sir,we know truth,we know corruption we know what is justice in india,please dont speak anything about india,indian contitutionand corruption in india,what do you tell me,do you know any thing about psychological study,what is judiciary system,have read indian constitution,why don't you sit home livea peaceful life,you have done enough and you can't rectify indian system and indians,thes are chracterless people may be you are also if you are indian ,you actually don't know anything about justice
@thesparitan Pseudo intellectual you borrow half read papers and never understand them so you give up on completing them. Then blab about what you pretend to know. Pretentious.
@eudoxus3 As far as I am concerned you won because you got what you wanted I should think. You annoyed someone you disagree with and wasted there time. Epic win in my opinion. I was just stupid enough to try and have a rational dialog with you. Shame on me for being trusting of another mans integrity. Hey I respect your game, you play it well. I am slightly annoyed, mission accomplished, have a beer on me : )
Libertarian philosophy is a lazy, a very lazy one. I remember hearing a qoute from someone that says “to every complicated question there is a simple and wrong answer”. People just don’t seem willing to do the hard work of dealing with issues, instead create a simplistic world view that works only if one doesn’t try to test it. Libertarian philosophy fails most of all because it allows power to be control over people without there say, therefore that kind of liberty is impossible.
Igorance of our own igorance is the real problem. It scares me how sure people are about things they can not almost nothing about. Imagen trying to hit a target blind, dizzy and underwater, and it is 2,000 feet away the size of a pin head. that is an average human. People need to be made aware of there our ignorance. I am wise because I know that I know nothing.
Your questions were all addressed. You may not like what I said, but I did not ignore them. I took them in and understood where you are at, and gave you a reply that would enlighten you if you were open to hear the truth. And that is a "direct" answer to your most recent question "Is there a reason for that?"
@eudoxus3 I don't know why you continue to dirty this video with your random conversation that has little reference to its content on justice. Indeed proof that individual survival logic works worst when one is drowning and grasping for respect. The poor or the ignorant will never give out their money for larger problems, because they don't care to understand them, only to understand their own view and feel good about it. Your reply to my earlier post was utterly unrelated to modern governance.
@tyrannicoystercult You deleted your original post to me stating that I am uneducated on these matters. And here is a quote of your 2nd response to me: "monopolies are formed by ambition of business people. it never ceases to amaze me how many of society's woes far-right neoconservatism tries to pin on intervention of government."
I then directed you to the "Statute of Monopolies" to educate you on ambition of the "West"
@eudoxus3: "I stated clear principles to keep in mind when dealing with any problems. "
And I responded to each one, either by pointing out why it wasn't relevant, or that I in fact agreed and tried to explain how the scheme adheres to them.
@ananiasacts So as I perceive it appears you do not base your reasoning on principle. Rather you are making your choices based on specifics, which is a very good way of losing sight of what matters in the long run. Your solution is "Guilt" based, as though there is some implicit ownership of the Earth that must be distributed evenly. You do not feel that the Earth is a "gift" to be inherited by the meek. Rather you believe it must be controlled and divided and conquered by man.
@eudoxus3, I think that's an unreasonable analysis. All I'm assuming is that everyone alive will definitely need to use the atmosphere for the rest of their lives and has a genuine claim on it based on the fact that they could not live without it. I find it hard to believe you would disagree with this. I also fail to see how that implies in any way that I have some desire to control the atmosphere. Especially since the scheme actually puts equal control into the hands of every person.
@ananiasacts The Earth is a complex system that has balanced itself for millions of years. And as things have changed, populations increase and decrease. If there is overpopulation, naturally the population will decrease. You must have some fear of a great catastrophe that will wipe out all life ? I don't share your fears and so I cannot agree with your reasoning to give up liberty for the security that you believe will come from regulating CO2 emissions.
@eudoxus3, no it's not about the climate change issue. It's just about fairness. The bottom line is that one group of people, America for example, produces 20T/person of co2 and another, Sudan, produces just .01T/person of co2. In my opinion, this implies that there should be some redress of the fact that we raised the concentration of co2 in their air. I notice that you have never once answered a single direct question I've asked you. Is there a reason for that?
@eudoxus3 The earth is a complex system, this is true I think we all can see that it is.
it has balanced itselft for millions of years, this is true because it would have to be, its self evident.
A life form that has caused the 6th largest extinction event in the last 1 billion years and is reforming the earth is strange and new ways, is true and has never happened before. Therefore something is about to change, and maybe the balance is to destroy us. You dont think we should try stop this?
@thesparitan I don't think anyone knows the future and I know when people are afraid they act irrationally.
The same people that say they want to save the Earth are lying, they only want to save people. What if all people die, then the Earth has no people ? Then you should be happy the Earth is safer in your eyes. Which do you want to save ? People or the Earth ?
@eudoxus3 What the hell are you talking about, the reason for global warming awareness is to save human lives. And we also want to save the earth as well, they are both important. You are not a rational person, you jump to a conclusion that makes no sense. The earth is the people, if it dies we die. You are really stupid, I was wrong about you, I thought you were intelligent. Wow thats sad, I thought I could have a good dialog with someone
@eudoxus3 Is English your first language? not that that you syntax is poor or anything like that, but the way you are constructing your statements are confusing me a little. I don’t think the earth is going anywhere, just most life on it will likely die unless global warming is addressed in some way. The clear and apparent threat to life on earth is AGW. I thought we established that already. We are having a communication issue of some kind I think and I am not sure why.
@eudoxus3 The third I know is wrong on its face, unless you prove otherwise. The first statement is true but not the whole truth. Yes there has been some ice increase, but its thin weak new ice, not old thick ice. There is collectivily less ice in ether poles. In some parts of antarctica there has been small growth in ice, but if you add all the ice lost in both poles, its still a major decline.
ice cores, have I seen them personally? No but they have been shown to support AGW
@eudoxus3 It could be one of the largest extinction events in earths history. That might be only because there is so much more complexity now then in the past but thats besides the point.
I will not answer the other qeustions because I am not going to teach you all about global warming. I am not an expert, and I dont have the time. If you want more info look it up, its there.
@thesparitan Increase in carbon dioxide in greenhouses help to grow larger plants, which in turn convert more carbon dioxide through photosynthesis into oxygen that animals and people can breathe.
The balance of plants to wildlife would change but extinction of all life is not reasonable, sounds more paranoid. I thought you said you were wise because you know that you don't know everything.
@eudoxus3 No not true, in fact increase in greenhouse gases can cause major problems for most plants. LOOK at this video please. It does a great job of debunking that claim.
@eudoxus3 Ok I read very little of the paper you gave me but I have a reason for that. That doesnt address the points made in the video. In a perfectly controlled atmosphere special designed for maximum plant growth, sure slightly higher C02 levels can have a positive effects, SO…… your point is. What about other factors that the peer reviewed data he showed had a negative effect, and reflected more real world potential conditions? And what about the bugs?
@thesparitan If you believe the scary gossip that people are correlating temperature changes to increase in bugs, then your nuts.
