Climate Denialism paid by Exxon

[lordbt]

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).

IN a free market economy, there would be private ownership of water, and the law of supply and demand would kick in: if the supply was limited, the price would rise. Rather than state imposed rationing, unnecessary water usage would be extremely expensive.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

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


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.

But you have no qualms about flaming others? With comments about 'wannabe tyrants', parasites and leeches, likening to totalitarian despots, and others? So long as it's you doing the flaming, it's all okay? Since you admit that when someone makes such comments you give them the respect they deserve - 'None' - perhaps it is we who should reciprocate in that regard?

 

[thaumaturgy]

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

Well, at least we know which parts we can ignore when we're libertarians!

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...

So let me see if we got this straight from your posts so far:

1. You consider your fellow American citizens "the mob" (LINKY)
2. You appear to consider the efforts the Americans took to fight the Nazis and the Japanese during WWII were some sort of "abuse" of the citizenry of the U.S. (I believe you refer them as "the mob")
3. You selectively ignore portions of the constitution as they suit you (or when they become convenient for your argument

Again, I grew up with people who lived through both the Depression and WWII and your view of these things doesn't quite match what I heard from them.

Of course I don't consider my fellow Americans "the mob". We have a very different view of what it means to be an American.

And I'm sorry to hear that.

 

[thaumaturgy]

IN a free market economy, there would be private ownership of water

That's all nice a pretty rhetoric. What country would that be? Can you show us on a map?

, and the law of supply and demand would kick in: if the supply was limited, the price would rise. Rather than state imposed rationing, unnecessary water usage would be extremely expensive.

So you don't understand even the laws that are in place around water pricing in Southern California??? Wow. Is there any aspect of law or economics that you know about in detail?

Hint: water usage here carries a "tiered price". It already is structured like this.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Private ownership of water is about the worst idea ever. Why? Because it's both essential to life AND a "natural monopoly". Whoever claimed ownership of the local drinking water would basically be able to dictate prices whichever way he liked.
And if raising his profits means letting a bunch of disenfranchised poor people in the inner city die of thirst - why, what's to stop him?

There are areas of life where maximizing your monetary gain cannot, nay, must not be the primary focus. Making the bare necessities of life accessible to all citizens is one of these. Health care is another. A society that lets some of its citizens die of thirst, hunger, or an untreated disease that could have easily been cured is dysfunctional to the n-th degree.

 

[eclipsenow]

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

Really? So what did you mean by 'rebuking' me with this then?

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.

Gee, there I was thinking you were talking about some place where the State runs everything. If you stopped writing such inflammatory drivel we might have a clearer and calmer discussion. So why not explain to me how the above paragraph does not imply I'm for Central Planning!?

(Sits back, folds arms, and waits for the entertainment as Lordbt makes up another story. Or just dodges it with some snide remark.)


While you're doing that, I'd like to ask another question.

Dear everyone else: how would you define the difference between economic and political liberty?This is the argument I'm currently debating with Lordbt.


Thaumaturgy said:

"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."

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

Wow, that's a new low for you Lordbt. What's 'voluntary' about a Greater Depression where 20% of the workforce lose their jobs? You're really sounding cold and callous and not selling Libertarianism at all well. It's because you're playing semantic games, trying to separate 'political liberty' from 'economic liberty'.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of course starts with political liberty, innocence until proven guilty, and all that jazz. But then near the end the tone changes. A certain degree of economic liberty is defined as a 'right'; which is interesting, because this is only a 'right' a certain sized welfare State can grant.

Article 22.

Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.
^ Top

Article 23.

(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.
(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.
(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.
(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.
^ Top

Article 24.

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

That means certain taxes are justified to maintain the 'rights' of those unlucky enough to become dependent on welfare. That means politicians must legislate away some of YOUR liberty, through taxes on your money, and re-direct it to ensure a baseline level of economic liberty for others.

Isn't that great? Isn't it grand? Our society currently has the resources to tax the rich to guarantee the poor don't starve. Through democratic elections we appoint decision makers that then make decisions for our collective good; whether that be decisions in taxation, welfare, or environmental law. The goal is ensuring our rights and protecting our welfare. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights does not abandon the poor the way you do. It recognises that most of the time, poverty is not 'voluntary'. (How could you write that?) It includes a baseline of economic security that you just don't seem to allow in your thinking. You're too 'all or nothing' for that. It's a free market OR it's "those places where the state runs everything". You're all for political liberty, but economic liberty? No. You won't even acknowledge such a thing is important. It's their fault. It's even voluntary. What a bunch of patronising hogwash!

