@ElJefer Wel if you define a state to be a governing body which has a monopoly on force which also uses taxation then indeed to be free you would need to be free of any state.
@MirageScience The State's use of force to collect taxes would not be needed if we had a voluntary tax system where you were only taxed on consumption and not production. Its kind of backwards huh? Should you do nothing for the rest of your life that brings in an income, you can use the goods and services provided by the taxes taken from those who do produce. So, you would get more benefit from the state if you did not work than if you did...something is very wrong here!!!
@quinnrasta voluntary taxes is a contridiction in terms. I also don't get your point. You worded it so obtusly that it's obvious nonsense. "Should you do nothing for the rest of your life that brings in an income" If you are just talking about a consumption tax yeah that makes more sense then an income tax but it's still a tax.
@MirageScience Poor wording on my part. We need a tax system in this country that provides for the constitutional role of government. It should be voluntary tax, yes the consumption tax. This will allow me to CHOOSE whether I contribute by purchasing goods and services taxed by the State or withhold my property (money) from the hands of the State. I am not against taxation per se, just against theft. "The hardest thing in the world to understand, is the income tax" Einstein
@quinnrasta What gives anyone or any group the right to place a tax on any goods? There is no legitamicy here. I didn't sign the constitution, I don't give any legitamicy to the state to tax me just because I just so happen to born and live on this land mass. If you are for constitutional government you are going to have to come up with an argument which gives the government legitimacy. If I don't pay the consumtion tax will there be guns? Yes, therefore it's theft.
@MirageScience Negative, you do not have to buy anything that requires a tax. You can buy from a secondary market that would not be taxed, like a garage sale, No one is saying you have to pay a consumption tax, just a tax on any good that requires that tax.The free people that choose for their goods to be taxed in return for a service will make that CHOICE. You can always get up and leave this repressive society and should you have a grievance with being born, blame you parents
@quinnrasta love it or leave it doesn't work. If you are going to say that producers can CHOOSE to allow a tax on their goods payable to the government without the threat of force than fine but that person will be at an obvious disadvantage in the market. My question is why wouldn't that person just promise to pay so much when he or she make so much? Whats the point of placing on every single transation a tax viewable to the consumer?
@MirageScience look I am a huge fan of the Mises institute & I would love nothing more than to have voluntary transactions & have private insurance for every role of my life,to insure harming my of another free individual,but I think that will be on my island. I would love to see everything through arbitration,but there is something to be said for defense of property and the enforcement of violent crimes.It then becomes mob rule where one company is being paid to arrest others etc
@quinnras I would suggest reading more into polycentric legal systems and systems where law existed without the state. You are mistaken to assume that democracy would become the norm. Rules would be applied to all fairly and agencies which provided contradictory laws would recieve less market share. Also people are not forced to fund any particular agency so agencies which marketed to about say 90% of the population would be far more competative.
@quinnrasta ideas of how a stateless society would paly out have gotten far since that days of Rand and here objections to it, and that's essentually waht your objection is, that objection made by Ayn Rand. I'm not going to say your stupid, because to be honnest I thought exactly the same before, but your ignorant of the ideas put forward in response to such objections.
@quinnrasta I also have a question about your position. You want to say that private protections in some sense is like mob rule. I assume you are something like a constitutionalist and that you want government to make trade and voluntary interation safe. If this is the case how is that not in the exact same sence like majority rule? Do elected officials not take office to represent the majority (under the constitution)?
@quinnrasta sorry for the barrage of comments, but just to finish, if you are a limited government constitutionalist then from my perspective, you position would seem to be one which belives people can not govern themselves and they must for the good of society ellect and give power to the few outstanding people. If so then I think you just asking for corruption and deception. A vote every few year just isn't enough accountability.(my oppinion)
@MirageScience I do agree with a lot of what you say, but who protects my property, if I cannot? Meaning if my family and I live and 15 people want to rob me of my possessions, what is my recourse? Is it up to me to round up a posse of 20 people to go get my things? Are we back to social darwinsim where the strongest survive? The problem with constitutional republics are the people...as would be in the case in the anarchist state. Your delusion is good but not realistic,in the US
@quinnrasta your course is to go to your defence agency who in all likelyhood would have relations with the defence contractors of the criminals. If they are found guilty by a privatly funded judge accepted by both agencies then you would be given the right to compensation which you could allow legally for your defence agency to go after for a cut of the returns. If the criminals cant be made to pay they will be labled outlaws and not protected by law from anything including murder.
@quinnrasta Your course is to charge the criminals in court with an agreed up judge between your dispute resolution agency (dro) and the defendants. Dros are incentivised not to have was obviously and they would ahve relations with others. If found guilty you would be given rights to compensation which you could sell to a contract buyer for a cut. If the criminal doesn't pay they would be outlawed or black balled as no dro would want to protect criminals that cost them.
@quinnrasta my delusion is shared by David Friedman, and I'm sure you know who he is if I say he is Milton Friedman's son. Sorry I'm not a state worshipper, you should really get rid of your religion.
@MirageScience Now you are just being a dumbass...as I STATED BEFORE, I agree with much of what you say, but you sound like a beauty queen bimbo that says all she wants is "World Peace" do you subscribe to the thought of world peace? Is it realistic? Does David really think we will get to no government in our lifetime? Maybe in your lifetime,it seems that your childish temper puts you at about 10. I don't worship the state, but I it is currently what I have to live in
@quinnrasta I sound like 10 but now you sound like you are wineing. If you didn't want shit thrown abck at you you shouldn't have called me delusional. No, I don't think there will be world peace and I don't even think any western nation will be stateless in my life time unless you include a collape senario. As to Davids time line I don't know... I'm not some dumbass because I think we can have better than what you think we can have, I'm not calling for utopia.
@MirageScience I am with you, I think you have a tendency to argue points that have been agreed upon. I am looking for something much better as well and a stateless is not an option,so instead of asking for world peace, I go with the option that protects me and my liberty in a realistic sense.I did not mean to call YOU delusional,just the the thought of land without the state.The start, is limiting the government and move down from there. Take care, I apologize for any disrespect
@testmark1 sorry what? where do I get what? I am not saying that Friedman advocates getting rid of the state. That's my position. It is also my position that a population is not civilized or free with a state having a monopoly on force and taxing it's population, rather it is a population living within a tax farm with the freedoms allowed to them to keep them more productive than slaves bearing chains.
Read the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the Federalist Papers, Bastiat's The Law. Know the history of USA or you can't support & defend it. Restore America 2012 Ron Paul RonPaul2012dotcom 1835 “Minute” on India written by Thomas Babington Macaulay; A government cannot be wrong in punishing fraud or force, but it is almost certain to be wrong if, abandoning its legitimate function, it tells private individuals that it knows their business better than they know it themselves.
I just don't think it can be made any clearer that Milton Friedman makes it in this clip. This is what it means to believe in the Constitution and in founding American principles. One either believes in those things or one doesn't. Clearly, with their insistence on constantly expanding the role of the federal government beyond its intended boundaries and with their belief that the Constitution is only partially relevant, if at all, the modern left does not believe in those principles.
Well, the atmosphere is a difficult thing to privatize. If you treat it as an object under group ownership, then whenever an entity (that shares in the group ownership of that object) devalues that object then the others must be compensated.
If the peak value of that air is at such a combination of compound concentrations, then any being disturbing that set of concentrations needs to be taxed.
We just need to figure out the most valuable concentration levels, and the peak value of all the air.
government's role in a free-market economy, ideally, is to act within its constitutional limitations; what is within government's role is to create the fair playing ground, lay down the rules and adjudicate the grievances
Milton Friedman was full of sh*t. I guess having no choice but to rent your self for what ever you can get to survive is in no way coercion. I guess Milton's over simplified definition is all freedom could possibly mean.
Why do you have to rent yourself? Start your own business and be your own boss. Oh, you think you deserve the means to support yourself just because you crawled out of your mother at some point? Well you don't.
And since no man can possibly do everything they need by themselves, who would you enslave to provide for you, and how does that fit into ANY definition of freedom?
The "free" -est thing on the planet is the baby chick, kicked out of its nest. Fall, or soar.
@pimpdalyrical Ridiculous statements about baby chicks have nothing to do with the exploitation of human labor. You read things into my comment that are not there. Throughout human history people have been exploited and in many cases enslaved to provide financial reward to the very few. Demanding fair compensation for one's time and effort is basic human interest. And yes, everyone deserves an opportunity to support themselves. Your disregard for human life is appalling.
"Throughout human history people have been exploited and in many cases enslaved to provide financial reward to the very few."
Right, and we called them socialism and communism. Capitalism has created the most prosperous working class in history, our poverty line is in the top 1% of wages on this planet. The Poor in places without it starve to death. Our poor suffer OBESITY!! Guaranteeing everybody's needs keeps them weak. Thats not respect for human life, its enslavement of it.
@pimpdalyrical Are you serious? You are denying the history of the United States. Was Thomas Jefferson a capitalist or a socialist? Capitalism didn't create the prosperous working class. It was created by government enforcing minimum wage and maximum work hours laws. The middle class you're talking about arose during the 1950s, when labor unions started gaining momentum. But seriously, answer my first question. Was Thomas Jefferson a capitalist or a socialist/communist ?
Was Thomas Jefferson a socialist? Oh this I gotta see. What out of context list of quotes do you have that point to socialism? I'm sure you have been DYING to relay them ever since you saw them on some douchebag's blog.
Minimum wage created the welfare class, $7.50 an hour is middle class? Check your math.
@jjevans2009 "Capitalism didn't create the prosperous working class."
They were gainfully employed? Doing what? Building something? Proving a service? For who? Who paid their salaries? 100% capitalists with the desire and ability to seek profit. Period. Somebody with a great idea and a sales pitch needed others to help them build it for a cut of the profit, in accordance to how individually necessary they are to the process, creating a prosperous working class. That's capitalism.
before you even start, if you're going to pull the same dumbshit ploy about Jefferson's wording in the declaration changing Locke's well known clause from "estate" to "pursuit of happiness," just stop right now before you embarrass yourself.
At no point does Jefferson seperate property from the pursuit of happiness, as would be necessary for your theory to be accurate. This was actually an attempt to keep property from becoming a government defended right, like life and liberty.
@pimpdalyrical You obviously miss my point about Jefferson. That's what's wrong with people like you. You have such a narrow view that you automatically think I'm labeling Jefferson as something he wasn't to claim he would agree with me. You do not get it. Jefferson was a capitalist. Right? The man owned other human beings. He used slaves, as many did at that time, as a means of production that would make him money. So capitalism has never caused people to be exploited or enslaved, right?
No. It was the people who were flawed, not the capitalist system. They saw other human beings as property. The right to own property is not at fault for that. Not to mention, slaves were a part of the culture in the new world before we seperated from the monarchy and adopted what we know today as capitalism. In fact, since capitalism is based on a person prospering or failing on merrit, taking control of another person's life for any reason was a violation of capitalism's ideals.
@pimpdalyrical You can make up all the reasons in the world why people like Jefferson owned other human beings, but it was for financial gain in a capitalist system. You tout people like Friedman who ignore history. Adam Smith wrote "Wealth of a Nation" in 1776. This book is the capitalists manifesto. Smith called the workers the "labor race." You are stuck in this 200 year old ideology. You do not understand "capitalist ideals." You are living in a dream world. You need to stop replying.
And what system would you prefer? The thinly veiled socialism under the term "Progressive?" What more monstrous system wide enslavement and oppression can you get? You really think these politicians in washington who say its their place to provide you with what others have earned are trying to help you? You gullible fucks are what is bringing down the most prosperous place of opportunity the globe has ever seen, out of pure envy for your neighbor and childish fears.