The spraying in the past of crops for bugs has been banned as pesticides have been considered cancer causing, this is the reason for changes in bug populations. The temperature has not yet even changed much yet. Global warming is warning about the future not right now. The increase in atmospheric gasses is the fear factor that is the alarm that is being sounded.
@eudoxus3 Holy crap this is impossible. I should have known you were intellectually dishonest. I should have trusted my instincts. I am wasting my time with you. You just said something so Ridiculous that I cant even begin, and even if I did it wouldn’t make a difference, you are going to believe what you want to believe no matter what I prove to you. I write you off now as a irrational person. You have your fingers in your ears and saying "alalalalala" you are hopeless
@eudoxus3 Everything you just said might very well be completely true, but that doesn’t take away from the very obvious fact that you are a highly intellectual dishonest person to the degree of a ID wacko. I see this same thing when debating religious people. If you want to hold such untenable beliefs without them being challenge, please keep them to yourself. And don’t waste someone’s time by pretending to be interested in facts.
@thesparitan Sounds like you are close to a break through. I have hope for you yet. And my interest was sincere. Also, I do not mind being challenged, I enjoy it, with a person such as yourself to be in merely partial denial. Yet you had the ability to recognize much of myself. I am sincere and honest.
I gave you some of the data I wanted to show you, but did not find the video showing the reverse correlation for carbon dioxide and temperature rising.
@eudoxus3 I explained why your data doesn’t prove anything. You must prove that the data in the video I showed you is wrong or accept it into your model and move on. I read your paper on controlled green house conditions, not based on real world scenarios like the one I showed you. and you just completely mocked the insects issue which shows what hand you are playing with.
You know, what I don’t have time for people like you.
@thesparitan The guy that made the video you showed me was not scientific. He made claims but anyone can make claims. You need references to official sites not to politicians making statements. Politicians such as Al Gore require no degree in the sciences to gain popularity and become leaders in government. They only have to be very good liars.
One of the main problem with electing officials based on popularity is there is no degree for the job. It is a powerful job and no degree.
@eudoxus3 Al gore has nothing to do with whether global warming is true. You are a red herring fallacy machine. He had the scientific data in his video, look it up.
You are just being willing ignorant. Whatever believe what you what.
@eudoxus3 You didnt show and relevent facts, the one you did show was not relevent. I dont think you understand logical argument. Red herring fallcy look it up. Al Gore, what the hell does he have to do with anything. You are a troll
@eudoxus3 "Any idiot knows what a "red herring" means. And I now suspect you are trolling for attention not merely red herring."
So it has come to this, the "I know you are but what am I" defense. You cannot even muster up a good insult you must copy mine. You think a school yard tactic is going to work, you are really sad you realize this truth, no?
@eudoxus3 Do you realize that the statement "All the things you claim about me is describing yourself to a T" Is the equaled of saying “I know you are but what am I” you this right? You attacks are becoming kindergarten level now. This is Descending into dante's inferno of stupid.
@eudoxus3 you didnt watch much it did you? or you didnt listen because he never used the strawman that you siad here. Pot powers? ok whatever that is idiotic statement. What do professional green houses have to do with the peer review scientific data that he showed in his video? He never said hrdrogen chloride is as dagerous, he was using that as an example. I dont think you have the mental powers to actually understand this stuff.
and give me the link to that ontario paper please?
@eudoxus3: "You do not feel that the Earth is a gift to be inherited by the meek. Rather you believe it must be controlled and divided and conquered by man."
This simply couldn't be farther from the truth. I don't know where you get it. What did I say that is anything like this? The nature of the scheme is to preserve the earth, conserve our resources and create the proper economic and political incentives to fuel a competitive search for more efficient ways to live. It protects the meek.
@eudoxus3: "You want to make decisions without principle."
How is this without principle? I've stated it many times, do you believe that the choices we make in living our lives, specifically the resources we consume, and the pollution we create has any impact on the lives of other people? Do you believe we should desire to redress that impact? These seem like simple and direct questions to me. Yet you refuse to answer them. I don't understand why you're accusing me of being close-minded.
@16242T I have mixed opinions to your posting on Justice. I would only add to what you have said, and point out that that forbidden "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" is what has brought mankind down over the ages. When we think we are "Gods" and rule over one another. As Immanuel Kant has shown that education of every generation must begin anew, skipping steps in the learning process does not maintain a stable society.
Any good definition of justice must involve the prohibition against violating the rights to life, liberty and property of any other individual.
The natural rights above are derived from an assumption: the individual is the proper owner of his or her own body and life. This assumption is self-evident, because all other possible owners for the self are absurd: govt, society, god, family, community, humanity...
Slavery is evil. Each individual owns his or her self.
@16242T, I disagree. I'd say justice is just the mechanism of redress we've adopted because our perspective on reality is so perverted by our religious heritage. How useful a mechanism could it really be if nature herself found no use for it? We need it only because we believe the way to deal with crime is to punish it rather than undermine whatever utility motivates it. But that perspective traps us in an arms race between our ability to craft laws and the incentive they create to outwit them.
If people stopped saying democracy and began to use the term informed democracy then it would all begin to make sense.
Democracy is useless if it is cattle being asked to vote on rocket science. all that matters in such a system are the ranters who can sway votes with fear.
To have a good informed democracy ppl need the power to investigate and come to decisions based on higher informed reasoning.
Fox is the biggest enemy of reasonable governance there is.
@marsCubed, maybe be a better way to vote would be to provide the ability to secretly delegate our vote to those we respect without their realizing they have it.
@marsCubed, We agree. I think the problem with our world is that we have an economic system that creates a far greater incentive to create and exploit an externality than a more productive use of resources. Ways to create private profit from public debt are a lot easier to find than better ways to produce more from the same. Suppose we each received an equal share of "rights" to dump co2 etc into the atmosphere, and those who wished to dump more had to purchase the unused portions of others.
@marsCubed, I would like to see us make it to 2050. I have my doubts mainly because we don't recognize our own systemic problems when they conflict with our ideologies in even the most trivial ways. It's an emotional reaction rather than a reasoned one. I seems to remove a lot of dimension from our thinking and leave us in too tiny a place to contain any good solutions to our problems. We don't need outside the box thinking. We need to just throw away all of the boxes and grow up as a species.
@ananiasacts I think we will make it. Our species is so very deeply creative.
2025 we are going to level off in population, also consider the huge scope for knowledge and ideas which YT (for instance provides)
One day we will be like ancient Greece perhaps, at it's Zenith... simple robe and a cane, simple home and bed, yet they owned the world together. paid to just vote on the pnyx,
Humanity as slave owners, robots being the slaves. reason will win.
@marsCubed, we started out able to feed ourselves and have enjoyed many centuries of steady and substantial productivity growth since then, and yet today many die of starvation, exposure, or neglect. I think this fact alone proves there is a very fundamental flaw in our global economy. I realize we all share the same desire for a wholesome meaningful existence, but wouldn't it be wiser to look for the surest ways to get there rather than more eloquent ways of describing the future we seek?
