Looking at a Hobbesian nightmare and calling it "paradise".

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Funny you should mention that. The issues are very similar--the state violating the rights of the individual. With the smoking issue, it was property rights that were assailed largely under the bogus package deal that you mentioned here, the notion of 'public places.' A bar, for example, is private property that happens to be open to the public. People come and go of their own free will. If people find the level of smoke too oppressive, they leave and likely dont return. The idea that the state should ban a legal activity from taking place on private property should upset anyone interested in maintaining a free society.

It seems you can only think in absolutes, AND totally fail to see the big picture.

"If you don't like it, go someplace else" really doesn't cut it.

Let me ask you this:

Do you think it would be okay for you to burn car tires in your backyard? Would the neighbour's complaints about the smoke be unjustified? After all, they're YOUR tires, it's YOUR property, and if they don't like inhaling poisonous fumes, well, they can move someplace else, right?

Ah, right-wing libertarianism. It's basically sociopathy packaged as "radical liberty".

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Should companies be free to dispose of unfiltered toxic waste by pumping it into the next-best river, or dumping it on some stretch of land they bought?

Would it be acceptable if somebody bought a stretch of wilderness area that housed the last viable population of an endangered species, and then bulldoze and/or clear-fell it?

What about food additives? Should companies be required by law to explicitly list the chemicals they add to their products, or should they be free to use whatever they like?

What about over-fishing? Is it acceptable for fishing companies to follow a strict "more profits today, empty oceans tomorrow"-approach, or should there be legal safeguards against such abuses?

 

[lordbt]

It seems you can only think in absolutes, AND totally fail to see the big picture.

"If you don't like it, go someplace else" really doesn't cut it.

Let me ask you this:

Do you think it would be okay for you to burn car tires in your backyard? Would the neighbour's complaints about the smoke be unjustified? After all, they're YOUR tires, it's YOUR property, and if they don't like inhaling poisonous fumes, well, they can move someplace else, right?

Bogus analogy.

Ah, right-wing libertarianism. It's basically sociopathy packaged as "radical liberty".

Bogus conclusion. Two for two.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Bogus analogy.

Why? Where's the difference? In both cases, your "freedom" infringes upon the freedom of those around you. Why should *you* be singled out for extra privileges when a lot more people have to suffer as a result of your "exercising your liberty"?

See, prior to regulation, few restaurants were brave enough to risk losing customers by banning indoor smoking. After all, nicotine addiction is a pretty common phenomenon, and few non-smokers actually had the guts or the determination to get up and leave.

Accordingly, many public places sported a grade of fine dust pollution that would have made every industrial safety advisor blanch with horror.

 

[lordbt]

Yes there is someone stopping me buying it; you. If you are there buying oil, the suppliers can charge a higher price. You're driving up the price till I cannot afford it; no average citizen can. That's ECONOMIC RATIONING, and it is just as much rationing as a State e-card quota system. Except there are some nasty effects on the economy, and we cannot be sure the oil is going to get to the sectors that REALLY NEED it to do things like... feed and protect us.

There is economic liberty, which you seem to be talking about, and political liberty that I am talking about. You use the two interchangeably when you should not. Anyway, at some point, oil will become too expensive for most private use. That is going to happen whether we do things my way or do things your way. Your way requires an extensive state apparatus and the loss of liberty and assumes that the state run solution will be smooth functioning and "fair"--which would be a first for government intervention. The choice is always the same: We must have state run health care or people will die in the streets; we must have state run retirement planning or people will die in the streets; we must have state run economic planning or people will die in the streets; we must have state run environmental planning or people will die in the streets; we must have state run gasoline rationing or people will die in the streets. The truth is, the only places I see people dieing in the streets is in those places where the state runs everything.

So with a declining resource we're down to either the State rationing it through some sort of electronic rationing card, which can be fairly and democratically decided at an election and with open oversight, or we can just let the marketplace 'deal with it.'

I will take my chances with whats behind Door #2.

Oh the horror of that scenario! The marketplace 'dealing with it' is the stuff of nightmares. It even freaked out right-wing market guy Dr Robert Hirsch, an energy economist with the DOE. You don't want to go there, you really don't. It would throw our countries into a bidding war for the remaining oil. It might end up costing $300 to fill up, but hey! At least our 'rights' to oil won't have been affected by the State! ;-) And we won't be impacted by $300 a tank either, no, not at all!

The conversion from the internal combustion engine to whatever it is that follows it is going to be traumatic no matter what we do. The economic consequences are likely to be very large. What I oppose is the attempt to protect our economic liberty by sacrificing our political liberty.