@pimpdalyrical Gullible? You have to be kidding. Anyone who buys into a system like capitalism without questioning the negative effects is gullible. You have no idea about what is happening in the world. You should stop trying to act like you are superior, no that's the problem. People like you believe you are superior so you blame others for the exploitation they must deal with just to survive. You haen't proven anything other than the fact you're a naive sycophant. What others have "earned."
@jjevans2009 what is a viable alternative to capitalism that helps the poor?
no system is perfect; perfection is a myth of the arrogant mind
true capitalists understand humility for it is through an individuals decision making in his own self interests that are at the heart of a free market economy
i really dont understand how the socialist fanboys fail to grasp simple truths about humanity
all they need to do is redirect their "hate" where it belongs (excessive government intervention)
Yes, you're gullible. You have been lead to believe that the imperfection of human beings is the failure of an idea, only to be sold on how perfect some other idea MUST be to replace it. Except whatever that other idea may be probably gives even more power to other flawed human beings. What system do you have to offer that has no potential for negative side effects? Have you been sold on a "perfect" system? If so, then yes you're gullible.
@pimpdalyrical You're obviously confused. You believe Friedman's BS that somehow a market without oversight will address and correct human flaws like greed. I have not once said anything about any system I may support. I have merely pointed out that so called "free market" economists and those who believe their ideology are naive. You are the one sold on a BS ideal. The market needs oversight plain and simple. Human beings are worth more than you and Friedman believe.
You're confused that Milton Friedman ever called for a Free Market without oversight! If government would stick to it's job and provide oversight, report to the people and let them decide, we would be just FINE!!!
But they don't. We give them power to fulfill impossible promises to us, and they sell it to their buddies. Then they pass regulations, picking market winners and losers instead of letting US decide. That's what GREEN is all about, that's what CAFE standards were for...
@pimpdalyrical You're mistaken. Milton Friedman was an advocate of "free market" economics. He believed the government should not regulate industry. Even your last comment demonstrates your lack of understanding. CAFE standards are not left up to consumers to choose. They are regulations setting fuel efficiency standards. Oil companies will not offer "green" technology until they have made every last dime off of oil. And the environment is suffering for it. I can show you several examples.
You misunderstood my post. OVERSIGHT is not REGULATION. Those are two DIFFERENT things. The government's job, as Milton knew and advocated for, is oversight and oversight only. The government is overstepping it's bounds with underhanded tactics against the petroleum industry and subsidies for "Green" horseshit that won't work. All to help their buddies investing in new green tech (GE?) The environment is fine. Turn off sundance award winning movies and do the science yourself.
@pimpdalyrical Are you serious? Do you have any idea what's going on in Washington? First, oversight is regulation. Secondly, the oil industry is entrenched in Congress. Please do not argue with me about this. I know far more about this issue than you want to deal with. Oil owns Congress. The House just voted to leave oil subsidies in place. Even the "free market" economist Ron Paul voted in favor of oil subsidies. You honestly think the environment is fine? You cannot win this argument. Con't
And no, oversight is observation and reporting to the people. The ref doesn't get to decide who the winner should be. That's what the government is trying to do for their buddies. You don't know shit about this except the same bile you chugged in college. Removing oil subsidies now would only increase the costs of people's food and medicines. Should they end? Certainly, but not while Washington is destroying the dollar and killing our control of a necessary industry.
@pimpdalyrical Turn off the sundance award winning movies? The environment is in deep shit. I have done more research on this issue than you could possibly understand. Oil companies throw junk science at you and you eat it up. Oil companies are motivated financially to spread pure bullshit. You have no concept of the benefits humans receive from a healthy environment so you are not qualified to comment. I'm serious, it pisses me off every time one of you misinformed sycophants plays expert.
I conduct environmental quality studies for a living, numbnuts. You're being sold a bunch of horseshit so foreign billionaires can make money growing Green tech junk stocks. All there is to it. Of course there are benefits to a clean environment. Trouble is you don't know what makes that happen. You shoved your head up your ass and let the television pick villains for you. You think solar panels and windmills are clean? Go ahead and be pissed. You know nothing.
@pimpdalyrical You conduct environmental quality studies... Blahahahaha!!! You post a ridiculous comment that can in no way be proven, and all the sudden we should believe you have some knowledge on the subject? Please. You can't even explain the carbon cycle or the greenhouse effect. Go ahead and make another stupid comment about the environment or economics. I can prove I have knowledge by using facts and data. You merely voice your misinformed opinion. You believe in "clean coal," don't you?
oh, by all means, display your fertile mind. Please explain Why the green movement would attempt to replace CO2 emissions, a piss poor greenhouse gas with a heat transfer coefficient of .839, with Water vapor, a gas with a coefficient of 4.18? Heres the formula if you can handle it: Amount of Heat Energy (Q) = cm(T1 - T2).
CO2 Transfers energy better than Aluinum, which we use in power lines! You're being suckered.
@pimpdalyrical Water vapor amplifies the effect of greenhouse gases smart guy. And it only stays in the atmosphere for about 3 days while CO2 resides in the atmosphere for about 100 years.Humans release approximately 7.1 Gigatons of CO2 intro the atmosphere per year. It is estimated that only half that amount is absorbed back into the environment. Obviously if you put more than what can be absorbed there is an effect. Also Methane contributes greatly to the greenhouse effect so your... con't
Evolution: proven by fossil evidence unlike global warming. Although I will say Darwin's idea that evolution's engine is random change doesn't seem to fit what we see. I dont' think we truly understand how it works yet.
What, did you assume I must be religious? Typical. I go to Tea Parties too, complete your idiocy trifecta by calling me a "racist."
@pimpdalyrical lame brained attempt at scientific evaluation is incomplete. If gases like CO2 and Methane are released at a level greater than what is naturally absorbed than there will be an effect, and if the atmosphere warms, which means more water evaporates, than more water vapor is in the atmosphere and the process is amplified. In turn oceans warm, which mean they cannot absorb as much CO2 as before and a positive feedback loop is created. Burning fossil fuels is not a natural occurrence.
Except you didn't bother to do the math, or look at the history. There was more Co2 pumped into our atmosphere by man during the industrial revolution, and there was a cooling trend. Adding a higher concentration of CO2 to the mixture of our atmosphere makes it radiate heat BETTER. It's conductive! Plus, you hear " 7 gigatons" and panic. That's not enough to change an atmospheric balance. What does correlate with temp? Could it be activity in that giant fireball in the sky?
@pimpdalyrical You have no clue what you're talking about. It is obvious you get your "information" from sources using "junk" science. The overwhelming majority of planetary, atmospheric, geological, and climate scientists and experts would say exactly what I'm saying, you are an idiot who has no concept of what you're commenting about. You cannot and have not explained the greenhouse effect that makes life possible on Earth. You do not understand the balance needed to maintain the climate. Cont
@jjevans2009 Another post of regurgitated non-sense? The same arguments you're using "All the scientists say so" sold the public on Global Cooling not too long ago. Here's a little insider info from a science professional: We can be bought too. You act like the word of scientists, who very often have to tow a line of thinking to get grant money, is some kind of gospel. You're sold and you're never gonna wise up til you're under control. Enjoy ignorance.
@pimpdalyrical You're so shortsighted that you keep spewing corporate propaganda as fact. You call yourself a "science professional." What a laugh.You do not even understand your own posts. You are using science that does not support your argument and claiming it does. Confirmation bias. Wow, you googled some info on carbon and then misrepresent the meaning. Everything you say is political PR talking points. Grants? What about the outright payment to law and PR firms that sell you this bullshit?
@jjevans2009 "What about the outright payment to law and PR firms that sell you this bullshit?"
Such as?
"The overwhelming majority of planetary, atmospheric, geological, and climate scientists and experts would say exactly what I'm saying"
According to who? People with money on the line dependant on you believing Human activity can outmatch the natural processes that produce CO2, water vapor, and methane?
Do you even know how many climate scientists there are, to make that statement?
@pimpdalyrical Just one word in your comment displays your vast ignorance. Temperature. Keep reading your right wing blogs and basing your misinformed opinion on them. Humans are transferring massive amounts of carbon from the lithosphere into the atmosphere in an unnatural process. You are living in denial because it makes you feel better. Good luck with all that. In less than a decade idiots like you will be blaming someone else for your shortsightedness.Your comments are full of contradiction
Typical uninformed youtube opinion. Swallowing all the bilge you can get spoon fed by the media instead of proving it to yourself. Two whole posts of "You're wrong" with nothing to back it up. What was I wrong about CO2 on? What corporation and PR firm wrote my college texts? As usual you have nothing to back up your claim that I'm wrong, except that you HAVE to be right, even though you lack what it takes to know first hand. Don't quote somebody else, show me your work.
@pimpdalyrical Oh, so now you claim you're citing a college textbook when a couple of comments ago you said everything I was saying came from a college text that was written to misinform me. Let me start by saying you do not seem to understand that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere contributes to warming the atmosphere enough to make life possible. There is no debate in the scientific community about this, despite your claims. Cont...
YOu got nothing you said from a Chemistry textbook, you got it from open your head wide and absorbing everything they tell you without question. What class' text was that?
Go ahead and post whatever link you have to a picture of the carbon cycle you found on the internet, and pretend you understand it.
"Global Warming" Like global cooling and holes in the ozone layer will be old debunked news in a decade, and you will wonder where your retirement fund went.
@pimpdalyrical It is interesting that you believe you are an expert. This is a typical YouTube opinion. I showed your comments to a geologist I know and he asked me why I even bother responding to your BS. His reaction was the same as mine. You are denying accepted scientific evaluation that really isn't even up for debate anymore. I will say that it's funny you criticize me for turning to experts. You think you've done research? Haha!! You wouldn't be on this video if you had any viable work.
I simply believe my education in the subject matter gives me more insight into it than your collection of MSNBC soundbites and Al Gore fiction.
You showed my comments about Atmospheric chemistry to a guy whose profession is studying the ground!? Wow. You really got me there! Do the math yourself!
You're being scammed by people who have their investments in place and stand to make billions trading "carbon offsets." If an oil company did this you would see right through it.
@pimpdalyrical Youe education? The comments I'm making aren't based on MSNBC or anything Al Gore has said. That's what makes this so funny. Everything I've posted is based on exactly what scientist, whether meteorologists, biologists, or otherwise have found. You do not even understand the difference between a scientific theory and the everyday common use of the word. You post a comment about CO2 conducting radiation without realizing the fact that it is this property of the gas that Cont...
Yet just as many scientists say it's bunk! I bet the difference has to do with which one's have grant money flowing in to do climate research! I wonder if their funding would continue if they reported there was no crisis to study anymore? Even if we COULD add enough CO2 to the air to cause a shift, Atmospheric CO2 doesn't transfer it's heat to the water vapor, the atmosphere as a whole transfers it back into space. The more CO2 in the mix, the more conductive the ENTIRE air mass.
The fact remains you're listening to the same people who think it's a good idea to replace our CO2 output with water vapor, which according to your own theory of how the climate works from your post, would cause a greater retention of heat in the atmosphere. Why do you think these people had to get CO2 regulated as a 'pollutant" and not a "greenhouse gas?"
@pimpdalyrical Your comments are political, not factual. You're wrong about the number of scientists who do not support climate change, hell , you're wrong about their position on the issue. The scientists that you think support your belief do not. They do not question climate change, they question whether anthropogenic sources are the primary cause. You are not a skeptic. You're an ideologue who uses attacks on intention not questions of whether the science is really valid. I will start... cont
@jjevans2009 "Your comments are political, not factual."