@ananiasacts Hunter gatherers crisis was when the game ran out, the new 'gods' of scratching the soil became supreme, as did the food store sciences and warrior defenders after that,
Then came raiding others and eventually taking slaves.. this too gave way to feudal landlords who organized safety for a tythe,
today we are in capitalism, ppl work for a crust.
Always we have tried to solve crisis and created a new one.
We begin though to return to simple relations with nature through reason.
@marsCubed, I'm unsure of how to translate that into a means to get there from here. What specifically are you suggesting we change? Do our "simple relations with nature" including manufacturing things like computers, dishwashers, and hadron colliders? I'd like to see our food source return to the grass farming model of Joel Salatin of Polyface Farms myself, but not because it's a return to anything besides a far healthier way to feed ourselves. But most things seem to need more tech, not less.
@marsCubed, didn't competition create us in the first place? I don't understand why you now see it as a dysfunctional trait. Gosh, I think competition is just a perfectly natural and very useful consequence of opportunity itself. Everything that is created changes the whole mix of possibilities thereafter in subtle ways. I think what you blame capitalism for actually has nothing to do with it at all. Henry George explains this most clearly in a book titled "Progress and Poverty."
@ananiasacts Comepetition with nature created our Social species.
Competition can have benefits.
We adapted to ensure that our working together was the advantage,
Again, abstractly, the problem is that we have deflected completion with nature onto competition with each other..it is capitalism's fast failing credo, today it becomes irrational. the reason is that it creates waste.
@marsCubed, I disagree. The waste capitalism creates is a measure of the externalities that effectively convert the capitalism we practice into a form of socialism--a wealth transfer from everyone to the enterprise that created the waste. If we, for example, took everything that showed up in the waste stream back to its source manufacturer, with a bill for the cost of doing that, the waste stream would disappear almost overnight.
Shouldn't we at least try capitalism before we condemn it?
@marsCubed, As I said before, if a brutally pure form of capitalism managed to make us, and the entire web of life we're growing part of, then it simply can't be all bad. I don't really care what you choose to call a system engineered to do no more than connect the price we pay for the choices we make to the actual cost of providing them. It looks like capitalism to me because all it does is effectively stop us from stealing from each other surreptitiously and nothing else.
@ananiasacts Real world is that we are talking to each other. we are as prone not to push African miners into low wage as we are disinclined cut wages here.
Raising conditions and standards across the board makes a better world and a level playing field.. where again, we are no longer so ready to compete where we can find mutually agreeable reasonable price.
Markets have their place for sure... but humanity is also undermining this with realization of human dignity and rational use of resources.
@marsCubed, this is why I proposed the use of carbon rights. We have a satellite network that monitors our co2 production. Americans produce about 20T/year. Avg/human is about 2 tons. For the poorest it is .01T(src: Economist)
Suppose we give everyone 2T rights/year and make the folks who wish to produce more than 2T buy the unused rights from those who must have then made less in an open global market? Poverty and exploitation from that point on decline automatically with rising productivity.
@marsCubed, co2 is just the best proxy we have for our overall impact on others. It really is a very good measure of our impact on everyone else on earth. Your fish story is a testament to private property and capitalism as the wisest way to address conservation. I've been explaining to mrx0066600 how, with a curious change in the employment model, we could ensure that only responsible boat owners could survive on the river. The co2 model is similar. It gives control to people rather than gov.
@marsCubed, But I agree with that pretty much. I think you're failing to consider the implications for the disenfranchised of a co2 accounting system that requires those who wish to produce more than the average amount of co2 to purchase that right (in an open market) from those who must then have produced less than the average amount of co2. The poorer one is, in such a system, the more of their rights they can't use but can sell. The approach addresses exactly the issue you claim it neglects.
@marsCubed, It's not cap and trade. It's distribute and trade. Just because present implementations of some mechanism are flawed doesn't say anything at all about the underlying suitability of the mechanism itself. Just that governments are easily corrupted. All the more reason to adopt a global mechanism that takes that power away from them by giving the "co2 rights" to people directly and letting all producers compete in the same market to purchase them. We get the clean energy incentive free.
@ananiasacts I understand what you are saying, and I understand your motives.
What troubles me is that it is not generally accepted. there is no quick feed-back. This is why I would rather see a generalized 'cap and explanation'.. however now that you know this about my position you may come to see that we perhaps need a suite of approaches, for some industries trade makes sense, for others a cap is better, for others we may not want controls
I don't have an answer except for educating the pop.
@marsCubed, it was definitely one of the better discussion's I've had here. And I do think I understand what you're saying and your motives. I think our disagreement is about 50% implementability, and 50% impact (you fear it could be impossible to implement and might create unnecessary hardships or be insufficiently effective at addressing the underlying problems.) I think I've thought it through very carefully and might even get the chance to convince you of that at some later time. Gnite.
If you ever come to London let me know, I will give you a pub tour beyond your scope of understanding, the most boring and yet culturally enlightening mission you will ever go on.. by the end you will know London as well as me.. if you can still think that is. an Amazon river trip with all mosquito and willy fish included.
life is best with the salt added.. I sense you understand that.
@marsCubed, What's funny about this is that I'm the one that lives in a tiny kingdom. A little island almost wholly owned by the psychotic scion of a soap and chewing gum magnate, William Wrigley, and who seem to share the same general mindset of the House of Windsor.
My suggestion for the CO2 rights isn't really about climate change. It's just the best proxy I know of for the impact we have on each other. It does have the nice consequence of leaving that issue in the hands of people, not govs.
@ananiasacts Democracy is not a sustainable form of government, it is equivalent to "Mob Rule". Look up "Anacyclosis" it has been well known for almost 2500 years.
@marsCubed Democracy is an outdated and proven failed governmental structure. The ancient Greeks had a pure democracy and it was toppled by the Romans. England reformed the 3 tier structure to give representation in government to both the Landlords and the Common people. 1) The House of Lords (Senate) 2) The House of Commons and 3) The Monarch. The 3 forms of government, mixed together form a more incorruptible structure than any single form by itself.
If people stopped saying democracy and began to use the term informed democracy then it would all begin to make sense.
Democracy is useless if it is cattle being asked to vote on rocket science. all that matters in such a system are the ranters who can sway votes with fear.
To have a good informed democracy ppl need the power to investigate and come to decisions based on higher informed reasoning.
Fox is the biggest enemy of reasonable governance there is.
If people stopped saying democracy and began to use the term "informed democracy" then it would all begin to make sense.
Democracy is useless if it is cattle being asked to vote on rocket science. all that matters in such a system are the ranters who can sway votes with fear.
To have a good informed democracy ppl need the power to investigate and come to decisions based on higher informed reasoning.
Fox is the biggest enemy of reasonable governance there is.
@marsCubed "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the election results." Benjamin Franklin.
Democracy is only good when it tends to preserve liberty and the natural rights of each individual. Majorities often vote to do horribly evil things.
Churchill said that the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. But he also said that D is better than all the other forms of govt.
@freesk8 Very nice, I like your first quote from Ben. Franklin, also take a look at the wiki page on mixed government. Plato and Socrates believed that if you could form the right structure of government body that was incorruptible your state would never fail. Also take a look at "Anacyclosis" analyzed by Polybius after the Republic by Plato was already completed.