That's rich coming from an American! You guys burn 20 million barrels a day yet only pump 6 million from your own soils. Ooops. That looks like you import 14 million barrels a day from the international market.
Australia only burns 1 mbd. You're importing 14 times what we use in total. If international law defined a nation's 'right' to oil the way you do, American's would have to drop their oil use 70% overnight.

You missed my point. The Saudis, for example, are under no obligation to sell the world their oil. Its their oil. They dont have to drill for it, they could leave it right where it is or pull it up at a rate that would accommodate their own particular needs and have enough for a thousand years.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Anyway, at some point, oil will become too expensive for most private use.

At that point it won't be that you suddenly opt to "not" use gasoline, but you will be actively denied access to it at all costs.

It's not like the price will just go up and up and up and one day you look at your bank account and say "Gee I don't think I'll drive a car anymore, it's too expensive!"

No what will more likely happen is the Government will figure out (years before you ever know it) that oil will soon be in short supply. It is a strategic resource that not only fuels our military but also industry.

You'd probably not be surprised to realize that just about every single item you use in your daily life requires some petroleum or petroleum based products, from the plastics (an obvious one) to even the paper you use (do you ever wonder how they disperse clay minerals that go into paper? Hint: organic polymers)

So at some point the government will say that petroleum for transportation usage is less important than for key military and industrial maintenance. At which point it will be rationed. You will not be at "liberty" to buy more gasoline beyond this quantity.

I am going to hazard a guess and assume you have little to no idea of how much oil is left on earth. You'd not be alone, most people don't. As I pointed out earlier there are no international controls on reporting oil reserves.

But, I guarantee you, that someone somewhere in the government knows more than you or I do and years ahead of the curve.

They may not know how much or how long it will last but they do know that "resource conflicts" can and will erupt over this material long before it is gone completely.

Again, your "liberty" will be moderated. And rightfully so. Let's look at the first setences of the U.S. Constitution:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

NOTE the order of things there:

1. Establish Justice
2. Insure domestic tranquility
3. Provide for the common defense
4. Promote GENERAL WELFARE
5. Secure the blessings of liberty...

Now all you focus on is element #5, but you will note the very specific verbiage of the Constition:

"General Welfare" and "common defense" are key factors here. Both require the goals of the larger group be taken care of. Even the founding fathers understood that liberty comes at some cost to the individuals perfect ideal of "liberty".

One cannot have "common defense" if the people are at liberty to consumer a limited strategic resource during times of shortage real or potential of that stategic resource.

You seemed to indicate earlier when I mentioned fuel rationing in WWII that this was an example of the U.S. government's "abuse" of the citizens. Well, only if you feel that the U.S. Constitution in its first paragraph is a statement of intent to abuse.

I will take my chances with whats behind Door #2.

Well, you don't live in the country where Door #2 is an option for you. You can move to such a place I assume. But you do not live there if you are a U.S. citizen.

What I oppose is the attempt to protect our economic liberty by sacrificing our political liberty.

Can I ask a theoretical question? How "free" are people who have no economic liberty? Seems rather "hypothetical" to speak of "political liberty" when there is no economic liberty.

How "free" were the unemployed during the Great Depression? Is that why the U.S. citizenry supported so many "limitations" (which some at the time called "socialism"?)

Again history is a good teacher of what reality looks like. Rhetoric seldom is.

You missed my point. The Saudis, for example, are under no obligation to sell the world their oil. Its their oil.

Can I mention just a bit of U.S. history again? Back in 1953 the Iranians elected Mosadegh to be their leader. He threatened to nationalize the oil in Iran. The British petroleum interests didn't like that and with the help of the U.S. government we toppled the Mosadegh government for doing almost exactly what you describe here. Doing with their petroleum exactly what they wanted to. That lead to the installation of the Shah which lead to the Islamic Revolution of 1979 which lead to what we have today.

I agree with you that the Saudis are indeed free to do with their oil what they want and should be, just exactly as you say.

ANd indeed they kind of are. BUT, here's the caveat, the Saudi Royal Family is considered to be rather corrupt and bolstered by U.S. support. That is a great deal of why we are disliked in the region.

Now I would argue that you are completely on the right track if you fully support the economic and political freedom of the Middle Eastern nations to do with their resources as they wish without outside interference based on our "desires".