Mine include facts. Yours are nothing but regurgitated diarrhea. All you think you know about this, are things you have been told. You have observed none of this for yourself, and it shows.
Bring on your "onslaught." The thousands of climate scientists who don't have to tow the government line to get funding for their work have more than enough proof to run circles around whatever you saw on TV last night. If you even understand it.
@pimpdalyrical What facts? You keep spewing the same BS. "You listen to MSNBC, you saw it on TV last night, your facts are regurgitated diarrhea." Ever single one of your statements is biased with ideological fallacy. Your comment that a geologist wouldn't understand the atmosphere... hahaha!! Or saying that college textbooks do not support co2 as an atmosphere warmer by holding more radiation...hahaha!! I don't have room on this post so read my next smart guy...
@pimpdalyrical Here are some astronomy textbooks used in college 1. The Evolving Universe and the Origin of Life The Search for Our Cosmic Roots Teerikorpi, P., Valtonen, M., Lehto, K., Lehto, H., Byrd, G., Chernin, A. 2. Solar System Astrophysics Background Science and the Inner Solar System & Planetary Atmospheres and the Outer Solar System Milone, Eugene F., Wilson, William 3. The Solar System Encrenaz, T., Bibring, J.-P., Blanc, M., Barucci, M.-A., Roques, Continued...
So your evidence that a politically motivated bias doesn't exist, is that the politically motivated choice of textbooks in government run schools all spread the same horseshit? Astonishing. What else would you expect in a class called "Environmental science" except environmentalist garbage? What makes you think educators or text authors aren't motivated by money like everybody else. They teach what those in charge want you to think.
@pimpdalyrical Blahaha!!! You're doing a great job copying a pasting. You keep moving the goal post. "Show me a text that says..." Okay, here are a few. "Those are not valid because I'm a paranoid delusional wind bag that cannot accept the fact that I'm wrong." Blahahaha!!!! Keep acting like an expert. Every textbook says you're wrong. So let's get this straight. People who write astronomy textbooks have more motivation to lie than oil companies. Okay... well you won't be able to hide for long.
@jjevans2009 The goal post has always been you showing me the science. So far all you can do is name drop lists of people you google.
I don't care who filled your head with this crap, I want to know why you believe it without having done any of the work yourself?
The multitude of scientists who say it's BS hold PHd's too. So what? Most of these guy's jobs DEPEND on there being a crisis. Do you think they would tell you there really wasn't one?
@pimpdalyrical How much money do you think these people make? Show you the science? You haven't shown any science to back your claim. What Heat Energy (Q) = cm(T1 - T2)? Please. Please inform us all how this relates to the warming of Earth's atmosphere. Oh... It doesn't, because you're a dumbass who read this online and now believe you're a physicist. Maybe you should debate a professor of atmospheric chemistry with your high school physics equation. You should read my next comment...
Thanks for proving you don't understand the simple Math behind what you believe. The burden of proving CO2 has such a potential to effect climate that the small amount humans produce could effect it, is on YOU who have made that claim. The temperature records don't support it, so I gave you a simple equation. Plug in your numbers, give me the years and CO2 levels, and prove what you think you know. Instead of just believing it because somebody ELSE told you.
The simple math shows that known temperature change, and atmosphere, CO2 can be blamed for all of .01 degree C of warming over 65 years.
But you're gonna believe what your favorite talking head tells you to believe. God himself couldn't straighten you out. Hysteria has consumed you. Foreign billionaires will get richer, our economy will be short-sold, and you will eternally blame somebody else. Typical lib.
@pimpdalyrical Here are your experts. Apco Worldwide Inc., a PR firm spun off by Washington law firm Arnold & Porter L.L.P., which represents tobacco, oil, and drug firms. Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, a law & lobbying firm that represents Big Oil interests including the American Petroleum Institute, CITGO, ExxonMobil and Shell Oil, also represent big Wall Street banks, tobacco companies and advised multiple banks that participated in the federal bailout program. Who is spoon fed?
@jjevans2009 What text did you get your theory from?
The one where Co2 being a conductor of heat INSTEAD of an absorber IS the problem? I'd sure love to know what scientist told you that adding a chemical middle man to the greenhouse effect would mean MORE heat in the system to begin with.
Especially one that only interacts with a very specific wavelength of infrared photon, which it would naturally block most of from ever reaching the surface, let alone trap in the troposphere.
@jjevans2009@pimpdalyrical Hey jjevans. That list this pimdalyrical clown used as his own collage material, is just a list he copied from this publishing Website - springer.com. In fact it's in exactly the same order as the book listing. He's obviously a fraud and a moron if he has to resort to grabbing the first 'Google-search-of-astronomy-books,' It proves he's not an academic - he's a clown; Probably a 17 year old underachiever living at home who craves the attention mom can't give.
@pimpdalyrical 4. Astronomy today Chaisson and McMillan Addison Wesley. All of these books explain the greenhouse effect and also give an example of the effect large amounts of carbon dioxide have on an atmosphere i.e. Venus. These books are not dealing with climate change, they are illustrating a natural scientific process. So I guess these books are wrong but you, the YouTube scholar, are correct, right? Okay here are some more on the next post...cont
Is there a text out there that says CO2 shifts PREcede climate shifts? That's a necessity to prove causation, and it doesn't happen.
Any Astronomy texts claiming CO2 retains heat better than a coefficient of .897? The math won't work out in your favor unless that number is higher. Or a history book that says it was actually warmer when CO2 levels were higher in the atmosphere than today? No. We call that the "little Ice age." The scam being big isn't proof that there is no scam.
@pimpdalyrical Environmental science textbooks used in college 1. Environmental Science: Earth as a Living Planet by Daniel B. Botkin, Edward A. Keller, 2. Living in the Environment : Principles, Connections, and Solutions by Jr., G. Tyler Miller, 3. Case Studies in Environmental Science by Robert M. Schoch, 4. Environmental Science: Toward A Sustainable Future 9th Edition by Richard T. Wright, Bernard J. Nebe, All of these books say your wrong. Did you know that business schools... cont
@pimpdalyrical now require a class in environmental science? Why? Because climate change is going to have a profound influence on commerce. These classes are taught, not to deny climate change, but to understand how food and energy security will play a part in the market place. Didn't you say you understood economics? Please. I could list numerous facts about the real threat of climate change, such as the Defense Departments views, or you could shut the f*ck up now and go away.
"now require a class in environmental science? Why?"
So connected environmental scientists can have a job.
The beautiful part is the irony, that the gullible left and all its class warfare rhetoric, is carrying on a scam first perpetuated by Margaret Thatcher to put down a coal miner strike.
You're gonna believe what you're spoon fed, no matter what the evidence says. Go ahead and rant, nobody cares what you think. In the end you'll be outed as a fool.
@pimpdalyrical Here are some scientists that say you're a dumbass that's wrong, Charles Jackson, Zong-Liang Yang, Ian Duncan, Gary Rochelle, Ben Bond-Lamberty, Anthony C Janetos, Antoinette L Brenkert, Leon E Clarke, Alison Delgado, James J Dooley, James A Edmonds, William R. Emanuel, Nate Engle, Jiyong Eom, Sean Eustis, Meredydd Evans, Hu Guangping, Mohamad Hejazi, R Cesar Izaurralde, Larry Peterson, John Southam, Harold R. Wanless, Amy C. Clement, Brian Soden, ... continued
Wow another list of googled scientists whose job it is to push the panic button. You hear "Scientist" and assume their motives are pure and wouldn't dare say something is solved just to push an agenda. Those aren;t even all climatologistsYou're telling ME, MY sources now? Desperate attempt to give yourself credibility you don't have.
How bout the lead author of the IPCC report John Christy, or the co- founder of greenpeace Patrick Moore?
@pimpdalyrical Andrew C. Baker, Andrew Bakun, Sharon L. Smith, Leonel Sternberg, Douglas O. Fuller, Rana A. Fine, Joseph M. Prospero, Kenny Broad, this barely scratches the surface. All of these people hold Phds. and have a greater understanding of the atmosphere than you will ever hope to have, and they all say you're wrong. I guess they're part of a world wide conspiracy. What do you want next? More of these or how about the people feeding you the bullshit you spew?
i also liked how you brought up the atmosphere of Venus, without having any idea what it's significance is. Let me guess, some Global Warming nut on TV told you it's atmosphere is proof of this lunacy? (Hint: Venus, which should have the same atmosphere WE do, is hotter because it's CLOSER TO THE SUN.)
What it should tell you is that CO2 is so good at regulating energy that it remains while everything else in Venus' atmosphere BOILED AWAY. But you don't think, just swallow.
@pimpdalyrical You have no idea what you're talking about. Your high school physics equation has nothing to do with atmospheric chemistry. It is an equation for energy needed to raise the temp of a liquid. The website you read it on is wrong. You are also wrong about Venus. You are not qualified to make any assessment and your posts have determined how gullible you seem to be. You actually believe oil companies are not motivated by profit. Sorry, but that is pure ignorance. Keep posting moron.
@pimpdalyrical posting names and studies, because you apparently won't stop until I make you look like a total fool. Look at your comment on water vapor. You do not understand how water vapor functions and yet you try to support your claim with it... f*cking funny. Your comments on CO2 are so wrong it's laughable. Do you even understand that there isn't a scientist breathing that would read your comments and say you have an understanding of this issue? Prepare for the onslaught.
@jjevans2009 "You do not understand how water vapor functions"
This from the guy who thought water vapor would be better to add to the atmosphere because it sends heat back down to the surface through rain. Even though your own previous post chastized CO2 for adding to evaporation of water into the air thus CONTRIBUTING to the overall effect. (In your mind)
Physics 101, gases return to a liquid state when they COOL.
@pimpdalyrical Oh, and by the way, almost every textbook publisher has published books that directly oppose your beliefs and call into question you and people like you and the intentions of climate change deniers.
So the same politician approved "Social studies" curriculum that shows "The story of stuff" to impressionable kids helps perpetuate political power with this nonsene too! What a coincidence.
Is there a Chemistry text that says the heat transfer coefficient is something other than .897?
Or that water vapor absorbing heat wouldn't cause the air mass to expand into the cold of space and cool? No, you let them draw your conclusions FOR YOU, instead of doing the hard work yourself.
@pimpdalyrical CO2 contributing to the warming of the planet. You have not displayed any knowledge on this subject. Do I really have to give you a lesson in the carbon cycle or list the countless scientists who have researched climate change? Your claim was "the environment is fine." There are thousands of scientists that would disagree and give you examples of the issues being created by climate change. Seriously, do you want me to start listing names and studies or do you want to stop this?
@jjevans2009@pimpdalyrical Well said jjevans. I've been reading through this thread. This nearly-retarded-pimpdalyrical, is full of crap. Have you seen his Profile? He's narcissistic, ignorant and obviously has no friends, which is why he spends his life posting nonesence on YouTube as if anyone other than himself cares. Sure whenever he loses one of his 'bitch-fights' he runs to his momma for a little breastfeeding. What a complete turd he is :D LOL
@pimpdalyrical Besides, getting back to the original topic, you are ignoring observable human behavior just like your idol Friedman. Humans cannot be trusted, and when it comes to financial gain, there must be rules. Let me add that I went to college long before climate change was an issue, and to criticize those who actually get an education is ignorant. Everything you believe was developed by a Republican PR firm. I'm waiting for a comment about evolution. Go ahead a spew some BS about it.