 

[eclipsenow]

But you have no qualms about flaming others? With comments about 'wannabe tyrants', parasites and leeches, likening to totalitarian despots, and others? So long as it's you doing the flaming, it's all okay? Since you admit that when someone makes such comments you give them the respect they deserve - 'None' - perhaps it is we who should reciprocate in that regard?

That's pretty much right Art! I had to write in a super-large font that "I am not a Communist" just to get his attention, and then he has the hide to write:

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

Yeah, pull the other one, it plays jingle bells. Almost EVERY TIME one of us suggests a small carbon tax, or any form of Oil Depletion Protocol rationing system, he writes something like this:

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.

He talks about the State 'forcing us' and 'losing liberty' and just completely IGNORES the fact that nature is the one 'forcing us' and limiting our liberty; and that this threatens the viability of most States on earth, and therefore whining that the States might have to tax us or ration our oil is premature. He ignores the fact that we all need to pull together to get through this, to think collectively and not just selfishly, to think of communities and infrastructures and emergency building programs, not just my individual 'right' to drive!

What a ridiculous statement. There are no 'rights' in nature. Rights are a social construct, and as such, they can be changed according to the legislative and economic priorities and challenges of the day. Peak oil and global warming are THE challenges we face this decade, and the sooner our governments get busy dealing with them, the better. So there might be a few extra taxes and a bit of oil rationing. Big deal. Left to itself the market would force that; and worse.

The Oil Depletion Protocol I suggested was written off as 'government force'. Rather I see it as partial government intervention, because, in keeping with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, they keep a certain fair quota guaranteed for each citizen of the country. The quota portion is set at the world price for oil. The quota prevents a panicky bidding war driving the price up for all citizens. It guarantees personal liberty to buy oil at a high, but stable, price.

If you want more oil than your quota, YOU can decide to enter the bidding war that is the quota trading system. That's where the real bidding war starts... bidding for the right to buy extra oil.

The Oil Depletion Protocol is the ONLY system I've seen which allows Lordbt to both buy all the oil he wants to AND live in a semi-functional society. The rationing quota takes the pressure off the markets and hopefully delays the Greater Depression. The quota trading system then allows Lordbt to buy the right for more oil (which he then also has to go and buy at the normal market rates). Lordbt gets to drive, and the cyclist gets more cash. Everyone wins, and the economy isn't bankrupted.

Too bad no politician will introduce it. It would mean admitting there would be 'less' of something. No politician is going to do that to today's generation. We've had it too good too long. "Less" is a fatal word. Try Carter's cardigan speech for evidence.

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

IN a free market economy, there would be private ownership of water, and the law of supply and demand would kick in: if the supply was limited, the price would rise. Rather than state imposed rationing, unnecessary water usage would be extremely expensive.

The bolded can be removed, any water usage would become expensive. Even usage vital to life. Of course under your morality it would fine if someone with the enough capital buys and uses water unnecessarly even if it does mean some don't have enough water to survive. As long as Liberty isnt infringed upon.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

The bolded can be removed, any water usage would become expensive. Even usage vital to life. Of course under your morality it would fine if someone with the enough capital buys and uses water unnecessarly even if it does mean some don't have enough water to survive. As long as Liberty isnt infringed upon.

QFT.

In a right-libertarian scenario, it would be perfectly acceptable for an exceptionally wealthy individual to buy a well, build a high fence around it, and then use it to flush his toilet and water his lawn while the rest of the community shrivels up and dies. After all, it's HIS exclusive property, right?

It's basically absolutist feudalism in a new packaging, advertised as "liberty". We've been there before. Most of our history was dominated by the freedom of the rich and their "private property". It wasn't so long ago that starving peasants could be strung up for poaching a hare in the duke's woods - after all, it was a violation of private property rights, correct?

 

[eclipsenow]

QFT.