But, do be aware, at that point that the potential for economic pain to U.S. citizens such as yourself will probably grow immeasurably. A destabilized Saudi Arabia at the whims of religious zealots will hardly keep oil prices or production at a level that would allow for any long-term planning for the developed world.

I'd be OK with that but also remember: this will immediately eliminate most of your and my "economic liberty" and by extension our "political liberty" will also be impacted as our country rations this now unreliable and quite precious resource.

They dont have to drill for it, they could leave it right where it is or pull it up at a rate that would accommodate their own particular needs and have enough for a thousand years.

Well, sorta true, if they only pull it up in dribbles would it likely last a "thousand years", at that point our economic liberty (and our civilization) starts to collapse.

Interesting aspect to environmental and resource topics is that "rate" of depletion matters. The rate at which the resources is depleted will affect how the resource is managed.

So, in order to ensure that there is a "fallback" position for our country (in the efforts to say ensure "domestic tranquility" "common defense" and "general welfare" the government will put limitations on the use of this resource and will likely remove more of your economic "liberty" by mandating more money go to finding alternative energy sources.

Your "political" freedom to operate will be thus limited as well.

If you don't believe me, then explain to me how this utopia of "rapid development of alternative fuels" will occur without any sort of "control structure"? (note: I said "rapid" which is what the whole discussion hinges on. Either the depletion, destabilization of supply due to pure free control by the outside parties, or dramatic climate change tipping points.)

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

Interestingly enough the US military is putting a fair amount of effort to move away from fossil fuels.

Fat Replaces Oil for F-16s as Biofuels Head to War: Commodities - Bloomberg

 

[Archaeopteryx]

"General Welfare" and "common defense" are key factors here. Both require the goals of the larger group be taken care of. Even the founding fathers understood that liberty comes at some cost to the individuals perfect ideal of "liberty".

The main shortcoming of some brands of Libertarianism is that they take one good thing - liberty - and idealize it to such an extent that it becomes problematic when it must confront the real world and deal with real-world issues like climate change. Responding to climate change doesn't mean that we must abandon the concept liberty. It does, however, demand that we abandon a certain idealization of liberty that was corrupt to begin with. That is partly what is at issue here: the idealization of liberty that lordbt adheres to can no longer justify itself. We have cause then to reconsider that ideal of liberty in light of the reality of the situation. This ideal also accounts for a divide in the conversation when people speak of freedom. When lordbt calls us want-to-be tyrants, we should take note that he is judging us by an ideal of liberty that can no longer justify itself. And since that is the grounds of his judgment, there is no need to be offended. To view lordbt's designation 'tyrant' as an affront on one's character is to tacitly accept the ideal of liberty that lordbt is using to make those sorts of judgments. We no longer have a reason to accept that ideal, nor do we have any reason to consent to being judged by it.

 

[eclipsenow]

Bogus analogy.

Bogus conclusion. Two for two.

Dude, just saying 'bogus analogy' doesn't prove it to be a bogus analogy. That's just sneering. If you want to impress us try to argue why Jane the Bane's burning tyre analogy was bogus. I thought it was extremely applicable, given that global warming now kills 300 thousand people a year.

 

[eclipsenow]

There is economic liberty, which you seem to be talking about, and political liberty that I am talking about. You use the two interchangeably when you should not.

Why? I'm talking about not being able to 'fill-er-up'. Both government rationing cards and price rationing are forms of rationing that impinge on my right to drive. (If such a stupid, mind-numbing activity could be called a 'right'. I love reading on the bus!)

If I can't fill her up because you keep buying all my oil and driving the price up, YOU'RE most definitely impinging on my 'right' to the foul stuff. How dare you! What gives you that right? Boy, that makes me wonder how many of us 'Libertarians' the universe can contain. Just meeting the needs of one of us seems like too much work.

Anyway, at some point, oil will become too expensive for most private use. That is going to happen whether we do things my way or do things your way.

For once I agree with you!

Your way requires an extensive state apparatus and the loss of liberty and assumes that the state run solution will be smooth functioning and "fair"--which would be a first for government intervention.

Rubbish. I pay taxes to the government and they give me education and healthcare and security and ensure the poor are housed and fed and not robbing my house to feed their kids.

The choice is always the same: We must have state run health care or people will die in the streets; we must have state run retirement planning or people will die in the streets; we must have state run economic planning or people will die in the streets; we must have state run environmental planning or people will die in the streets; we must have state run gasoline rationing or people will die in the streets. The truth is, the only places I see people dieing in the streets is in those places where the state runs everything.