@freesk8 Infromed voter is what he was arguing for. I dont see what you have to say about liberty effects what he said. Also what is liberty, and why is it always a good thing. Is the liberty to kill another man a good thing, or is the liberty to control a business a good thing always and forever. Liberty is too loose of a word and unless you have a clear meaning for it, liberty is not useful in this or most dialogs. Liberty can mean anything, because anything can be a liberty for all.
@thesparitan A good definition of liberty is: "the individual right to do whatever you like, as long as in so doing you harm no one else." Or, we could use the following ending: "as long as you do not violate the equal or symmetrical rights to life, liberty or property of any other individual."
This is the definition accepted by the founders of the USA and by modern libertarians.
Would you like to accept my definition, or would you like to propose changes, or an alternative?
@freesk8 This definition is perfect and I can show why it doesn’t work. Do you count just direct harm or indirect harm. There are so many examples of the problems with this philosophy that its amazing that people believe in libertarian ideas. What if you lie, and then the lie causes harm? What if you pollute on your property but it effects others? What about externalizations in a corporation? And who protects people form others violating others liberty?
@thesparitan If you lie, and the lie causes harm, you are liable under this definition. Your actions, the lie, have caused harm. Our civil laws justly punish such lies.
If you pollute your own property, and it does not despoil the property of another, then there can be no just punishment. But if it DOES encroach another property, there IS liability. It is no different when corporations pollute or cause other negative externalities.
Limited govt or private security protects us from others.
@freesk8 Good answer on the lies, but still unsatisfactory. Who decides what lie hurts who and the punishment, if any? What laws are put into place, and who? Sounds to me like a system you have would have a very powerful state, with many agencies and countervailing powers. I don’t see how this systemn can work and follow the tenets of your beliefs. Also libertarian systems cannot deal with externalities or indirect harm to others. I dont see it working
@eudoxus3 you are uneducated on this topic and your definition of justice is pathetic. good to see you use the term 'nanny' to describe rational governance. you'd like to have never have been taken care of? you live in canada and you were. you dont like the idea of police or nannies, this is not a view with any application -maybe it's your personal code, but it only proves you don't understand the history of economics and the last 2 centuries of society that slowly grew state education, health.
@eudoxus3:"Justice is Everyone minding their own business." Then who's business is the atmosphere that we're all forced to share? Maybe that's the place to start looking for those mechanism which might redress the inadvertent impact we each have on everyone else via the dumping of greenhouse gasses, particulates, and noise into the atmosphere.
@ananiasacts You pose a complex problem and point to no solution ? Give a solution or you have said nothing helpful except to spread despair. There are many problems in the world and pointing out problems without solutions does not move either side of the argument forward. Would you suggest that the proposed monopolies on carbon credits is a fair solution ? I think you are not looking at the potential for misuse of such a long term monopoly.
@eudoxus3, I'm not sure which of many complex problems I've pointed out that you're referring to. The inanity of our approach to justice? The poverty created by externalities that pervert our implementation of capitalism? The frailty of our democracy? But I agree it's not terribly productive to just point to problems without offering solutions. I think that if you read the discussion I had with marsCubed or mrx0066600 you'd see that I do offer fresh solutions to these problems and blog as well.
@eudoxus3, yes, I just don't believe it's possible to always state both the problem and solution in the same 500 character comment. Standing ready to explain and elaborate is most likely the best we can do here.
@ananiasacts Well, in this particular case I was referring to a problem added to the discussion that could have been stated by any side of the discussion without really gaining a point for either. But the despair caused by a complex world problem, sometimes makes people feel there is a valid point supporting the persons argument. That is the confusion that is not moving the discussion forward. A distraction basically.
@eudoxus3, I'm not sure I really understand your message. I get the feeling that you consider my attempts to convince either 'mars' or 'mrx' that there is nothing wrong with capitalism, if implemented fairly, as recklessly misguided because it really is capitalism itself that's at fault, and my sophistry (from your perspective) might actually be confusing people into believing that it may be redeemable. I apologize in advance if that's utterly misguided. Perhaps you could be more specific.
@ananiasacts I'm impressed at your use of the term "sophistry". To clear up my previous comments to you, I was specifically replying to your mention of the global climate change issue, that may look like you have a point, but really only leads to a secondary debate on the causes and dangers of climate change. Which does not directly relate to the prior comments on monopolies and capitalism. Although I don't mind discussing climate change, I'd rather do that elsewhere to avoid confusion.
@eudoxus3, but I don't want to discuss climate change either for the same reasons. And my idea has nothing to do with climate change, doesn't restrict carbon production in any way, nor promises to. It only distributes "rights" equal to the measured global carbon produced last week to this weeks citizens of earth, and requires that producers of carbon buy up enough rights to cover their production. I'm only using CO2 as a proxy for our impact on each other because it really is a good one.
@eudoxus3,BTW, how can I tell if my arguments are sophistic or not? It's not deliberate, of course. But it i speople like you that might be able to show me what's wrong with my reasoning. I honestly think these ideas make sense which is why I'n here trying to explain them. In any event, I sure hope you don't think I found your remarks the least bit insulting.
@ananiasacts I am glad you don't find my remarks insulting, as I never intend to insult, but I may disagree. Not sure what you mean "people like me" (chuckles) Now that I hear your suggestion and I see it in a more pattern sense I can tell you that something is wrong but it will take me time to describe my feelings. I can show you another example which resembles your solution. See my next post for example.
@eudoxus3 Toronto Canada is where the banks HQ's are located and a lot of money flows through there as it is a large city and central location. It gains the flow of money by having advantages that other smaller cities with less advantageous locations do not have. Mainly more taxes are paid by Toronto to support the province than the smaller cities. Although the smaller cities are using more of their share of the taxes than Toronto.
@eudoxus3 A rich man will gladly suggest that everyone pays their share for their usage of resources. But the poor man is already disadvantaged and will slip deeper into poverty without assistance from the rich man. The rich man gains his wealth from business and is able to harness the labor of many poor men. There are 2 requirements for PEACE, the 1st is JUSTICE, but the more important is the 2nd which is CHARITY. When Justice fails, Charity is always available.
@eudoxus3 and finally, if as I originally stated, Justice is "Everyone minding their own business". Then the question remains, whose business is "Charity" ? Would it be the business of the poor man ? Perhaps the rich man ? I leave the question open for further pondering.
@eudoxus3, one of my all time favorite books is Muhammad Yunus' "Banker to the Poor" where he tells the story of how he stumbled into the idea of micro-lending. In my perspective, the need for charity at all is a testament to our moral bankruptcy as a species. We have undergone mind boggling increases in productivity and yet people still starve to death? How is this possible? Henry George knew why, and explained it well in "Progress and Poverty" over 100 years ago. I assure you we share goals.
@eudoxus3, I think the natural role of government is to make itself obsolete by finding ways to obviate the need for any utility it now provides. It is, after all, overhead. There isn't a living thing alive that needs a government except our societies. That's what "co2 rights" are really all about--obviating the need for a big chunk of government. We cannot enjoy wealth without having impact on others. If we had to redress that impact it simply wouldn't be possible to be poor at all.