Which is why our government can't be given the power to decide for US, who we buy from. Theyre human too. YOU'RE the ones voting to give politicians power corporations can purchase. You think regulations hurt big companies? They keep little guys like you and me from coming up with something new and competing! It's their idea! Government's job is to REPORT to us, not tell us what to do, rich or poor. But I guess the constitution is just "Republican PR"
Do socialist/communists really believe that the purpose of an individual is to serve the state? Maybe they believe that communism leads to the best out comes for individuals.
@jffryh Given the benefit of the doubt that socialist/communists believe in the best outcome for individuals (elitism), then they would change their minds as evidence to the contrary is presented. There are plenty of examples where socialism merely creeps from freedom to tyranny, but none that shows socialism becoming freedom.
There are plenty of examples of liberty helping all people and only going bad when liberties are infringed by either individuals (including corporations) or government.
@jffryh That's what I gather from socialists, that if a socialist society helps 75%, but hurts 25%, then it's a good thing.
Of course, this is horribly simplistic. I love the way Friedman argued his point in this clip. Obviously there IS a good function of government (law and order, for example, helps economic growth).
This might be the greatest and most signifigant speech Dr. Friedman has ever given. If every last person would take the time to not only listen to it, but deeply ponder it, we quite possibly might be able to turn this country around.
Actually, at 7:30 Milton is wrong. The very basis of the 1st Leftist Revolution - The French Revolution was the belief in the collective as a sacred force. The French Revolution was based on Rousseau, who believed in the sanctity of the majority. He believed, like all leftists, that morals are values determined by the collective. The collective is more because they agree. When you disagree with the collective you are immoral. It is the conclusion that is the most obvious leftist position.
@thomaserossi He was referring to the notion that a nation that values cooperation rather than coercion, there must be limits imposed on the political mechanism rather than the private mechanism.
Milton was a great man. You minarchists who are just starting out, keep reading and thinking about Liberty. You'll eventually turn away from limited-gov't and toward Anarchism.
@selfrealizedexile That goes way beyond what Milton is talking about. The very edge of the position he takes is the Libertarian view of government protecting individuals freedoms when they come in jeopardy of being violated by another individual. You cannot have anarchy without being infrindged upon by another. That is the very edge of anarchy. Which is the extent in which you could have a functional society. Rethink your position, and I'm sure you will agree with that assessment.
@SuperGuitarman69 And where will you find these angels to govern society? Will they not infringe upon us as well? Does the act of making a man a government official change his basic character? Or does it give him the power which ultimately leads to corruption and abuse? Doesn't government use the same tactics in collecting money as the mob- coercion and threats? Look up Stockholm Syndrome.
I have the same view as you that you need law and security to maintain a society--I just think private agencies could do a monumentally better job. Gov't has every incentive to increase its power beyond its constitutional mandate and, as such, will invent reasons to go to war (one of the few powers you left it with) to expand its power. What's more, over time its legislature will rent seek big business until what's left is an abomination of Natural Law. The only thing
that can keep this expansion of power in check is the awareness and conviction of the American people. If you study the history of America, you'll see the above is precisely in line with various expansions of gov't power and losses of liberty.
I trust much more the competitive nature of a market and profit incentive, which does not require consumers to know every detail about businesses, only their price, to look out for me than the empty platitudes of spineless
It's not that no infringement would exist (and, indeed, it occurs in both systems); it's that a total market society would better adapt to the needs of its inhabitants than a coercive monopoly. Self-defense is part of the Natural Law by extension of self-ownership. I'll trust a cordial, well-trained security guard who lives and dies by market demand over a bloated police state wherein brutality and lack of privacy is the norm.
I don't think Ron Paul supporters are wanting him to succeed in the sense that you're thinking he'll "fail." Just because I have differences with minarchists doesn't mean I'm not willing to go along with any cut in gov't. I'm happy to walk the path minarchists propose of continuously cutting gov't. Now, let's say in some fantastic circumstance where that actually happens, then I'll start talking to them about why what's left needs to be further privatized. But, creating rifts
True, but mafias can overreach. Ron Paul might be at the right place and time in 2012. The only ways you can reduce tyranny in our present situation is if repeals are widespread or you have mass tax revolting. We'll just have to see how easily the tea party movement gets co-opted by the neocons. To a degree, they already have as a lot of R's are gonna be entering office who really aren't for cutting gov't.
If they stay strong after the elections and monitor subsequent policy, it'll be fun watching the civil war within the Republican party.
Most people who call themselves anarchists are really pragmatic anarchists. If someone were to act on it immediately by paying no taxes, using no driver's license, shooting at cops in self-defense, etc., they wouldn't live very long. It is from this reality, I try to maximize my personal situation; I enjoy no freedoms if I'm dead.
Also, if a guy is in the mafia and constantly obstructing what progress the mafia can make with what influence he has, I don't view him as evil. I think we'd be better served excoriating the worst offenders first.
among those few who are anti-big gov't while gov't is still big seems counter-productive. It's like arguing who sunk the ship while the ship is still sinking.
@selfrealizedexile: turn away from limited-gov't? Are you implying that today's government is limited? Because if you are then you are mistaken that we are turning away from limited gov't. Rather we would like to return to limited gov't and not the overreaching government that exists today. Problem with gov't is it spends too much time doing things it shouldn't do and as a result does not do the few things its supposed to do, well.
@selfrealizedexile how so? How do you prevent injustice in a large scale society without enacting some sort of policing force and then how are we not back to where we started? It makes sense to push for reform to take things back to it's original state as a constitutional republic. How could you make what we originally started with any smaller and closer to anarchy without turning America into some kind of serfdom? How can you operate without a constitution? How can minority rights be preserved?
@selfrealizedexile False, anarchism is only a transition from one thing to another. Anarchists seek the same stateless society that communists seek. This is a denial of human nature and has failed because of that reason every time it is attempted.
It may indeed be a denial of human nature and why it only exists for very brief periods of time. Mankind is always in a state of flux. However, this does not then mean limited-gov't has logical soundness. Limited-gov't seeks to make valid the gov't's right to force and legal credibility. Its proponents believe a monopoly institution will be neutral and untyrannical. If you get them to admit that neither the gov't itself nor a piece of paper is going to effectively limit it, they
will concede only the people--a force external to gov't--will be able to stop the gov't. But for the people to effectively limit gov't, that generation has to see it for what it really is. And, once they do, you will have nothing stopping anarchism; the people won't trust the gov't to provide police and courts; you will have open rebellion. My view has always been if the minarchists could ever succeed in convincing the Statists to roll back gov't, one could succeed in convincing
those same people to entirely abolish it. Afterall, if the gov't is bad for X, Y, and Z in the production of various goods and services, it is bad for the very same reasons in providing law and security. There is nothing special about a man patrolling a street with a holstered gun or a robed man behind a bench reading established rules of a society. These are all services the market can easily provide. There is no functional uniqueness to gov't aside from the fact it takes
without permission. What logical necessity exists in law and security for theft? Indeed, it is the very anti-thesis of those two services. People like Randy Barnett and myself will tell you gov't is *necessarily* outside the law, breaking its own rules, acting unlawfully. When you put gov't in charge of security, you will get endless wars. When you put it in charge of law, you will get endless laws written to help those politically-connected. Gov't is just people who were once
in the private sector. It's not like once you go into gov't, you ascend into demi-god status, able to neutrally wield awesome power. If the market and gov't are both simply people doing things, the difference is the incentives. What keeps the market providing quality service is competition. How then can we go on to believe a monopoly institution such as gov't will provide quality service?
To sincerely seek the truth, you must be logically consistent no matter where your
conclusions take you. That is how true enlightenment is found. One must be ready to abandon what makes them comfortable if it is no longer sound. Cheers.
"Because people are stupid, ignorant and irrational." this will ultimately be reflected in the government. A government is only as good as its people someone once said. Now the government is only as good as the majority mob of the people.
>Because people are stupid, ignorant and irrational.< this will ultimately be reflected in the government. A government is only as good as its people someone once said. Now the government is only as good as the majority mob of the people.
This has been flagged as spam show
what does this all mean?
Cheap89 1 month ago
K, I got it. Must have been tired when I wrote my initial comment.
testmark1 2 months ago
What Obama asks is "what will maximize free lunches without regard for liberty?"
ElJefer 2 months ago
Role of government in a free society....
Well if the society is free then government, or as I like to call it the state, would not exist.
MirageScience 2 months ago
@MirageScience A free society doesn't necessitate the non-existence of a state
ElJefer 2 months ago
@ElJefer Wel if you define a state to be a governing body which has a monopoly on force which also uses taxation then indeed to be free you would need to be free of any state.
MirageScience 2 months ago
@MirageScience The State's use of force to collect taxes would not be needed if we had a voluntary tax system where you were only taxed on consumption and not production. Its kind of backwards huh? Should you do nothing for the rest of your life that brings in an income, you can use the goods and services provided by the taxes taken from those who do produce. So, you would get more benefit from the state if you did not work than if you did...something is very wrong here!!!
quinnrasta 2 months ago
@quinnrasta voluntary taxes is a contridiction in terms. I also don't get your point. You worded it so obtusly that it's obvious nonsense. "Should you do nothing for the rest of your life that brings in an income" If you are just talking about a consumption tax yeah that makes more sense then an income tax but it's still a tax.
MirageScience 2 months ago
@MirageScience Poor wording on my part. We need a tax system in this country that provides for the constitutional role of government. It should be voluntary tax, yes the consumption tax. This will allow me to CHOOSE whether I contribute by purchasing goods and services taxed by the State or withhold my property (money) from the hands of the State. I am not against taxation per se, just against theft. "The hardest thing in the world to understand, is the income tax" Einstein
quinnrasta 2 months ago
@quinnrasta What gives anyone or any group the right to place a tax on any goods? There is no legitamicy here. I didn't sign the constitution, I don't give any legitamicy to the state to tax me just because I just so happen to born and live on this land mass. If you are for constitutional government you are going to have to come up with an argument which gives the government legitimacy. If I don't pay the consumtion tax will there be guns? Yes, therefore it's theft.
MirageScience 2 months ago
@MirageScience Negative, you do not have to buy anything that requires a tax. You can buy from a secondary market that would not be taxed, like a garage sale, No one is saying you have to pay a consumption tax, just a tax on any good that requires that tax.The free people that choose for their goods to be taxed in return for a service will make that CHOICE. You can always get up and leave this repressive society and should you have a grievance with being born, blame you parents
quinnrasta 2 months ago
@quinnrasta love it or leave it doesn't work. If you are going to say that producers can CHOOSE to allow a tax on their goods payable to the government without the threat of force than fine but that person will be at an obvious disadvantage in the market. My question is why wouldn't that person just promise to pay so much when he or she make so much? Whats the point of placing on every single transation a tax viewable to the consumer?
MirageScience 2 months ago
@MirageScience look I am a huge fan of the Mises institute & I would love nothing more than to have voluntary transactions & have private insurance for every role of my life,to insure harming my of another free individual,but I think that will be on my island. I would love to see everything through arbitration,but there is something to be said for defense of property and the enforcement of violent crimes.It then becomes mob rule where one company is being paid to arrest others etc
quinnrasta 2 months ago
@quinnras I would suggest reading more into polycentric legal systems and systems where law existed without the state. You are mistaken to assume that democracy would become the norm. Rules would be applied to all fairly and agencies which provided contradictory laws would recieve less market share. Also people are not forced to fund any particular agency so agencies which marketed to about say 90% of the population would be far more competative.
MirageScience 2 months ago
@quinnrasta ideas of how a stateless society would paly out have gotten far since that days of Rand and here objections to it, and that's essentually waht your objection is, that objection made by Ayn Rand. I'm not going to say your stupid, because to be honnest I thought exactly the same before, but your ignorant of the ideas put forward in response to such objections.