FAIL! Australia has State run health and housing and retirement and economic influences and environmental laws and even some small measure of gasoline taxes. So that's where you fail! Of course we are not a Communist Dictatorship like North Korea, to which you were alluding. But then, you're blind to the infinite shades between COMMUNIST RED and TRUE BLUE aren't you? It just doesn't register with you that there might be pinks and whites and light blues and dark blues all the way through to true blue, let them starve and die of lead-poisoning laissez fair free-market anarchists like yourself.

I AM NOT A COMMUNIST!

If you don't believe me, click on my blog.
See the right hand column with all the links to my blog pages?
Pan down.

And down.

And down.

See at the bottom there on the right hand corner? What does it say?

"Social Liberalism: Civil rights, Social Justice and State funded welfare in a Market Economy".

The reason I'm into Social Liberalism it is that the market is amazing, and innovative, and creative. I really mean that.

But sometimes a totally free market is unfair. Sometimes monopolies arise. Sometimes it's not very democratic. So that's why I love voting. And democracy. And liberty. Because sometimes the government should be there to help when things go wrong. And it works, in Australia at least. Not perfectly, but well. Better than your American health care system, that's for sure. Here's a graph that proves it. Y
nothing new under the sun...: Healthcare and the market
You've got one of the worst health care systems in the world. If all the costs of insurance etc are added up, for both public and private health care, your health care system costs twice what our Aussie 'socialist' health care costs us, yet our health system buys us longer lives. Even celebrity scientists in Australia sneer at your health system. Dr Karl is famous for continually pointing out that a mere $15k eye procedure restores sight in Australia to the poor, under our safety net health care system. In the good-old-USA, where health care is 'privatised' under a grossly inequitable and unfair health care system, this procedure is not covered. So a poor house mum is not covered, and remains blind.

In other words, in 'free market' America, the poor remain blind, but in 'Socialist Australia', the blind can see.

And our health care system costs us HALF what yours costs you!

"Free market efficiency?" I don't think so. Not for health care. But for other things? Yep, why not. While it works. If it works. When it breaks, we need a DEMOCRATIC government to step in and fix things. For a while. Until they can be privatised again.

So given the demonstrable FACTS about Australia's health care system, as proved in the REAL WORLD of data and health care analysis; and quotes from celebrity scientists; give me a BREAK!

STOP comparing a little market intervention with Communist Dictatorships because you're only making a fool of yourself.





I will take my chances with whats behind Door #2.

The conversion from the internal combustion engine to whatever it is that follows it is going to be traumatic no matter what we do. The economic consequences are likely to be very large. What I oppose is the attempt to protect our economic liberty by sacrificing our political liberty.

What the? I don't think you even understand the Oil Depletion Protocol I am suggesting, let alone having an actual suggestion for solving peak oil.

Let's see if you've understood it. Why don't you tell me, what limits your ability to drive all you like under the Oil Depletion Protocol?

You missed my point. The Saudis, for example, are under no obligation to sell the world their oil. Its their oil. They dont have to drill for it, they could leave it right where it is or pull it up at a rate that would accommodate their own particular needs and have enough for a thousand years.

And you've almost stated the main driver of what we call 'Peak Exports'. The Saudi economy will do well for a long time yet because of their oil exports. But their domestic consumption of oil keeps rising. When their actual output drops, it does not take long for domestic consumption to overtake their ability to export. It happened in the UK in about 7 years! They went from peak exports to no exports in just 7 years.

It's just another geopolitical dynamic in the peak oil story that makes it so potent. Whatever you want to say about the marketplace, geopolitics comes into this story as well. Governments are ALREADY involved; they have militaries to oil and lubricate and a population to keep well fed. Anarchy to prevent.

See the highest green exports in 2000 and how they are now importing in 2007?

The red is their international oil trade deficit, what they imported.

But their consumption didn't rise because the UK has high taxes on oil, which dissuades oil addiction, which means they're ALREADY more prepared for peak oil than America.

GO the occasional GOVERNMENT INTERVENTION! (in certain sectors. I am not a Central Planning Communist but a Social Liberalism-ist).

 

[eclipsenow]

It's not like the price will just go up and up and up and one day you look at your bank account and say "Gee I don't think I'll drive a car anymore, it's too expensive!"

No what will more likely happen is the Government will figure out (years before you ever know it) that oil will soon be in short supply. It is a strategic resource that not only fuels our military but also industry.