@eudoxus3, ... Every time productivity rose for anyone--regardless of who profited most--it would cause a rise in the standard of living across the board because the increased spending on themselves, by the rich, requires them to redress their now disproportionately larger impact--they must purchase more "co2 rights" from the people who haven't been able to use their share because they're too poor. We could help this by changing the employment model as well, as I explained to mrx0066600.
@eudoxus3, by people like you, I meant people who dislike my ideas (you initially seemed more certain the co2 rights idea would be a disaster, you seem to distrust the utility of capitalism, etc.) I'm hoping you stay that way to be honest. It takes a great devil's advocate for me to find compelling ways to explain it. If it is a good idea, that will become clearer the more intensely it gets scrutinized. If it isn't, I want to know that a lot more than you do. I'm grateful to get to discuss it.
@ananiasacts I have no agenda except to push forward the truth. If an argument is valid, there is no point in fighting it. One thing I was trying to point out is the 2 important values to sustain a culture.
1) Never Let the Rich take advantage of the Poor.
2) Never Let the Poor take advantage of the Rich.
When one of those 2 are not being supported, I will try to prop up the missing element in the discussion. Balance is important to sustaining a culture.
@eudoxus3, That's the basis of my desire to redress our impact on each other. Because of the fact that we share a single planet it isn't really possible to do much of anything without have some minuscule impact on everything else. Because there's nearly 7 billion of us it can add up to a hell of a big impact. CO2 production is a good rough measure of that impact, and thus it seems like an appropriate, easy, and very natural way for us to account for and redress our affects on each other.
@ananiasacts I am not pushing any specifics, but I can come up with a quick alternative that is more positive. For example, if you consider the payment of credits for CO2 emissions, as a "Punishment" plan. You might try a more positive plan that is based on a "Reward" system instead of demonizing businesses.
@eudoxus3, I'm not sure what you have in mind. And I don't see how this mechanism demonizes anything. It notes only that we, as people, necessarily share a single atmosphere. It stands to reason from that fact alone that anyone using more than a single share of it must be balanced but one or more people who've used less of it. Do you believe we should require those that wish to use more than one share to purchase that right from those with unused rights or not? (As a matter of fairness.)
@ananiasacts As I stated I have no specifics in mind. You believe that something needs to be done, and that is debatable. "Fairness" ? Communism is not fairness. Let those who have excellence rise above the common ground. I think your choice of pursuits is not a noble one. Plant trees they breath CO2. Do what is in your power. If you are not in the position to make a difference from your own wealth, then wait until the problem is clear and those who can will.
@eudoxus3, how do you see this as communistic? Are you disagreeing that we share equal rights to the shared atmosphere of our world? You don't address my reasoning at all but simply condemn it wholesale. How am I to work out what is it about the scheme you perceive as unreasonable?
@ananiasacts You want to make decisions without principle. I stated clear principles to keep in mind when dealing with any problems. Rather than dealing with only one issue such as climate change, I have stated principles to aid in making your choices. Also, I showed examples of similar situations such as the high taxes paid by Toronto. But Toronto is not using the same proportion of resources. So in the specific case of CO2 rights, it need not be all fair, CHARITY is a very noble aim.
@eudoxus3, but this isn't about climate. It's just that everything we do has some impact on other people and the best rough measure of that impact just happens to be co2. Noise, dust, other gasses, water pollution, all sorts of other stuff is involved as well, but they all are accompanied by co2 production. That's what makes it such an ideal proxy for gauging and thus allowing us to redress the genuine impact we have on each other. Its stopping a theft, not creating a gift. Its not communism.
@ananiasacts At this point I must point out I have made many attempts to address your request that I explain to you my points. You continue to appear as though I have said nothing in many carefully worded postings that I have made here. If you want to continue this discussion I need you to recap what if anything you have comprehended from my postings, and how you can appreciate the ideas by changing your understanding. Otherwise it appears you are closed minded.
@eudoxus3, I'm not sure you noticed that as I defined it, they're giving away rights each week for the entire global production of CO2. This is more than is produced by all of humanity, thus at least until we decide to change that, there will always be more credits issued that could actually be used. This should prevent the price from becoming punitive for all but the largest producers of CO2, and they really should reflect some of that cost in the price of their product or service.
@dd1857 Idiot? Really? The man is hardly that. Don't you think you might look less stupid if you countered him on the points, not threw out a meaningless label. I mean, why do even watch Fora is thats all you have to say?
@eirefrance, LOL.. Mostly what I've learned from a few years of participating here is that our intelligence is skin deep, but our stupidity goes all the way to the bone. The challenge seems to be to engineer our various infrastructures to disenfranchise most of our predispositions.
@eudoxus3 No, a free market exists, because the government regulates them to prevent a monopoly, in order to prevent a corporation from becoming so huge that it raises its prices unfairly... OPEC ring a bell? Economists study both human nature and economic trends, combined.
@truvelocity This claim seems superficial. Wealthy businesses often benefit from regulation and creating barriers to entry by capturing politicians or regulatory instruments. These regulations insulate the larger businesses the most bcs they have the capital to invest in additional legal infrastructure. This has been the history of most, probably all, political economies. It is called neo-mercantilism or corporatism and the public choice school studies this phenomenon.
@truvelocity Monopolies are not formed without some sort of policy in place to govern business. One policy requires three more to regulate it and so the exponential growth in policy occurs generation after generation until the weight of governance over business collapses on itself.
@eudoxus3 monopolies are formed by ambition of business people. it never ceases to amaze me how many of society's woes far-right neoconservatism tries to pin on intervention of government. they stretch the limits of ration and pollute innocent minds all over the world with their fantasies of one big free land, as if that was a step forward. less regulation means more lessez faire exploitation. anyone interested in the social impact of globalization can understand the modern face of this struggle
@imre1000 i watched that video and left a comment. i think you'll find if you pick apart the things he's describing that they are not the type of international businesses that currently disrupt markets. he tries to paint a world free of tariffs, but that doesnt address currency exchange or differing labor laws. labor law and indecent mafiatic enforcement of slavery in south america africa and china is a gigantic reason why our production chains are horribly distorted today, almost beyond repair.
@tyrannicoystercult, the examples you gave, South America and China, are one where Governments are heavily involved in the economy and constantly devalue their currency. They have many Government sponsored corporations, and plenty of corruption.
The exception being Chile, which Friedman helped bring economic reform and free markets to.
Chile is a relatively prosperous country in a middle of semi Socialist dictatorships there.
When big business had the industrial revolution and children were being used for child labor and workers were being worked to the bone and screwed over if they had a work related accident or hell even killed on the job. There were no ethics, it was all for the money. the workers meant shit to big business then, and they still do to this very day.
The freer the market the more rights people give to big companies to walk all over them.