MirageScience 2 months ago
@quinnrasta I also have a question about your position. You want to say that private protections in some sense is like mob rule. I assume you are something like a constitutionalist and that you want government to make trade and voluntary interation safe. If this is the case how is that not in the exact same sence like majority rule? Do elected officials not take office to represent the majority (under the constitution)?
MirageScience 2 months ago
@quinnrasta sorry for the barrage of comments, but just to finish, if you are a limited government constitutionalist then from my perspective, you position would seem to be one which belives people can not govern themselves and they must for the good of society ellect and give power to the few outstanding people. If so then I think you just asking for corruption and deception. A vote every few year just isn't enough accountability.(my oppinion)
MirageScience 2 months ago
@MirageScience I do agree with a lot of what you say, but who protects my property, if I cannot? Meaning if my family and I live and 15 people want to rob me of my possessions, what is my recourse? Is it up to me to round up a posse of 20 people to go get my things? Are we back to social darwinsim where the strongest survive? The problem with constitutional republics are the people...as would be in the case in the anarchist state. Your delusion is good but not realistic,in the US
quinnrasta 2 months ago
@quinnrasta your course is to go to your defence agency who in all likelyhood would have relations with the defence contractors of the criminals. If they are found guilty by a privatly funded judge accepted by both agencies then you would be given the right to compensation which you could allow legally for your defence agency to go after for a cut of the returns. If the criminals cant be made to pay they will be labled outlaws and not protected by law from anything including murder.
MirageScience 2 months ago
@quinnrasta Your course is to charge the criminals in court with an agreed up judge between your dispute resolution agency (dro) and the defendants. Dros are incentivised not to have was obviously and they would ahve relations with others. If found guilty you would be given rights to compensation which you could sell to a contract buyer for a cut. If the criminal doesn't pay they would be outlawed or black balled as no dro would want to protect criminals that cost them.
MirageScience 2 months ago
@quinnrasta my delusion is shared by David Friedman, and I'm sure you know who he is if I say he is Milton Friedman's son. Sorry I'm not a state worshipper, you should really get rid of your religion.
MirageScience 2 months ago
@MirageScience Now you are just being a dumbass...as I STATED BEFORE, I agree with much of what you say, but you sound like a beauty queen bimbo that says all she wants is "World Peace" do you subscribe to the thought of world peace? Is it realistic? Does David really think we will get to no government in our lifetime? Maybe in your lifetime,it seems that your childish temper puts you at about 10. I don't worship the state, but I it is currently what I have to live in
quinnrasta 2 months ago
@quinnrasta I sound like 10 but now you sound like you are wineing. If you didn't want shit thrown abck at you you shouldn't have called me delusional. No, I don't think there will be world peace and I don't even think any western nation will be stateless in my life time unless you include a collape senario. As to Davids time line I don't know... I'm not some dumbass because I think we can have better than what you think we can have, I'm not calling for utopia.
MirageScience 2 months ago
@MirageScience I am with you, I think you have a tendency to argue points that have been agreed upon. I am looking for something much better as well and a stateless is not an option,so instead of asking for world peace, I go with the option that protects me and my liberty in a realistic sense.I did not mean to call YOU delusional,just the the thought of land without the state.The start, is limiting the government and move down from there. Take care, I apologize for any disrespect
quinnrasta 2 months ago
@quinnrasta We can both vote for Ron Paul. xD
MirageScience 2 months ago 4
@MirageScience NO WAY...Gingrich all the way!!!
Just kidding! Ron Paul will get my vote!
quinnrasta 2 months ago 4
@MirageScience how do you get that from the speech?
testmark1 2 months ago
@testmark1 sorry what? where do I get what? I am not saying that Friedman advocates getting rid of the state. That's my position. It is also my position that a population is not civilized or free with a state having a monopoly on force and taxing it's population, rather it is a population living within a tax farm with the freedoms allowed to them to keep them more productive than slaves bearing chains.
MirageScience 2 months ago
source?
SuperBazzaz 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Read the Declaration of Independence, the US Constitution, the Federalist Papers, Bastiat's The Law. Know the history of USA or you can't support & defend it. Restore America 2012 Ron Paul RonPaul2012dotcom 1835 “Minute” on India written by Thomas Babington Macaulay; A government cannot be wrong in punishing fraud or force, but it is almost certain to be wrong if, abandoning its legitimate function, it tells private individuals that it knows their business better than they know it themselves.
possumpistol 3 months ago
lol..it looks like a free floating head like in futurama...
mrfcukdevil 5 months ago
LIBERTARIANMONARCHY . COM
"A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both."
— Milton Friedman
ecnerwal999 6 months ago
I just don't think it can be made any clearer that Milton Friedman makes it in this clip. This is what it means to believe in the Constitution and in founding American principles. One either believes in those things or one doesn't. Clearly, with their insistence on constantly expanding the role of the federal government beyond its intended boundaries and with their belief that the Constitution is only partially relevant, if at all, the modern left does not believe in those principles.
dmreeoogdaq 7 months ago
Well, the atmosphere is a difficult thing to privatize. If you treat it as an object under group ownership, then whenever an entity (that shares in the group ownership of that object) devalues that object then the others must be compensated.
If the peak value of that air is at such a combination of compound concentrations, then any being disturbing that set of concentrations needs to be taxed.
We just need to figure out the most valuable concentration levels, and the peak value of all the air.
frattaro 8 months ago
both of these tools are hijacking the thread
both of you should listen to the video and shut the hell up
2dum2getsocialism 9 months ago 9
He is correct and knew what Capitalism truly is.
stephenabm 9 months ago
government's role in a free-market economy, ideally, is to act within its constitutional limitations; what is within government's role is to create the fair playing ground, lay down the rules and adjudicate the grievances
2dum2getsocialism 9 months ago
Milton Friedman was full of sh*t. I guess having no choice but to rent your self for what ever you can get to survive is in no way coercion. I guess Milton's over simplified definition is all freedom could possibly mean.
jjevans2009 10 months ago
@jjevans2009
Why do you have to rent yourself? Start your own business and be your own boss. Oh, you think you deserve the means to support yourself just because you crawled out of your mother at some point? Well you don't.
And since no man can possibly do everything they need by themselves, who would you enslave to provide for you, and how does that fit into ANY definition of freedom?
The "free" -est thing on the planet is the baby chick, kicked out of its nest. Fall, or soar.
pimpdalyrical 10 months ago
@pimpdalyrical Ridiculous statements about baby chicks have nothing to do with the exploitation of human labor. You read things into my comment that are not there. Throughout human history people have been exploited and in many cases enslaved to provide financial reward to the very few. Demanding fair compensation for one's time and effort is basic human interest. And yes, everyone deserves an opportunity to support themselves. Your disregard for human life is appalling.
jjevans2009 10 months ago
@jjevans2009
"Throughout human history people have been exploited and in many cases enslaved to provide financial reward to the very few."
Right, and we called them socialism and communism. Capitalism has created the most prosperous working class in history, our poverty line is in the top 1% of wages on this planet. The Poor in places without it starve to death. Our poor suffer OBESITY!! Guaranteeing everybody's needs keeps them weak. Thats not respect for human life, its enslavement of it.
pimpdalyrical 10 months ago
@pimpdalyrical Are you serious? You are denying the history of the United States. Was Thomas Jefferson a capitalist or a socialist? Capitalism didn't create the prosperous working class. It was created by government enforcing minimum wage and maximum work hours laws. The middle class you're talking about arose during the 1950s, when labor unions started gaining momentum. But seriously, answer my first question. Was Thomas Jefferson a capitalist or a socialist/communist ?
jjevans2009 10 months ago
@jjevans2009
Was Thomas Jefferson a socialist? Oh this I gotta see. What out of context list of quotes do you have that point to socialism? I'm sure you have been DYING to relay them ever since you saw them on some douchebag's blog.
Minimum wage created the welfare class, $7.50 an hour is middle class? Check your math.
Let the man tell you what is: watch?v=Rls8H6MktrA
pimpdalyrical 10 months ago
@jjevans2009 "Capitalism didn't create the prosperous working class."
They were gainfully employed? Doing what? Building something? Proving a service? For who? Who paid their salaries? 100% capitalists with the desire and ability to seek profit. Period. Somebody with a great idea and a sales pitch needed others to help them build it for a cut of the profit, in accordance to how individually necessary they are to the process, creating a prosperous working class. That's capitalism.
pimpdalyrical 10 months ago
@jjevans2009
before you even start, if you're going to pull the same dumbshit ploy about Jefferson's wording in the declaration changing Locke's well known clause from "estate" to "pursuit of happiness," just stop right now before you embarrass yourself.
At no point does Jefferson seperate property from the pursuit of happiness, as would be necessary for your theory to be accurate. This was actually an attempt to keep property from becoming a government defended right, like life and liberty.
pimpdalyrical 10 months ago
@pimpdalyrical You obviously miss my point about Jefferson. That's what's wrong with people like you. You have such a narrow view that you automatically think I'm labeling Jefferson as something he wasn't to claim he would agree with me. You do not get it. Jefferson was a capitalist. Right? The man owned other human beings. He used slaves, as many did at that time, as a means of production that would make him money. So capitalism has never caused people to be exploited or enslaved, right?
jjevans2009 10 months ago
@jjevans2009
No. It was the people who were flawed, not the capitalist system. They saw other human beings as property. The right to own property is not at fault for that. Not to mention, slaves were a part of the culture in the new world before we seperated from the monarchy and adopted what we know today as capitalism. In fact, since capitalism is based on a person prospering or failing on merrit, taking control of another person's life for any reason was a violation of capitalism's ideals.
pimpdalyrical 10 months ago
@pimpdalyrical You can make up all the reasons in the world why people like Jefferson owned other human beings, but it was for financial gain in a capitalist system. You tout people like Friedman who ignore history. Adam Smith wrote "Wealth of a Nation" in 1776. This book is the capitalists manifesto. Smith called the workers the "labor race." You are stuck in this 200 year old ideology. You do not understand "capitalist ideals." You are living in a dream world. You need to stop replying.
jjevans2009 10 months ago
@jjevans2009
And what system would you prefer? The thinly veiled socialism under the term "Progressive?" What more monstrous system wide enslavement and oppression can you get? You really think these politicians in washington who say its their place to provide you with what others have earned are trying to help you? You gullible fucks are what is bringing down the most prosperous place of opportunity the globe has ever seen, out of pure envy for your neighbor and childish fears.
pimpdalyrical 10 months ago
@pimpdalyrical Gullible? You have to be kidding. Anyone who buys into a system like capitalism without questioning the negative effects is gullible. You have no idea about what is happening in the world. You should stop trying to act like you are superior, no that's the problem. People like you believe you are superior so you blame others for the exploitation they must deal with just to survive. You haen't proven anything other than the fact you're a naive sycophant. What others have "earned."
jjevans2009 10 months ago
@jjevans2009 what is a viable alternative to capitalism that helps the poor?
no system is perfect; perfection is a myth of the arrogant mind
true capitalists understand humility for it is through an individuals decision making in his own self interests that are at the heart of a free market economy
i really dont understand how the socialist fanboys fail to grasp simple truths about humanity
all they need to do is redirect their "hate" where it belongs (excessive government intervention)
2dum2getsocialism 10 months ago
@jjevans2009
Yes, you're gullible. You have been lead to believe that the imperfection of human beings is the failure of an idea, only to be sold on how perfect some other idea MUST be to replace it. Except whatever that other idea may be probably gives even more power to other flawed human beings. What system do you have to offer that has no potential for negative side effects? Have you been sold on a "perfect" system? If so, then yes you're gullible.
pimpdalyrical 10 months ago
@pimpdalyrical You're obviously confused. You believe Friedman's BS that somehow a market without oversight will address and correct human flaws like greed. I have not once said anything about any system I may support. I have merely pointed out that so called "free market" economists and those who believe their ideology are naive. You are the one sold on a BS ideal. The market needs oversight plain and simple. Human beings are worth more than you and Friedman believe.
jjevans2009 9 months ago
@jjevans2009
You're confused that Milton Friedman ever called for a Free Market without oversight! If government would stick to it's job and provide oversight, report to the people and let them decide, we would be just FINE!!!