Well said! Lordbt really does live in an ivory tower of Libertarian absolutes that have no street-cred in the real world, where dirty things like the laws of physics, geopolitics, and environmental consequences get in the way of his 'perceived' liberties that really only belong to this spoilt generation living off the treasures we've stolen from our grandchildren.

So at some point the government will say that petroleum for transportation usage is less important than for key military and industrial maintenance. At which point it will be rationed. You will not be at "liberty" to buy more gasoline beyond this quantity.

Absolutely! As I was telling him, the State has to maintain itself to maintain our rights. Without a State, there are no 'rights', only the Book of Eli. Only The Road.

Again, your "liberty" will be moderated. And rightfully so. Let's look at the first setences of the U.S. Constitution:

NOTE the order of things there:

1. Establish Justice
2. Insure domestic tranquility
3. Provide for the common defense
4. Promote GENERAL WELFARE
5. Secure the blessings of liberty...

Woah there Thaum, too many facts at once. Lordbt won't cope!

Now all you focus on is element #5, but you will note the very specific verbiage of the Constition:

"General Welfare" and "common defense" are key factors here. Both require the goals of the larger group be taken care of. Even the founding fathers understood that liberty comes at some cost to the individuals perfect ideal of "liberty".

One cannot have "common defense" if the people are at liberty to consumer a limited strategic resource during times of shortage real or potential of that stategic resource.

Too true.

You seemed to indicate earlier when I mentioned fuel rationing in WWII that this was an example of the U.S. government's "abuse" of the citizens. Well, only if you feel that the U.S. Constitution in its first paragraph is a statement of intent to abuse.

I can't believe that he thought defeating the Nazi's was an 'abuse' of American citizens. Wow. What kind of 'Libertarian' is this?

Can I ask a theoretical question? How "free" are people who have no economic liberty? Seems rather "hypothetical" to speak of "political liberty" when there is no economic liberty.

Agreed. He's just full of hot air floating around in an ivory tower.

 

[DaisyDay]

I'm curious what lordbt and gawron make of water rationing in the west or, during a drought, in the east. Is it a violation of rights not to be able to use as much water as one wants anyway one wants?

For four years running, my East coast county had a drought such that in the fourth year, we were restricted from watering lawns, running fountains and washing cars and decks. An exception was made for nurseries and landscape companies (nevertheless, some went out of business).

 

[thaumaturgy]

Well said! Lordbt really does live in an ivory tower of Libertarian absolutes that have no street-cred in the real world, where dirty things like the laws of physics, geopolitics, and environmental consequences get in the way of his 'perceived' liberties that really only belong to this spoilt generation living off the treasures we've stolen from our grandchildren.

I actually don't understand their adherence to some absolutes. But I sense that indeed they don't harbor those absolutes, but it is maddeningly difficult to get them drawn out into details about specific laws.

Lordbt seems focused solely on "personal property" rights. That's fine, but even those are not as absolute and simplistic as he paints them.

As you or another poster pointed out: lordbt or Gawron neither one own their own climate. It's all kind of connected.

I can't believe that he thought defeating the Nazi's was an 'abuse' of American citizens. Wow. What kind of 'Libertarian' is this?

I have heard some Libertarian stances I understand at a core level, but when the general welfare and common defense are threatened it seems that Libertarianist points against those would be self-defeating.

 

[thaumaturgy]

I'm curious what lordbt and gawron make of water rationing in the west or, during a drought, in the east. Is it a violation of rights not to be able to use as much water as one wants anyway one wants?

I've brought this up a couple times. I live in SoCal. About a year ago we all got letters in our town that said "you will reduce your water usage by 25% beyond an average calculated by your last 5 years' worth of water usage".

Now if I wanted to express my liberty and waste water as much as I liked I should hope that I would be punished or ejected from this area where we just got done with a multi-year drought. I would be a personal danger to the welfare of the larger city. Even if my piddling little waste was small compared to the city's usage of water.

And in a sense the "punishment" may be in the form of fines or grossly increased costs (sometimes costs are put up at extreme levels to discourage waste, which amounts to the same thing as a fine).

When my wife and I moved out here we kept this stupid midwest idea of a green lawn. Our political liberty to waste water ran up squarely against our economic liberty when we wound up paying thousands of dollars each quarter for water. And mind you, we don't even have 0.25acres of land, let alone a fraction of that was grass. And it didn't even stay green!

When we saw the economic silliness we xeriscaped (since it is a semi-desert region it made sense) and that was also right about the time the strict water restrictions came down.