In a right-libertarian scenario, it would be perfectly acceptable for an exceptionally wealthy individual to buy a well, build a high fence around it, and then use it to flush his toilet and water his lawn while the rest of the community shrivels up and dies. After all, it's HIS exclusive property, right?

It's basically absolutist feudalism in a new packaging, advertised as "liberty". We've been there before. Most of our history was dominated by the freedom of the rich and their "private property". It wasn't so long ago that starving peasants could be strung up for poaching a hare in the duke's woods - after all, it was a violation of private property rights, correct?

Hear hear! Fortunately most modern Democracies aren't interested in losing social cohesion and try to prevent this sort of thing. History teaches us that totalitarian abuse of the poor results in revolution. Libya teaches us that.

Isn't it ironic that the more extreme the Libertarian, the more they end up looking like what they say they despise? As you point out, the ultra-Libertarian extremist like Lordbt ends up backing a selfish morality I can only call 'the survival of the fittest'. Or is that the wealthiest? Or is that the 'market red in tooth and claw'?

Forgive us for going to the extremes Lordbt, but it's where you always play. So we thought we'd try it out as well.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Dear everyone else: how would you define the difference between economic and political liberty?This is the argument I'm currently debating with Lordbt.


Thaumaturgy said:

I would say that "political liberty" must be lordbt's overarching freedom to do whatever one wants without any sort of state control. In a sense it would be the "larger" liberty.

Economic liberty would be to do whatever one wishes with their money.

Now, of course economic liberty could also mean that one could simply be free to buy whatever one wants, but that's a stupid concept since one cannot buy something if they don't have any money.

In the case of "political liberty" there is and never has been such a thing except in purely anarchic or anti-social settings. This is a scenario in which there is no social bond whatsoever between fellow "citizens" (or "the mob" as lordbt appears to think of them).

The "Lone Wolf" scenario is the only case in which this occurs. This type of "liberty" only relates to personal property rights and not really in a full sense of personal property rights as generally understood or practiced in actual social settings (as I showed with regards to intellectual property laws).

The real problem with pure and perfect "Political Freedom" is that if it relies on the "lone wolf" scenario it by definition denies the practitioner of any "survival" advantage of social groups. As such his or her true economic freedom is limited because so much more of their capital must be expended simply on securing the advantages that social groups provide.

Clean water? Nope. The "Lone Wolf" will have to expend extra capital in order to clean his or her water, as opposed to distribution of the cost over a larger base. Food? Much harder to get for a primate that is not part of a larger group. Primates have always acted in concert to find food, just as a lone dog will be less successful than a "hunting pack" (as mentioned earlier, there are some anthropologists who believe early humans learned how to cooperatively hunt by watching the mechanics of wild canid packs).

The lone primate with small canine teeth, no claws to speak of will expend a lot more time and effort to get sufficient nutrition to stay alive so again their "economic freedom" is by definition limited, except in a purely "theoretical sense".

In that same sense even though I make only 5 figures a year I am "economically free" to consider living like a "millionaire" so long as I do not actually spend like a millionaire.

Political freedom as lordbt and gawron have both expressed it are either so limited already (only relating to certain personal property rights) that it renders their point arbitrary and internally inconsistent, or it is so broad as to be purely hypothetical and never experienced by any human anywhere.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I would say that "political liberty" must be lordbt's overarching freedom to do whatever one wants without any sort of state control. In a sense it would be the "larger" liberty.

Economic liberty would be to do whatever one wishes with their money.

Now, of course economic liberty could also mean that one could simply be free to buy whatever one wants, but that's a stupid concept since one cannot buy something if they don't have any money.

In the case of "political liberty" there is and never has been such a thing except in purely anarchic or anti-social settings. This is a scenario in which there is no social bond whatsoever between fellow "citizens" (or "the mob" as lordbt appears to think of them).

The "Lone Wolf" scenario is the only case in which this occurs. This type of "liberty" only relates to personal property rights and not really in a full sense of personal property rights as generally understood or practiced in actual social settings (as I showed with regards to intellectual property laws).

The real problem with pure and perfect "Political Freedom" is that if it relies on the "lone wolf" scenario it by definition denies the practitioner of any "survival" advantage of social groups. As such his or her true economic freedom is limited because so much more of their capital must be expended simply on securing the advantages that social groups provide.