@mrx0066600, I disagree with this perspective. The trouble with regulations is that they cannot avoid simultaneously creating a "selective pressure" to somehow circumvent them and we end up with an arms race. A better approach would be to look for ways to undermine the very utility of the behaviors we wish to curtail. It seems to me that the best way to ensure that workers are never exploited would be to change the way they are paid. Perhaps they should pay to work--but share in profits.
I'm sorry but I just can not see that situation working out to well... I mean how would you even get something like that started? People paying to work? So now they're paying their bills, insurance, etc and jobs? and what type of profits would be earned to people. and in order to keep ones job would you simply pay more? owners would not have it.
If anything that wont curtail bad habits, only create new ones.
We need to get over our fears and regulate, even if just a little.
@mrx0066600, it might be as simple as just giving companies the tax incentive to reorganize themselves that way, so that their workers pay for their jobs, but share the profits of the company. It could even be tested in a so-called "special economic zone" to make sure it isn't crazy. I couldn't really understand why you think owners would be against a workforce that was paying to be there, as well as more committed to the long term success of the enterprise. I think this better aligns interests.
How much money from the collection of the workers would be spent on the company and how much would be taken into the pocket of the owner?
What would decide the pay in?
What about incentive, incentive to pay more in?
How much is split up and would the owners take in more or equally as the worker? There are a ton of questionable actions that would be taken by the owners.
Also what if someone is broke? How are they ever going to pay into a job?
@mrx0066600, if the owner took too much who would pay to work for him? The owner would decide the pay-in (and might even loan a broke dude enough to get started.) Incentive is built in by the fact that the profits are shared. Again, the owner must make the job attractive to keep the worker, that's why you don't have to worry about the split being fair. If it isn't, someone else could steal the workers by being more fair. The point is only that approach better aligns the interests of parties.
@mrx0066600, I think the best we can do is engineer an economy that most accurately connects our true impact (both positive and negative) with the benefits and costs associate with that impact. That's the underlying strategy these ideas are born from. I believe we share common goals: to discover the organization and infrastructure that best empowers people to find lifestyles they enjoy and are fulfilled by. In any event, it's been a pleasure chatting with you this evening, good night.
@mrx0066600 Big business and Big government work together to maintain monopolies. Otherwise "monopolies" serve their temporary purpose to give incentive for new inventions. Once the invention is well known the monopoly will fade naturally, unless corrupt politicians are paid grease money to change policy to maintain them.
@tyrannicoystercult You claim I am uneducated without knowing me, that is not a point that is being argued. Stick to the points of argument. Perhaps you should read the original Statute of Monopolies from England in 1623 to know why our technology in the "West" has grown from ambition of people.
intelligent man deserves an applause!!
happinesson 2 months ago
India na naman ang pinag-uusapan!
adelle0001 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
take your time now for date with bbw naneedj.info
siththee 1 year ago
sir,we know truth,we know corruption we know what is justice in india,please dont speak anything about india,indian contitutionand corruption in india,what do you tell me,do you know any thing about psychological study,what is judiciary system,have read indian constitution,why don't you sit home livea peaceful life,you have done enough and you can't rectify indian system and indians,thes are chracterless people may be you are also if you are indian ,you actually don't know anything about justice
tintoo0 1 year ago
I just need to know something, are you a troll eudoxus? You must be a troll, I dont know of even climate deniers that say the things you have said.
BTW most deniers believe the earth is getting hotter.
So many times this happens to me. Human beings need to evolve more
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan Pseudo intellectual you borrow half read papers and never understand them so you give up on completing them. Then blab about what you pretend to know. Pretentious.
eudoxus3 1 year ago
@thesparitan There is nothing more dangerous than the mouth of a fool.
eudoxus3 1 year ago
@eudoxus3 As far as I am concerned you won because you got what you wanted I should think. You annoyed someone you disagree with and wasted there time. Epic win in my opinion. I was just stupid enough to try and have a rational dialog with you. Shame on me for being trusting of another mans integrity. Hey I respect your game, you play it well. I am slightly annoyed, mission accomplished, have a beer on me : )
thesparitan 1 year ago
Someone has read some socrates, that sounded like a quote of his I have read.
thesparitan 1 year ago
Libertarian philosophy is a lazy, a very lazy one. I remember hearing a qoute from someone that says “to every complicated question there is a simple and wrong answer”. People just don’t seem willing to do the hard work of dealing with issues, instead create a simplistic world view that works only if one doesn’t try to test it. Libertarian philosophy fails most of all because it allows power to be control over people without there say, therefore that kind of liberty is impossible.
thesparitan 1 year ago
Igorance of our own igorance is the real problem. It scares me how sure people are about things they can not almost nothing about. Imagen trying to hit a target blind, dizzy and underwater, and it is 2,000 feet away the size of a pin head. that is an average human. People need to be made aware of there our ignorance. I am wise because I know that I know nothing.
thesparitan 1 year ago
Your questions were all addressed. You may not like what I said, but I did not ignore them. I took them in and understood where you are at, and gave you a reply that would enlighten you if you were open to hear the truth. And that is a "direct" answer to your most recent question "Is there a reason for that?"
eudoxus3 1 year ago
@eudoxus3 I don't know why you continue to dirty this video with your random conversation that has little reference to its content on justice. Indeed proof that individual survival logic works worst when one is drowning and grasping for respect. The poor or the ignorant will never give out their money for larger problems, because they don't care to understand them, only to understand their own view and feel good about it. Your reply to my earlier post was utterly unrelated to modern governance.
tyrannicoystercult 1 year ago
@tyrannicoystercult You deleted your original post to me stating that I am uneducated on these matters. And here is a quote of your 2nd response to me: "monopolies are formed by ambition of business people. it never ceases to amaze me how many of society's woes far-right neoconservatism tries to pin on intervention of government."
I then directed you to the "Statute of Monopolies" to educate you on ambition of the "West"
eudoxus3 1 year ago
@eudoxus3: "I stated clear principles to keep in mind when dealing with any problems. "
And I responded to each one, either by pointing out why it wasn't relevant, or that I in fact agreed and tried to explain how the scheme adheres to them.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts So as I perceive it appears you do not base your reasoning on principle. Rather you are making your choices based on specifics, which is a very good way of losing sight of what matters in the long run. Your solution is "Guilt" based, as though there is some implicit ownership of the Earth that must be distributed evenly. You do not feel that the Earth is a "gift" to be inherited by the meek. Rather you believe it must be controlled and divided and conquered by man.
eudoxus3 1 year ago
@eudoxus3, I think that's an unreasonable analysis. All I'm assuming is that everyone alive will definitely need to use the atmosphere for the rest of their lives and has a genuine claim on it based on the fact that they could not live without it. I find it hard to believe you would disagree with this. I also fail to see how that implies in any way that I have some desire to control the atmosphere. Especially since the scheme actually puts equal control into the hands of every person.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts The Earth is a complex system that has balanced itself for millions of years. And as things have changed, populations increase and decrease. If there is overpopulation, naturally the population will decrease. You must have some fear of a great catastrophe that will wipe out all life ? I don't share your fears and so I cannot agree with your reasoning to give up liberty for the security that you believe will come from regulating CO2 emissions.
eudoxus3 1 year ago
@eudoxus3, no it's not about the climate change issue. It's just about fairness. The bottom line is that one group of people, America for example, produces 20T/person of co2 and another, Sudan, produces just .01T/person of co2. In my opinion, this implies that there should be some redress of the fact that we raised the concentration of co2 in their air. I notice that you have never once answered a single direct question I've asked you. Is there a reason for that?