If I shared a neighborhood with someone like lordbt and he was out watering his lawn every day at noon during peak evaporation hours I'd be tempted to ask him if he would be willing to keep himself out of the "water ration lines" when and if such times were to come up.

I suspect lordbt, as most people who espouse extremes of personal liberty, would be right in line for his water ration card along with the rest of us. But I could be wrong. He might enjoy his liberty and then watch his family die of thirst when drinking water became a rationed commodity. It would be his RIGHT and liberty to waste as much water as he wanted, but it would NOT be his right or liberty to partake of the remedies when the time of rationing came up.

Actions have consequences. If there is one absolute of true liberty it is that.

The scary fact of the matter is Southern California cannot sustain its population based just on the water demand. Some day we will all face some very tough issues.

Our "liberty" to grow in this area will be forced out.

If there's not enough water for x million people in this county, at some point the government would be perfectly in the right to say to a libertarian like lordbt who might want to move here to say "Sorry, no, you can't unless someone else moves out".

Liberty is always and always will be moderated.

For four years running, my East coast county had a drought such that in the fourth year, we were restricted from watering lawns, running fountains and washing cars and decks. An exception was made for nurseries and landscape companies (nevertheless, some went out of business).

Thankfully the part of the country I live in learned their lesson and kept the water restrictions in place even though technically our multi-year drought just ended.

 

[Veritas]

That doesn't make any sense when you consider that a lot of this research was done during the Bush-Cheney years. Why would an administration that was so pro-Big Energy tip the research to favor an outcome that Big Energy would not like? Come on, use your noodle. This was the same administration that had a pr guy vet science releases.

There is always strange quid pro quo in every administration. The devil is always in the details. And you'll never learn them.

 

[lordbt]

Again, your "liberty" will be moderated. And rightfully so. Let's look at the first setences of the U.S. Constitution:



NOTE the order of things there:

1. Establish Justice
2. Insure domestic tranquility
3. Provide for the common defense
4. Promote GENERAL WELFARE
5. Secure the blessings of liberty...

Now all you focus on is element #5, but you will note the very specific verbiage of the Constition:

FYI. The Preamble to the Constitution lays out the general purpose of the document and is not a source of power or authority.

Can I ask a theoretical question? How "free" are people who have no economic liberty? Seems rather "hypothetical" to speak of "political liberty" when there is no economic liberty.

That is because you cant seem to separate in your own mind the difference between voluntary action and physical force.

How "free" were the unemployed during the Great Depression? Is that why the U.S. citizenry supported so many "limitations" (which some at the time called "socialism"?)

Again history is a good teacher of what reality looks like. Rhetoric seldom is.

That would hardly be the first time that people willingly traded their political liberty for economic security. But you would know that being the history expert...

 

[lordbt]

Dude, just saying 'bogus analogy' doesn't prove it to be a bogus analogy. That's just sneering. If you want to impress us try to argue why Jane the Bane's burning tyre analogy was bogus. I thought it was extremely applicable, given that global warming now kills 300 thousand people a year.

Generally, when a person enters into a discussion with comments like these:

Libertarianism: Looking at a Hobbesian nightmare and calling it "paradise".

Ah, right-wing libertarianism. It's basically sociopathy packaged as "radical liberty".

I give them the respect they deserve. None. Those statements are flames, nothing more. But I dont report people for flaming me, so she has nothing to worry about. People can behave like trolls all they wish, but I dont have to engage them. If she cant figure out why her obviously bogus analogy is bogus, that is her problem.

I might add that I cant help but notice that you labeled my reply as "sneering" but let her snotty remarks go by. An oversight on your part I am sure.

 

[lordbt]

Why? I'm talking about not being able to 'fill-er-up'. Both government rationing cards and price rationing are forms of rationing that impinge on my right to drive. (If such a stupid, mind-numbing activity could be called a 'right'. I love reading on the bus!)

If I can't fill her up because you keep buying all my oil and driving the price up, YOU'RE most definitely impinging on my 'right' to the foul stuff. How dare you! What gives you that right? Boy, that makes me wonder how many of us 'Libertarians' the universe can contain. Just meeting the needs of one of us seems like too much work.

You dont have a "right" to the 'foul stuff.'

I AM NOT A COMMUNIST!

Calm down comrade. I havent called you a communist, nor anyone else for that matter. Until just now, I havent even used the word. I was speaking in general terms in my post, not specific to you, so there is no reason for you to get all offended.

STOP comparing a little market intervention with Communist Dictatorships because you're only making a fool of yourself.

Accusing me of things I havent done tends to make you look foolish.