Clean water? Nope. The "Lone Wolf" will have to expend extra capital in order to clean his or her water, as opposed to distribution of the cost over a larger base. Food? Much harder to get for a primate that is not part of a larger group. Primates have always acted in concert to find food, just as a lone dog will be less successful than a "hunting pack" (as mentioned earlier, there are some anthropologists who believe early humans learned how to cooperatively hunt by watching the mechanics of wild canid packs).

The lone primate with small canine teeth, no claws to speak of will expend a lot more time and effort to get sufficient nutrition to stay alive so again their "economic freedom" is by definition limited, except in a purely "theoretical sense".

lordbt often reminds us that man must survive by reason. Only animals live by instinct. I suspect that, if he is going to reply, that is exactly what he would say - 'Your analogies are absurd. For man to live as man he must use reason to secure his own survival.' But even reason has a history. The development of the kind of complex cognition we today call 'reason' occurred in the context of social groups. The size of the group and the relative of size of neocortex are positively correlated throughout primate history. Our brains are not 'lone wolf' brains. Our brains, and our capacity of reason, have evolved in the context of groups. lordbt appeals only to the individual nature of human beings. But we have a social nature too.

Political freedom as lordbt and gawron have both expressed it are either so limited already (only relating to certain personal property rights) that it renders their point arbitrary and internally inconsistent, or it is so broad as to be purely hypothetical and never experienced by any human anywhere.

Nor would anyone want to experience the kind of 'freedom' that verges on anarchy. There is absolute freedom and then there is meaningful freedom. The former is the kind one sees in a state of nature. The latter approximates to what most people aspire toward. Freedom of the meaningful kind is, I believe, a more authentic expression of our human nature because it takes into account both man's nature as an individual and his nature as a social animal. When lordbt reprimands us for failing to defend liberty he appeals to only one side of human nature and to a conception of liberty that is absolute (or near-absolute), but far from meaningful.

 

[lordbt]

Well, at least we know which parts we can ignore when we're libertarians!

Now thats funny. You ignore the body of the Constitution and rely upon the one part of the document that lacks any real legal heft--the Preamble. Good one. You know what you might do is quote those parts of the Constitution that empower the federal government to address global climate change. Take your time.

So let me see if we got this straight from your posts so far:

1. You consider your fellow American citizens "the mob" (LINKY)

Perhaps you might familiarize yourself with the term "mob rule." I didnt invent it. I wish I had, but I didnt. But if you are still in the dark google it.

2. You appear to consider the efforts the Americans took to fight the Nazis and the Japanese during WWII were some sort of "abuse" of the citizenry of the U.S. (I believe you refer them as "the mob&quot

What I consider abuse is compulsory military service, better known as the draft.

3. You selectively ignore portions of the constitution as they suit you (or when they become convenient for your argument

There is that joke again. You know it is never funny the second time around. Since it didnt sink in the first time, let me repeat it: the Preamble does not confer any power upon the federal government. Perhaps you might read on beyond those first couple of sentences for once.

 

[thaumaturgy]

Now thats funny. You ignore the body of the Constitution

Need I remind you that I was the one who was talking early on about Article 1 Section 8 and the basis of patent law?

How do you get that I "ignore" the body of the Constitution? So far I'm the only one of the two of us here who have even mentioned specific parts of the Constitution!

You know what you might do is quote those parts of the Constitution that empower the federal government to address global climate change. Take your time.

Oh that's easy:

Article I, Sect 8, Cl 3

The Constitutional Basis for environmental laws is usually predicated on the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and federal laws governing solid and hazardous wastes are based on this clause.

it has been held that air or water pollution
from a source wholly within a state is nonetheless clearly within the regulatory power of Congress under the Commerce Clause, because of its impact on other states.

cf: Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining and Reclamation Ass’n, 452 U.S. 264 (1981)

If you like you can check out the following USC chapters and sections:

42 U.S.C. § 7401, et seq
33 U.S.C. § 1251, et seq.
42 U.S.C. § 6901, et seq.

(SOURCE)

Perhaps you might familiarize yourself with the term "mob rule." I didnt invent it.

I know that your fellow citizens ("the mob") bother you by enacting all these laws, but you might want to familiarize yourself with the U.S. Legal System and the basis for laws.