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@eudoxus3 The earth is a complex system, this is true I think we all can see that it is.
it has balanced itselft for millions of years, this is true because it would have to be, its self evident.
A life form that has caused the 6th largest extinction event in the last 1 billion years and is reforming the earth is strange and new ways, is true and has never happened before. Therefore something is about to change, and maybe the balance is to destroy us. You dont think we should try stop this?
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan I don't think anyone knows the future and I know when people are afraid they act irrationally.
The same people that say they want to save the Earth are lying, they only want to save people. What if all people die, then the Earth has no people ? Then you should be happy the Earth is safer in your eyes. Which do you want to save ? People or the Earth ?
eudoxus3 1 year ago
@eudoxus3 What the hell are you talking about, the reason for global warming awareness is to save human lives. And we also want to save the earth as well, they are both important. You are not a rational person, you jump to a conclusion that makes no sense. The earth is the people, if it dies we die. You are really stupid, I was wrong about you, I thought you were intelligent. Wow thats sad, I thought I could have a good dialog with someone
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan So your answer is to save both People and the Earth.
What do you see being the danger to lose both ? What is your fear ?
eudoxus3 1 year ago
@eudoxus3 I dont understand that question.
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan
Since you are afraid of losing the Earth, you must have some reason that is clear and apparent, to cause it to happen.
What is the imminent danger that will cause the loss of the Earth ?
eudoxus3 1 year ago
@eudoxus3 Is English your first language? not that that you syntax is poor or anything like that, but the way you are constructing your statements are confusing me a little. I don’t think the earth is going anywhere, just most life on it will likely die unless global warming is addressed in some way. The clear and apparent threat to life on earth is AGW. I thought we established that already. We are having a communication issue of some kind I think and I am not sure why.
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan Ok AGW ...
So what is the evidence that you are basing your fear on ?
Have you noted the recent increase of ice in Antarctica ?
Have you looked at the historical records stored in the deep ice of Antarctica ?
Have you noted that the increase in carbon dioxide has historically come after the increase in temperature according to the Antarctica ice data ?
eudoxus3 1 year ago
@eudoxus3 The third I know is wrong on its face, unless you prove otherwise. The first statement is true but not the whole truth. Yes there has been some ice increase, but its thin weak new ice, not old thick ice. There is collectivily less ice in ether poles. In some parts of antarctica there has been small growth in ice, but if you add all the ice lost in both poles, its still a major decline.
ice cores, have I seen them personally? No but they have been shown to support AGW
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan Also, assuming the Earth is warming what will happen in the next 100 years according to your belief ?
Will the sea level rise and destroy coastal cities ?
What is the actual threat to life in it's entirety ?
Will the increase in temperature rise more than 1 degree in the next 100 years ?
eudoxus3 1 year ago
@eudoxus3 It could be one of the largest extinction events in earths history. That might be only because there is so much more complexity now then in the past but thats besides the point.
I will not answer the other qeustions because I am not going to teach you all about global warming. I am not an expert, and I dont have the time. If you want more info look it up, its there.
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan Increase in carbon dioxide in greenhouses help to grow larger plants, which in turn convert more carbon dioxide through photosynthesis into oxygen that animals and people can breathe.
The balance of plants to wildlife would change but extinction of all life is not reasonable, sounds more paranoid. I thought you said you were wise because you know that you don't know everything.
eudoxus3 1 year ago
@eudoxus3 No not true, in fact increase in greenhouse gases can cause major problems for most plants. LOOK at this video please. It does a great job of debunking that claim.
watch?v=vFGU6qvkmTI
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan Give me a break using pot growers to debunk it. Have you ever looked into actual professional green houses ?
Look at what the Government of Ontario has published on their website.
A more reputable source than some random idiot using Hydrogen Chloride to prove why Carbon dioxide is as dangerous as a poisonous gas.
eudoxus3 1 year ago
@eudoxus3 omafra.gov.on.ca/english/crops/facts/00-077.htm
news.com.au/antarctic-ice-is-growing-not-melting-away/story-0-1225700043191
eudoxus3 1 year ago
@eudoxus3 I didnt see the link, disregard the last part of that
thesparitan 1 year ago
@eudoxus3 Ok I read very little of the paper you gave me but I have a reason for that. That doesnt address the points made in the video. In a perfectly controlled atmosphere special designed for maximum plant growth, sure slightly higher C02 levels can have a positive effects, SO…… your point is. What about other factors that the peer reviewed data he showed had a negative effect, and reflected more real world potential conditions? And what about the bugs?
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan If you believe the scary gossip that people are correlating temperature changes to increase in bugs, then your nuts.
The spraying in the past of crops for bugs has been banned as pesticides have been considered cancer causing, this is the reason for changes in bug populations. The temperature has not yet even changed much yet. Global warming is warning about the future not right now. The increase in atmospheric gasses is the fear factor that is the alarm that is being sounded.
eudoxus3 1 year ago
@eudoxus3 Holy crap this is impossible. I should have known you were intellectually dishonest. I should have trusted my instincts. I am wasting my time with you. You just said something so Ridiculous that I cant even begin, and even if I did it wouldn’t make a difference, you are going to believe what you want to believe no matter what I prove to you. I write you off now as a irrational person. You have your fingers in your ears and saying "alalalalala" you are hopeless
I am out.
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan You are not an intellectual for sure. It is clear to anyone that reads your suck-hole arguments. You are a sore loser, and in denial.
eudoxus3 1 year ago
@eudoxus3 Everything you just said might very well be completely true, but that doesn’t take away from the very obvious fact that you are a highly intellectual dishonest person to the degree of a ID wacko. I see this same thing when debating religious people. If you want to hold such untenable beliefs without them being challenge, please keep them to yourself. And don’t waste someone’s time by pretending to be interested in facts.
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan Sounds like you are close to a break through. I have hope for you yet. And my interest was sincere. Also, I do not mind being challenged, I enjoy it, with a person such as yourself to be in merely partial denial. Yet you had the ability to recognize much of myself. I am sincere and honest.
I gave you some of the data I wanted to show you, but did not find the video showing the reverse correlation for carbon dioxide and temperature rising.
eudoxus3 1 year ago
@eudoxus3 I explained why your data doesn’t prove anything. You must prove that the data in the video I showed you is wrong or accept it into your model and move on. I read your paper on controlled green house conditions, not based on real world scenarios like the one I showed you. and you just completely mocked the insects issue which shows what hand you are playing with.
You know, what I don’t have time for people like you.
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan The guy that made the video you showed me was not scientific. He made claims but anyone can make claims. You need references to official sites not to politicians making statements. Politicians such as Al Gore require no degree in the sciences to gain popularity and become leaders in government. They only have to be very good liars.