But they don't. We give them power to fulfill impossible promises to us, and they sell it to their buddies. Then they pass regulations, picking market winners and losers instead of letting US decide. That's what GREEN is all about, that's what CAFE standards were for...
pimpdalyrical 9 months ago
@pimpdalyrical You're mistaken. Milton Friedman was an advocate of "free market" economics. He believed the government should not regulate industry. Even your last comment demonstrates your lack of understanding. CAFE standards are not left up to consumers to choose. They are regulations setting fuel efficiency standards. Oil companies will not offer "green" technology until they have made every last dime off of oil. And the environment is suffering for it. I can show you several examples.
jjevans2009 9 months ago
@jjevans2009
You misunderstood my post. OVERSIGHT is not REGULATION. Those are two DIFFERENT things. The government's job, as Milton knew and advocated for, is oversight and oversight only. The government is overstepping it's bounds with underhanded tactics against the petroleum industry and subsidies for "Green" horseshit that won't work. All to help their buddies investing in new green tech (GE?) The environment is fine. Turn off sundance award winning movies and do the science yourself.
pimpdalyrical 9 months ago
@pimpdalyrical Are you serious? Do you have any idea what's going on in Washington? First, oversight is regulation. Secondly, the oil industry is entrenched in Congress. Please do not argue with me about this. I know far more about this issue than you want to deal with. Oil owns Congress. The House just voted to leave oil subsidies in place. Even the "free market" economist Ron Paul voted in favor of oil subsidies. You honestly think the environment is fine? You cannot win this argument. Con't
jjevans2009 9 months ago
@jjevans2009
And no, oversight is observation and reporting to the people. The ref doesn't get to decide who the winner should be. That's what the government is trying to do for their buddies. You don't know shit about this except the same bile you chugged in college. Removing oil subsidies now would only increase the costs of people's food and medicines. Should they end? Certainly, but not while Washington is destroying the dollar and killing our control of a necessary industry.
pimpdalyrical 9 months ago
@pimpdalyrical Turn off the sundance award winning movies? The environment is in deep shit. I have done more research on this issue than you could possibly understand. Oil companies throw junk science at you and you eat it up. Oil companies are motivated financially to spread pure bullshit. You have no concept of the benefits humans receive from a healthy environment so you are not qualified to comment. I'm serious, it pisses me off every time one of you misinformed sycophants plays expert.
jjevans2009 9 months ago
@jjevans2009
I conduct environmental quality studies for a living, numbnuts. You're being sold a bunch of horseshit so foreign billionaires can make money growing Green tech junk stocks. All there is to it. Of course there are benefits to a clean environment. Trouble is you don't know what makes that happen. You shoved your head up your ass and let the television pick villains for you. You think solar panels and windmills are clean? Go ahead and be pissed. You know nothing.
pimpdalyrical 9 months ago
@pimpdalyrical You conduct environmental quality studies... Blahahahaha!!! You post a ridiculous comment that can in no way be proven, and all the sudden we should believe you have some knowledge on the subject? Please. You can't even explain the carbon cycle or the greenhouse effect. Go ahead and make another stupid comment about the environment or economics. I can prove I have knowledge by using facts and data. You merely voice your misinformed opinion. You believe in "clean coal," don't you?
jjevans2009 9 months ago
@jjevans2009
oh, by all means, display your fertile mind. Please explain Why the green movement would attempt to replace CO2 emissions, a piss poor greenhouse gas with a heat transfer coefficient of .839, with Water vapor, a gas with a coefficient of 4.18? Heres the formula if you can handle it: Amount of Heat Energy (Q) = cm(T1 - T2).
CO2 Transfers energy better than Aluinum, which we use in power lines! You're being suckered.
pimpdalyrical 9 months ago
@pimpdalyrical Water vapor amplifies the effect of greenhouse gases smart guy. And it only stays in the atmosphere for about 3 days while CO2 resides in the atmosphere for about 100 years.Humans release approximately 7.1 Gigatons of CO2 intro the atmosphere per year. It is estimated that only half that amount is absorbed back into the environment. Obviously if you put more than what can be absorbed there is an effect. Also Methane contributes greatly to the greenhouse effect so your... con't
jjevans2009 9 months ago
@jjevans2009
Evolution: proven by fossil evidence unlike global warming. Although I will say Darwin's idea that evolution's engine is random change doesn't seem to fit what we see. I dont' think we truly understand how it works yet.
What, did you assume I must be religious? Typical. I go to Tea Parties too, complete your idiocy trifecta by calling me a "racist."
pimpdalyrical 9 months ago
@pimpdalyrical lame brained attempt at scientific evaluation is incomplete. If gases like CO2 and Methane are released at a level greater than what is naturally absorbed than there will be an effect, and if the atmosphere warms, which means more water evaporates, than more water vapor is in the atmosphere and the process is amplified. In turn oceans warm, which mean they cannot absorb as much CO2 as before and a positive feedback loop is created. Burning fossil fuels is not a natural occurrence.
jjevans2009 9 months ago
@jjevans2009
Except you didn't bother to do the math, or look at the history. There was more Co2 pumped into our atmosphere by man during the industrial revolution, and there was a cooling trend. Adding a higher concentration of CO2 to the mixture of our atmosphere makes it radiate heat BETTER. It's conductive! Plus, you hear " 7 gigatons" and panic. That's not enough to change an atmospheric balance. What does correlate with temp? Could it be activity in that giant fireball in the sky?
pimpdalyrical 9 months ago
@pimpdalyrical You have no clue what you're talking about. It is obvious you get your "information" from sources using "junk" science. The overwhelming majority of planetary, atmospheric, geological, and climate scientists and experts would say exactly what I'm saying, you are an idiot who has no concept of what you're commenting about. You cannot and have not explained the greenhouse effect that makes life possible on Earth. You do not understand the balance needed to maintain the climate. Cont
jjevans2009 9 months ago
@jjevans2009 Another post of regurgitated non-sense? The same arguments you're using "All the scientists say so" sold the public on Global Cooling not too long ago. Here's a little insider info from a science professional: We can be bought too. You act like the word of scientists, who very often have to tow a line of thinking to get grant money, is some kind of gospel. You're sold and you're never gonna wise up til you're under control. Enjoy ignorance.
pimpdalyrical 9 months ago
@pimpdalyrical You're so shortsighted that you keep spewing corporate propaganda as fact. You call yourself a "science professional." What a laugh.You do not even understand your own posts. You are using science that does not support your argument and claiming it does. Confirmation bias. Wow, you googled some info on carbon and then misrepresent the meaning. Everything you say is political PR talking points. Grants? What about the outright payment to law and PR firms that sell you this bullshit?
jjevans2009 9 months ago
@jjevans2009 "What about the outright payment to law and PR firms that sell you this bullshit?"
Such as?
"The overwhelming majority of planetary, atmospheric, geological, and climate scientists and experts would say exactly what I'm saying"
According to who? People with money on the line dependant on you believing Human activity can outmatch the natural processes that produce CO2, water vapor, and methane?
Do you even know how many climate scientists there are, to make that statement?
pimpdalyrical 9 months ago
@pimpdalyrical Just one word in your comment displays your vast ignorance. Temperature. Keep reading your right wing blogs and basing your misinformed opinion on them. Humans are transferring massive amounts of carbon from the lithosphere into the atmosphere in an unnatural process. You are living in denial because it makes you feel better. Good luck with all that. In less than a decade idiots like you will be blaming someone else for your shortsightedness.Your comments are full of contradiction
jjevans2009 9 months ago
@jjevans2009
Typical uninformed youtube opinion. Swallowing all the bilge you can get spoon fed by the media instead of proving it to yourself. Two whole posts of "You're wrong" with nothing to back it up. What was I wrong about CO2 on? What corporation and PR firm wrote my college texts? As usual you have nothing to back up your claim that I'm wrong, except that you HAVE to be right, even though you lack what it takes to know first hand. Don't quote somebody else, show me your work.
pimpdalyrical 9 months ago
@pimpdalyrical Oh, so now you claim you're citing a college textbook when a couple of comments ago you said everything I was saying came from a college text that was written to misinform me. Let me start by saying you do not seem to understand that carbon dioxide in the atmosphere contributes to warming the atmosphere enough to make life possible. There is no debate in the scientific community about this, despite your claims. Cont...
jjevans2009 9 months ago
@jjevans2009
YOu got nothing you said from a Chemistry textbook, you got it from open your head wide and absorbing everything they tell you without question. What class' text was that?
Go ahead and post whatever link you have to a picture of the carbon cycle you found on the internet, and pretend you understand it.
"Global Warming" Like global cooling and holes in the ozone layer will be old debunked news in a decade, and you will wonder where your retirement fund went.
pimpdalyrical 9 months ago
@pimpdalyrical It is interesting that you believe you are an expert. This is a typical YouTube opinion. I showed your comments to a geologist I know and he asked me why I even bother responding to your BS. His reaction was the same as mine. You are denying accepted scientific evaluation that really isn't even up for debate anymore. I will say that it's funny you criticize me for turning to experts. You think you've done research? Haha!! You wouldn't be on this video if you had any viable work.
jjevans2009 9 months ago
@jjevans2009
I simply believe my education in the subject matter gives me more insight into it than your collection of MSNBC soundbites and Al Gore fiction.
You showed my comments about Atmospheric chemistry to a guy whose profession is studying the ground!? Wow. You really got me there! Do the math yourself!
You're being scammed by people who have their investments in place and stand to make billions trading "carbon offsets." If an oil company did this you would see right through it.
pimpdalyrical 9 months ago
@pimpdalyrical Youe education? The comments I'm making aren't based on MSNBC or anything Al Gore has said. That's what makes this so funny. Everything I've posted is based on exactly what scientist, whether meteorologists, biologists, or otherwise have found. You do not even understand the difference between a scientific theory and the everyday common use of the word. You post a comment about CO2 conducting radiation without realizing the fact that it is this property of the gas that Cont...
jjevans2009 9 months ago
@jjevans2009
Yet just as many scientists say it's bunk! I bet the difference has to do with which one's have grant money flowing in to do climate research! I wonder if their funding would continue if they reported there was no crisis to study anymore? Even if we COULD add enough CO2 to the air to cause a shift, Atmospheric CO2 doesn't transfer it's heat to the water vapor, the atmosphere as a whole transfers it back into space. The more CO2 in the mix, the more conductive the ENTIRE air mass.
pimpdalyrical 9 months ago
@jjevans2009
The fact remains you're listening to the same people who think it's a good idea to replace our CO2 output with water vapor, which according to your own theory of how the climate works from your post, would cause a greater retention of heat in the atmosphere. Why do you think these people had to get CO2 regulated as a 'pollutant" and not a "greenhouse gas?"
It's a money-making-scam.
pimpdalyrical 9 months ago
@pimpdalyrical Your comments are political, not factual. You're wrong about the number of scientists who do not support climate change, hell , you're wrong about their position on the issue. The scientists that you think support your belief do not. They do not question climate change, they question whether anthropogenic sources are the primary cause. You are not a skeptic. You're an ideologue who uses attacks on intention not questions of whether the science is really valid. I will start... cont
jjevans2009 9 months ago
@jjevans2009 "Your comments are political, not factual."