 

[lordbt]

Really? So what did you mean by 'rebuking' me with this then?

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.

Gee, there I was thinking you were talking about some place where the State runs everything. If you stopped writing such inflammatory drivel we might have a clearer and calmer discussion. So why not explain to me how the above paragraph does not imply I'm for Central Planning!?

(Sits back, folds arms, and waits for the entertainment as Lordbt makes up another story. Or just dodges it with some snide remark.)

I have addressed this twice now. The above statement does not somehow imply that you are a communist. I was simply stating the argument that the left makes for expansionist government power or against the attempt at reigning it in. Note how Jane made the same argument about private ownership of the water supply: people will die in the streets.

Thaumaturgy said:

"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."

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

Wow, that's a new low for you Lordbt. What's 'voluntary' about a Greater Depression where 20% of the workforce lose their jobs? You're really sounding cold and callous and not selling Libertarianism at all well. It's because you're playing semantic games, trying to separate 'political liberty' from 'economic liberty'.

Semantic games? There is a difference between political and economic liberty, just as there is a difference between a table and a chair. Unless you think I am engaging in semantic games there as well.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of course starts with political liberty, innocence until proven guilty, and all that jazz. But then near the end the tone changes. A certain degree of economic liberty is defined as a 'right'; which is interesting, because this is only a 'right' a certain sized welfare State can grant.

So there is a difference between political and economic rights after all. Or is it you who are now playing semantic games?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

That means certain taxes are justified to maintain the 'rights' of those unlucky enough to become dependent on welfare. That means politicians must legislate away some of YOUR liberty, through taxes on your money, and re-direct it to ensure a baseline level of economic liberty for others.

Americans are not governed by that document.

Isn't that great? Isn't it grand? Our society currently has the resources to tax the rich to guarantee the poor don't starve.

I appreciate your idolization of Robin Hood, but the fact remains the Robin Hood was a thief. And what you advocate is robbing from the rich and giving to the poor. As noble a goal as you think that is, it is still theft. Principled, civilized men dont rob one another. Savages do.

 

[lordbt]

The Constitutional Basis for environmental laws is usually predicated on the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution. The Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act and federal laws governing solid and hazardous wastes are based on this clause.

If you like you can check out the following USC chapters and sections:

42 U.S.C. § 7401, et seq
33 U.S.C. § 1251, et seq.
42 U.S.C. § 6901, et seq.

(SOURCE)

And addressing global climate change is where? And yes, I realize that the Commerce Clause has been expanded to allow for just about anything. The left has used that and the "General Welfare" clause as a blank check on power for generations. Once you understand that the purpose of the Constitution is to carve out clear limits on government power, you will see how the abuse of those two clauses works against the overarching purpose of the document.

But again, you are using the existence of laws to justify those laws. What I have been trying in vain to drag out of you is what principles you use to determine whether or not a law is just. My standard is the laws adherence to the principles of human liberty and individual rights. Whats yours?

I know that your fellow citizens ("the mob") bother you by enacting all these laws, but you might want to familiarize yourself with the U.S. Legal System and the basis for laws.

I have been discussing the moral basis of law, you are enmeshed in legalism.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Now thats funny. You ignore the body of the Constitution and rely upon the one part of the document that lacks any real legal heft--the Preamble. Good one. You know what you might do is quote those parts of the Constitution that empower the federal government to address global climate change. Take your time.

Did the founding fathers know about climate change so as to have considered it when they created the Constitution? No. Did they know about nuclear weapons? No. But that doesn't mean that your right to bear arms includes a right to weapons of mass destruction.

I appreciate your idolization of Robin Hood, but the fact remains the Robin Hood was a thief. And what you advocate is robbing from the rich and giving to the poor. As noble a goal as you think that is, it is still theft. Principled, civilized men dont rob one another. Savages do.

Don't you regard your Libertarian goals as noble? Isn't the state used in some way to realize those goals? In which case, should we say to you likewise 'As noble as you think that is, it is still theft.'

 

[thaumaturgy]

And addressing global climate change is where?

Ahh, so you think that "global climate change" is somehow fundamentally different from environmental regulations?

You are playing a game.