Mine include facts. Yours are nothing but regurgitated diarrhea. All you think you know about this, are things you have been told. You have observed none of this for yourself, and it shows.
Bring on your "onslaught." The thousands of climate scientists who don't have to tow the government line to get funding for their work have more than enough proof to run circles around whatever you saw on TV last night. If you even understand it.
pimpdalyrical 9 months ago
@pimpdalyrical What facts? You keep spewing the same BS. "You listen to MSNBC, you saw it on TV last night, your facts are regurgitated diarrhea." Ever single one of your statements is biased with ideological fallacy. Your comment that a geologist wouldn't understand the atmosphere... hahaha!! Or saying that college textbooks do not support co2 as an atmosphere warmer by holding more radiation...hahaha!! I don't have room on this post so read my next smart guy...
jjevans2009 9 months ago
@pimpdalyrical Here are some astronomy textbooks used in college 1. The Evolving Universe and the Origin of Life The Search for Our Cosmic Roots Teerikorpi, P., Valtonen, M., Lehto, K., Lehto, H., Byrd, G., Chernin, A. 2. Solar System Astrophysics Background Science and the Inner Solar System & Planetary Atmospheres and the Outer Solar System Milone, Eugene F., Wilson, William 3. The Solar System Encrenaz, T., Bibring, J.-P., Blanc, M., Barucci, M.-A., Roques, Continued...
jjevans2009 9 months ago
@jjevans2009
So your evidence that a politically motivated bias doesn't exist, is that the politically motivated choice of textbooks in government run schools all spread the same horseshit? Astonishing. What else would you expect in a class called "Environmental science" except environmentalist garbage? What makes you think educators or text authors aren't motivated by money like everybody else. They teach what those in charge want you to think.
pimpdalyrical 9 months ago
@pimpdalyrical Blahaha!!! You're doing a great job copying a pasting. You keep moving the goal post. "Show me a text that says..." Okay, here are a few. "Those are not valid because I'm a paranoid delusional wind bag that cannot accept the fact that I'm wrong." Blahahaha!!!! Keep acting like an expert. Every textbook says you're wrong. So let's get this straight. People who write astronomy textbooks have more motivation to lie than oil companies. Okay... well you won't be able to hide for long.
jjevans2009 9 months ago
@jjevans2009 The goal post has always been you showing me the science. So far all you can do is name drop lists of people you google.
I don't care who filled your head with this crap, I want to know why you believe it without having done any of the work yourself?
The multitude of scientists who say it's BS hold PHd's too. So what? Most of these guy's jobs DEPEND on there being a crisis. Do you think they would tell you there really wasn't one?
pimpdalyrical 9 months ago
@pimpdalyrical How much money do you think these people make? Show you the science? You haven't shown any science to back your claim. What Heat Energy (Q) = cm(T1 - T2)? Please. Please inform us all how this relates to the warming of Earth's atmosphere. Oh... It doesn't, because you're a dumbass who read this online and now believe you're a physicist. Maybe you should debate a professor of atmospheric chemistry with your high school physics equation. You should read my next comment...
jjevans2009 9 months ago
@jjevans2009
Thanks for proving you don't understand the simple Math behind what you believe. The burden of proving CO2 has such a potential to effect climate that the small amount humans produce could effect it, is on YOU who have made that claim. The temperature records don't support it, so I gave you a simple equation. Plug in your numbers, give me the years and CO2 levels, and prove what you think you know. Instead of just believing it because somebody ELSE told you.
pimpdalyrical 9 months ago
@jjevans2009
The simple math shows that known temperature change, and atmosphere, CO2 can be blamed for all of .01 degree C of warming over 65 years.
But you're gonna believe what your favorite talking head tells you to believe. God himself couldn't straighten you out. Hysteria has consumed you. Foreign billionaires will get richer, our economy will be short-sold, and you will eternally blame somebody else. Typical lib.
pimpdalyrical 9 months ago
@pimpdalyrical Here are your experts. Apco Worldwide Inc., a PR firm spun off by Washington law firm Arnold & Porter L.L.P., which represents tobacco, oil, and drug firms. Womble, Carlyle, Sandridge & Rice, a law & lobbying firm that represents Big Oil interests including the American Petroleum Institute, CITGO, ExxonMobil and Shell Oil, also represent big Wall Street banks, tobacco companies and advised multiple banks that participated in the federal bailout program. Who is spoon fed?
jjevans2009 9 months ago
@jjevans2009 What text did you get your theory from?
The one where Co2 being a conductor of heat INSTEAD of an absorber IS the problem? I'd sure love to know what scientist told you that adding a chemical middle man to the greenhouse effect would mean MORE heat in the system to begin with.
Especially one that only interacts with a very specific wavelength of infrared photon, which it would naturally block most of from ever reaching the surface, let alone trap in the troposphere.
pimpdalyrical 9 months ago
@jjevans2009 @pimpdalyrical Hey jjevans. That list this pimdalyrical clown used as his own collage material, is just a list he copied from this publishing Website - springer.com. In fact it's in exactly the same order as the book listing. He's obviously a fraud and a moron if he has to resort to grabbing the first 'Google-search-of-astronomy-books,' It proves he's not an academic - he's a clown; Probably a 17 year old underachiever living at home who craves the attention mom can't give.
c975671 9 months ago
@pimpdalyrical 4. Astronomy today Chaisson and McMillan Addison Wesley. All of these books explain the greenhouse effect and also give an example of the effect large amounts of carbon dioxide have on an atmosphere i.e. Venus. These books are not dealing with climate change, they are illustrating a natural scientific process. So I guess these books are wrong but you, the YouTube scholar, are correct, right? Okay here are some more on the next post...cont
jjevans2009 9 months ago
@jjevans2009
Is there a text out there that says CO2 shifts PREcede climate shifts? That's a necessity to prove causation, and it doesn't happen.
Any Astronomy texts claiming CO2 retains heat better than a coefficient of .897? The math won't work out in your favor unless that number is higher. Or a history book that says it was actually warmer when CO2 levels were higher in the atmosphere than today? No. We call that the "little Ice age." The scam being big isn't proof that there is no scam.
pimpdalyrical 9 months ago
@pimpdalyrical Environmental science textbooks used in college 1. Environmental Science: Earth as a Living Planet by Daniel B. Botkin, Edward A. Keller, 2. Living in the Environment : Principles, Connections, and Solutions by Jr., G. Tyler Miller, 3. Case Studies in Environmental Science by Robert M. Schoch, 4. Environmental Science: Toward A Sustainable Future 9th Edition by Richard T. Wright, Bernard J. Nebe, All of these books say your wrong. Did you know that business schools... cont
jjevans2009 9 months ago
@pimpdalyrical now require a class in environmental science? Why? Because climate change is going to have a profound influence on commerce. These classes are taught, not to deny climate change, but to understand how food and energy security will play a part in the market place. Didn't you say you understood economics? Please. I could list numerous facts about the real threat of climate change, such as the Defense Departments views, or you could shut the f*ck up now and go away.
jjevans2009 9 months ago
@jjevans2009
"now require a class in environmental science? Why?"
So connected environmental scientists can have a job.
The beautiful part is the irony, that the gullible left and all its class warfare rhetoric, is carrying on a scam first perpetuated by Margaret Thatcher to put down a coal miner strike.
You're gonna believe what you're spoon fed, no matter what the evidence says. Go ahead and rant, nobody cares what you think. In the end you'll be outed as a fool.
pimpdalyrical 9 months ago
@pimpdalyrical Here are some scientists that say you're a dumbass that's wrong, Charles Jackson, Zong-Liang Yang, Ian Duncan, Gary Rochelle, Ben Bond-Lamberty, Anthony C Janetos, Antoinette L Brenkert, Leon E Clarke, Alison Delgado, James J Dooley, James A Edmonds, William R. Emanuel, Nate Engle, Jiyong Eom, Sean Eustis, Meredydd Evans, Hu Guangping, Mohamad Hejazi, R Cesar Izaurralde, Larry Peterson, John Southam, Harold R. Wanless, Amy C. Clement, Brian Soden, ... continued
jjevans2009 9 months ago
@jjevans2009
Wow another list of googled scientists whose job it is to push the panic button. You hear "Scientist" and assume their motives are pure and wouldn't dare say something is solved just to push an agenda. Those aren;t even all climatologistsYou're telling ME, MY sources now? Desperate attempt to give yourself credibility you don't have.
How bout the lead author of the IPCC report John Christy, or the co- founder of greenpeace Patrick Moore?
pimpdalyrical 9 months ago 10
@pimpdalyrical Andrew C. Baker, Andrew Bakun, Sharon L. Smith, Leonel Sternberg, Douglas O. Fuller, Rana A. Fine, Joseph M. Prospero, Kenny Broad, this barely scratches the surface. All of these people hold Phds. and have a greater understanding of the atmosphere than you will ever hope to have, and they all say you're wrong. I guess they're part of a world wide conspiracy. What do you want next? More of these or how about the people feeding you the bullshit you spew?
jjevans2009 9 months ago
@jjevans2009
i also liked how you brought up the atmosphere of Venus, without having any idea what it's significance is. Let me guess, some Global Warming nut on TV told you it's atmosphere is proof of this lunacy? (Hint: Venus, which should have the same atmosphere WE do, is hotter because it's CLOSER TO THE SUN.)
What it should tell you is that CO2 is so good at regulating energy that it remains while everything else in Venus' atmosphere BOILED AWAY. But you don't think, just swallow.
pimpdalyrical 9 months ago
@pimpdalyrical You have no idea what you're talking about. Your high school physics equation has nothing to do with atmospheric chemistry. It is an equation for energy needed to raise the temp of a liquid. The website you read it on is wrong. You are also wrong about Venus. You are not qualified to make any assessment and your posts have determined how gullible you seem to be. You actually believe oil companies are not motivated by profit. Sorry, but that is pure ignorance. Keep posting moron.
jjevans2009 9 months ago
@pimpdalyrical posting names and studies, because you apparently won't stop until I make you look like a total fool. Look at your comment on water vapor. You do not understand how water vapor functions and yet you try to support your claim with it... f*cking funny. Your comments on CO2 are so wrong it's laughable. Do you even understand that there isn't a scientist breathing that would read your comments and say you have an understanding of this issue? Prepare for the onslaught.
jjevans2009 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jjevans2009 "You do not understand how water vapor functions"
This from the guy who thought water vapor would be better to add to the atmosphere because it sends heat back down to the surface through rain. Even though your own previous post chastized CO2 for adding to evaporation of water into the air thus CONTRIBUTING to the overall effect. (In your mind)
Physics 101, gases return to a liquid state when they COOL.
pimpdalyrical 9 months ago
@pimpdalyrical Oh, and by the way, almost every textbook publisher has published books that directly oppose your beliefs and call into question you and people like you and the intentions of climate change deniers.
jjevans2009 9 months ago
@jjevans2009
So the same politician approved "Social studies" curriculum that shows "The story of stuff" to impressionable kids helps perpetuate political power with this nonsene too! What a coincidence.
Is there a Chemistry text that says the heat transfer coefficient is something other than .897?