You will note that the commerce clause does not mention "environmental regulation" but the reasoning it is used would of course the be the same reasoning for global climate change legislation. But no, you want to play the game of "but the words 'global climate change' aren't in the Constitution".

But of course, I'm sure, Learned Hand, that you understand how laws come from a Constitutional Basis but are not strictly limited to that which is explicitly written in the Constitution.

We've had laws and what is called a LEGISLATIVE BRANCH since the Constitution was accepted.

Do you know what the Constitution says the LEGISLATIVE BRANCH CAN DO?

Article I, Section 8:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;"

Ooopsy! There's that "general welfare" and "common defense" thing. HOPEFULLY you didn't think that was only in the Preamble did you?Interesting.

So it appears that your ignorance of the law extends to the Constitution as well? Or do you feel that since a law is not explicitly written in the Constitution it is "unjust"? How many property laws do we have to give up because this is the case?

And yes, I realize that the Commerce Clause has been expanded to allow for just about anything.

You seem to be on a one-man mission to overturn several centuries of laws here, lordbt. Quite the sysiphean task for one lone Libertarian.

But my bigger question is: if you dislike the "mob" so much that the laws that have been passed and adjudicated by the very systems put in place by the U.S. Constitution are so repellent to you, why do you stay in the U.S.?

It must be horrible here for you!

The left has used that and the "General Welfare" clause as a blank check on power for generations.

Is that why RICHARD NIXON signed in the Clean Water act? He was sooooo Lefty! What a commie!

Once you understand that the purpose of the Constitution is to carve out clear limits on government power, you will see how the abuse of those two clauses works against the overarching purpose of the document.

Well, again, there's a couple centuries worth of legislation and judicial decisions you will have to slash through long before you get to even start touching global climate change issues!

You've got a big task ahead of you.

But again, you are using the existence of laws to justify those laws.

Again your ignorance of the law is not an impediment to me. You are familiar with stare decisis, correct?

Oh and it works to your advantage to, but likely you wouldn't know this either. Again, I return to an area of some interest to me and my work: intellectual property law. A patent once granted is presumed valid (35 USC sect 282). Which means if you were to do something inventive and get a patent and someone were to come along and try to invalidate your patent it would be a lot more effort for them simply because once the government has gone to the trouble to grant you a patent it is given automatic assumption of validity and the onus is put on the opposing party to provide evidence against this presumption.

This is kind of how the U.S. judicial and legislative systems work.

Again, the fact that you seem to have so little interest in understand how our government works must be a burden on you when you complain against it.

I am not saying you are not right to question a law, but it does seem to me you are being rather "selective", either that or you will be a busy boy attempting to get 2 centuries of laws overturned just so you won't have to have your right to burn unlimited gasoline infringed.

What a strange calculus you have run there.

I have been discussing the moral basis of law, you are enmeshed in legalism.

Oh, my bad, I thought we were discussing laws. I didn't realize you don't actually care about law but want a philosophy discussion.

Well, if that's the case, I'm more a Utilitarian, ergo maximizing the benefit for the largest number. I'm a hedonist in the strict sense that I, like all other human animals, wish to maximize pain and minimize pleasure, but in my "hedonistic calculus" (a term you are no doubt familiar with from your philosophy classes) actually contains a term related to social stability and society.

Since I am a social animal, those rules which help stabilize society and maximize the benefits for the greatest number and minimize the pain for the greatest number benefit me and thereby increase my "pleasure" and decrease my "pain".

Unlike you I cannot live on my own in a survivalist wonderland of pure individual rights. That's why I like society (and I don't call them "the mob") and I value the structure it brings.

I give up some of my liberties so that others can have more.

Most people understand this point sometime after about 2nd grade. But of course there are those who never seem to learn.

So now you have both my legal and my philosophical stances outlined rather roughly.

If you like we can limit the conversation to one or the other. But, I must warn you, that if you wish to complain that "the State" can not do thus or so, I will have to assume that you wish to limit the discussion to the Legal.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Kelly Rigg: The War Against Climate Science Unravels

 

[lordbt]

In all of your charming blather you have now twice avoided the only question I am actually interested in hearing your response to:

What I have been trying in vain to drag out of you is what principles you use to determine whether or not a law is just. My standard is the laws adherence to the principles of human liberty and individual rights. Whats yours?

Why is that.