Or that water vapor absorbing heat wouldn't cause the air mass to expand into the cold of space and cool? No, you let them draw your conclusions FOR YOU, instead of doing the hard work yourself.
pimpdalyrical 9 months ago
@pimpdalyrical CO2 contributing to the warming of the planet. You have not displayed any knowledge on this subject. Do I really have to give you a lesson in the carbon cycle or list the countless scientists who have researched climate change? Your claim was "the environment is fine." There are thousands of scientists that would disagree and give you examples of the issues being created by climate change. Seriously, do you want me to start listing names and studies or do you want to stop this?
jjevans2009 9 months ago
@jjevans2009 @pimpdalyrical Well said jjevans. I've been reading through this thread. This nearly-retarded-pimpdalyrical, is full of crap. Have you seen his Profile? He's narcissistic, ignorant and obviously has no friends, which is why he spends his life posting nonesence on YouTube as if anyone other than himself cares. Sure whenever he loses one of his 'bitch-fights' he runs to his momma for a little breastfeeding. What a complete turd he is :D LOL
c975671 9 months ago
@pimpdalyrical Besides, getting back to the original topic, you are ignoring observable human behavior just like your idol Friedman. Humans cannot be trusted, and when it comes to financial gain, there must be rules. Let me add that I went to college long before climate change was an issue, and to criticize those who actually get an education is ignorant. Everything you believe was developed by a Republican PR firm. I'm waiting for a comment about evolution. Go ahead a spew some BS about it.
jjevans2009 9 months ago
@jjevans2009
" Humans cannot be trusted,"
Which is why our government can't be given the power to decide for US, who we buy from. Theyre human too. YOU'RE the ones voting to give politicians power corporations can purchase. You think regulations hurt big companies? They keep little guys like you and me from coming up with something new and competing! It's their idea! Government's job is to REPORT to us, not tell us what to do, rich or poor. But I guess the constitution is just "Republican PR"
pimpdalyrical 9 months ago
I am interested to know where you got these videos. and at what collage is he speaking? Thank you
Thewizzardof9 11 months ago
Good, nice.
JimBucket 1 year ago
So, majority rule is acceptable when we need conformity. And who decides when we need conformity?
Majority rule is NEVER acceptable. The majority NEVER has the right to initiate force against a minority.
MigDanskeren 1 year ago
Lunatic.
DearyLeary 1 year ago
Man do you have an AWESOME channel! So glad I subscribed.
pinegrove33 1 year ago
Is this a lecture, or a sermon? :P
CountArtha 1 year ago
Do socialist/communists really believe that the purpose of an individual is to serve the state? Maybe they believe that communism leads to the best out comes for individuals.
jffryh 1 year ago
@jffryh Given the benefit of the doubt that socialist/communists believe in the best outcome for individuals (elitism), then they would change their minds as evidence to the contrary is presented. There are plenty of examples where socialism merely creeps from freedom to tyranny, but none that shows socialism becoming freedom.
There are plenty of examples of liberty helping all people and only going bad when liberties are infringed by either individuals (including corporations) or government.
bsabruzzo 1 year ago
@jffryh That's what I gather from socialists, that if a socialist society helps 75%, but hurts 25%, then it's a good thing.
Of course, this is horribly simplistic. I love the way Friedman argued his point in this clip. Obviously there IS a good function of government (law and order, for example, helps economic growth).
jrsub3 1 year ago
This might be the greatest and most signifigant speech Dr. Friedman has ever given. If every last person would take the time to not only listen to it, but deeply ponder it, we quite possibly might be able to turn this country around.
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
Milt is my hero!
SuperSneakySteve 1 year ago
Actually, at 7:30 Milton is wrong. The very basis of the 1st Leftist Revolution - The French Revolution was the belief in the collective as a sacred force. The French Revolution was based on Rousseau, who believed in the sanctity of the majority. He believed, like all leftists, that morals are values determined by the collective. The collective is more because they agree. When you disagree with the collective you are immoral. It is the conclusion that is the most obvious leftist position.
thomaserossi 1 year ago
@thomaserossi He was referring to the notion that a nation that values cooperation rather than coercion, there must be limits imposed on the political mechanism rather than the private mechanism.
MikeTMerciless 1 year ago
Milton was a great man. You minarchists who are just starting out, keep reading and thinking about Liberty. You'll eventually turn away from limited-gov't and toward Anarchism.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago 13
@selfrealizedexile good comment, way to many minarcist. Liberty has no room for a state. Check out my channel description, peace out
JordanViewer 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile That goes way beyond what Milton is talking about. The very edge of the position he takes is the Libertarian view of government protecting individuals freedoms when they come in jeopardy of being violated by another individual. You cannot have anarchy without being infrindged upon by another. That is the very edge of anarchy. Which is the extent in which you could have a functional society. Rethink your position, and I'm sure you will agree with that assessment.
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69 And where will you find these angels to govern society? Will they not infringe upon us as well? Does the act of making a man a government official change his basic character? Or does it give him the power which ultimately leads to corruption and abuse? Doesn't government use the same tactics in collecting money as the mob- coercion and threats? Look up Stockholm Syndrome.
safeinsuburbia 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69
I have the same view as you that you need law and security to maintain a society--I just think private agencies could do a monumentally better job. Gov't has every incentive to increase its power beyond its constitutional mandate and, as such, will invent reasons to go to war (one of the few powers you left it with) to expand its power. What's more, over time its legislature will rent seek big business until what's left is an abomination of Natural Law. The only thing
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69
that can keep this expansion of power in check is the awareness and conviction of the American people. If you study the history of America, you'll see the above is precisely in line with various expansions of gov't power and losses of liberty.
I trust much more the competitive nature of a market and profit incentive, which does not require consumers to know every detail about businesses, only their price, to look out for me than the empty platitudes of spineless
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@SuperGuitarman69
politicians.
It's not that no infringement would exist (and, indeed, it occurs in both systems); it's that a total market society would better adapt to the needs of its inhabitants than a coercive monopoly. Self-defense is part of the Natural Law by extension of self-ownership. I'll trust a cordial, well-trained security guard who lives and dies by market demand over a bloated police state wherein brutality and lack of privacy is the norm.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile You and I completely agree. Judging from your well thought out statements in your posts, we completely agree my friend!
SuperGuitarman69 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile
Notice the Adam Smith tie Friedman was wearing!
Nintendomanwill 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile lol, when Ron Paul ends in miserable failure, maybe they'll wake up.
Sivels 1 year ago
@Sivels
I don't think Ron Paul supporters are wanting him to succeed in the sense that you're thinking he'll "fail." Just because I have differences with minarchists doesn't mean I'm not willing to go along with any cut in gov't. I'm happy to walk the path minarchists propose of continuously cutting gov't. Now, let's say in some fantastic circumstance where that actually happens, then I'll start talking to them about why what's left needs to be further privatized. But, creating rifts
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile My issue is, I don't believe you can infiltrate the mafia to change it. It still the mafia lol, get my point?
Sivels 1 year ago
@Sivels
True, but mafias can overreach. Ron Paul might be at the right place and time in 2012. The only ways you can reduce tyranny in our present situation is if repeals are widespread or you have mass tax revolting. We'll just have to see how easily the tea party movement gets co-opted by the neocons. To a degree, they already have as a lot of R's are gonna be entering office who really aren't for cutting gov't.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@Sivels
If they stay strong after the elections and monitor subsequent policy, it'll be fun watching the civil war within the Republican party.
Most people who call themselves anarchists are really pragmatic anarchists. If someone were to act on it immediately by paying no taxes, using no driver's license, shooting at cops in self-defense, etc., they wouldn't live very long. It is from this reality, I try to maximize my personal situation; I enjoy no freedoms if I'm dead.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@Sivels
Also, if a guy is in the mafia and constantly obstructing what progress the mafia can make with what influence he has, I don't view him as evil. I think we'd be better served excoriating the worst offenders first.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@Sivels
among those few who are anti-big gov't while gov't is still big seems counter-productive. It's like arguing who sunk the ship while the ship is still sinking.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@selfrealizedexile ron paul in 2012*
Sivels 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile: turn away from limited-gov't? Are you implying that today's government is limited? Because if you are then you are mistaken that we are turning away from limited gov't. Rather we would like to return to limited gov't and not the overreaching government that exists today. Problem with gov't is it spends too much time doing things it shouldn't do and as a result does not do the few things its supposed to do, well.
qbanpapi690 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile
Never!!!!
flynn2008 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile how so? How do you prevent injustice in a large scale society without enacting some sort of policing force and then how are we not back to where we started? It makes sense to push for reform to take things back to it's original state as a constitutional republic. How could you make what we originally started with any smaller and closer to anarchy without turning America into some kind of serfdom? How can you operate without a constitution? How can minority rights be preserved?
finefinefine 1 year ago
@finefinefine
/watch?v=4hegQyvh3ok
Put that after YT dot com.
selfrealizedexile 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile An Interesting idea. Thanks for the link.
finefinefine 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile milton was not an anarchist
richmocha 1 year ago
@selfrealizedexile False, anarchism is only a transition from one thing to another. Anarchists seek the same stateless society that communists seek. This is a denial of human nature and has failed because of that reason every time it is attempted.
MrDevong 10 months ago
@MrDevong
It may indeed be a denial of human nature and why it only exists for very brief periods of time. Mankind is always in a state of flux. However, this does not then mean limited-gov't has logical soundness. Limited-gov't seeks to make valid the gov't's right to force and legal credibility. Its proponents believe a monopoly institution will be neutral and untyrannical. If you get them to admit that neither the gov't itself nor a piece of paper is going to effectively limit it, they
selfrealizedexile 10 months ago
@MrDevong
will concede only the people--a force external to gov't--will be able to stop the gov't. But for the people to effectively limit gov't, that generation has to see it for what it really is. And, once they do, you will have nothing stopping anarchism; the people won't trust the gov't to provide police and courts; you will have open rebellion. My view has always been if the minarchists could ever succeed in convincing the Statists to roll back gov't, one could succeed in convincing
selfrealizedexile 10 months ago
@MrDevong
those same people to entirely abolish it. Afterall, if the gov't is bad for X, Y, and Z in the production of various goods and services, it is bad for the very same reasons in providing law and security. There is nothing special about a man patrolling a street with a holstered gun or a robed man behind a bench reading established rules of a society. These are all services the market can easily provide. There is no functional uniqueness to gov't aside from the fact it takes
selfrealizedexile 10 months ago
@MrDevong
without permission. What logical necessity exists in law and security for theft? Indeed, it is the very anti-thesis of those two services. People like Randy Barnett and myself will tell you gov't is *necessarily* outside the law, breaking its own rules, acting unlawfully. When you put gov't in charge of security, you will get endless wars. When you put it in charge of law, you will get endless laws written to help those politically-connected. Gov't is just people who were once
selfrealizedexile 10 months ago
@MrDevong
in the private sector. It's not like once you go into gov't, you ascend into demi-god status, able to neutrally wield awesome power. If the market and gov't are both simply people doing things, the difference is the incentives. What keeps the market providing quality service is competition. How then can we go on to believe a monopoly institution such as gov't will provide quality service?
To sincerely seek the truth, you must be logically consistent no matter where your
selfrealizedexile 10 months ago
@MrDevong
conclusions take you. That is how true enlightenment is found. One must be ready to abandon what makes them comfortable if it is no longer sound. Cheers.
selfrealizedexile 10 months ago
Wow, that guy at 2:05 must either be really mad or really spaced out.
bathory714 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
there is none like you Milton.
laurencepak 1 year ago 2
"Because people are stupid, ignorant and irrational." this will ultimately be reflected in the government. A government is only as good as its people someone once said. Now the government is only as good as the majority mob of the people.
Sivels 1 year ago
>Because people are stupid, ignorant and irrational.< this will ultimately be reflected in the government. A government is only as good as its people someone once said. Now the government is only as good as the majority mob of the people.
Sivels 1 year ago