One of the main problem with electing officials based on popularity is there is no degree for the job. It is a powerful job and no degree.
eudoxus3 1 year ago
@eudoxus3 Al gore has nothing to do with whether global warming is true. You are a red herring fallacy machine. He had the scientific data in his video, look it up.
You are just being willing ignorant. Whatever believe what you what.
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan All the things you claim about me is describing yourself to a T.
I only look at facts, this discussion is a gift for you. Take it or leave it.
eudoxus3 1 year ago
@eudoxus3 You didnt show and relevent facts, the one you did show was not relevent. I dont think you understand logical argument. Red herring fallcy look it up. Al Gore, what the hell does he have to do with anything. You are a troll
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan If you believe anyone that matters will believe your accusations after reading any of your comments you are truly foolish.
Any idiot knows what a "red herring" means. And I now suspect you are trolling for attention not merely red herring.
eudoxus3 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eudoxus3 "Any idiot knows what a "red herring" means. And I now suspect you are trolling for attention not merely red herring."
So it has come to this, the "I know you are but what am I" defense. You cannot even muster up a good insult you must copy mine. You think a school yard tactic is going to work, you are really sad you realize this truth, no?
thesparitan 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eudoxus3 Do you realize that the statement "All the things you claim about me is describing yourself to a T" Is the equaled of saying “I know you are but what am I” you this right? You attacks are becoming kindergarten level now. This is Descending into dante's inferno of stupid.
thesparitan 1 year ago
@eudoxus3 you didnt watch much it did you? or you didnt listen because he never used the strawman that you siad here. Pot powers? ok whatever that is idiotic statement. What do professional green houses have to do with the peer review scientific data that he showed in his video? He never said hrdrogen chloride is as dagerous, he was using that as an example. I dont think you have the mental powers to actually understand this stuff.
and give me the link to that ontario paper please?
thesparitan 1 year ago
@eudoxus3: "You do not feel that the Earth is a gift to be inherited by the meek. Rather you believe it must be controlled and divided and conquered by man."
This simply couldn't be farther from the truth. I don't know where you get it. What did I say that is anything like this? The nature of the scheme is to preserve the earth, conserve our resources and create the proper economic and political incentives to fuel a competitive search for more efficient ways to live. It protects the meek.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@eudoxus3: "You want to make decisions without principle."
How is this without principle? I've stated it many times, do you believe that the choices we make in living our lives, specifically the resources we consume, and the pollution we create has any impact on the lives of other people? Do you believe we should desire to redress that impact? These seem like simple and direct questions to me. Yet you refuse to answer them. I don't understand why you're accusing me of being close-minded.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@16242T I have mixed opinions to your posting on Justice. I would only add to what you have said, and point out that that forbidden "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" is what has brought mankind down over the ages. When we think we are "Gods" and rule over one another. As Immanuel Kant has shown that education of every generation must begin anew, skipping steps in the learning process does not maintain a stable society.
eudoxus3 1 year ago
Any good definition of justice must involve the prohibition against violating the rights to life, liberty and property of any other individual.
The natural rights above are derived from an assumption: the individual is the proper owner of his or her own body and life. This assumption is self-evident, because all other possible owners for the self are absurd: govt, society, god, family, community, humanity...
Slavery is evil. Each individual owns his or her self.
freesk8 1 year ago
@16242T, I disagree. I'd say justice is just the mechanism of redress we've adopted because our perspective on reality is so perverted by our religious heritage. How useful a mechanism could it really be if nature herself found no use for it? We need it only because we believe the way to deal with crime is to punish it rather than undermine whatever utility motivates it. But that perspective traps us in an arms race between our ability to craft laws and the incentive they create to outwit them.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
Fora TV.... Wish we were TED.....
tempemonkey2323 1 year ago
yawn....
2JOHNNYT 1 year ago
If people stopped saying democracy and began to use the term informed democracy then it would all begin to make sense.
Democracy is useless if it is cattle being asked to vote on rocket science. all that matters in such a system are the ranters who can sway votes with fear.
To have a good informed democracy ppl need the power to investigate and come to decisions based on higher informed reasoning.
Fox is the biggest enemy of reasonable governance there is.
Lies and fear is not democracy.
marsCubed 1 year ago 2
@marsCubed, maybe be a better way to vote would be to provide the ability to secretly delegate our vote to those we respect without their realizing they have it.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts I think that the best democracies in the world are in Northern Europe, places like Denmark.
There the population is wealthy, healthy and truly see the money they raise as theirs and all on a common pot.
Unless we match democracy with developing each other... well we will be dumb and make dumb decisions.
As for how we vote.. that maybe can be as flexible as what votes are for.
Sometimes moral issues require personal opinion, sometimes we need to know who what and where.
marsCubed 1 year ago
@marsCubed, We agree. I think the problem with our world is that we have an economic system that creates a far greater incentive to create and exploit an externality than a more productive use of resources. Ways to create private profit from public debt are a lot easier to find than better ways to produce more from the same. Suppose we each received an equal share of "rights" to dump co2 etc into the atmosphere, and those who wished to dump more had to purchase the unused portions of others.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts I think the problem is just historical happen-stance.
We started out as small groups which became villages then city states. these then became countries..
At all those points in time, it was unimaginable that we should not war for resources.
Today cities fighting genocidal wars seems crazy. As we develop we discover that there what there is is all we got.
We either use it rationally or become pigs.
I would like to see us go to the stars.
marsCubed 1 year ago
@marsCubed, I would like to see us make it to 2050. I have my doubts mainly because we don't recognize our own systemic problems when they conflict with our ideologies in even the most trivial ways. It's an emotional reaction rather than a reasoned one. I seems to remove a lot of dimension from our thinking and leave us in too tiny a place to contain any good solutions to our problems. We don't need outside the box thinking. We need to just throw away all of the boxes and grow up as a species.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts I think we will make it. Our species is so very deeply creative.
2025 we are going to level off in population, also consider the huge scope for knowledge and ideas which YT (for instance provides)
One day we will be like ancient Greece perhaps, at it's Zenith... simple robe and a cane, simple home and bed, yet they owned the world together. paid to just vote on the pnyx,
Humanity as slave owners, robots being the slaves. reason will win.
We will return to simplicity with nature.
marsCubed 1 year ago
@marsCubed, we started out able to feed ourselves and have enjoyed many centuries of steady and substantial productivity growth since then, and yet today many die of starvation, exposure, or neglect. I think this fact alone proves there is a very fundamental flaw in our global economy. I realize we all share the same desire for a wholesome meaningful existence, but wouldn't it be wiser to look for the surest ways to get there rather than more eloquent ways of describing the future we seek?
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts Hunter gatherers crisis was when the game ran out, the new 'gods' of scratching the soil became supreme, as did the food store sciences and warrior defenders after that,
Then came raiding others and eventually taking slaves.. this too gave way to feudal landlords who organized safety for a tythe,
today we are in capitalism, ppl work for a crust.
Always we have tried to solve crisis and created a new one.
We begin though to return to simple relations with nature through reason.
marsCubed 1 year ago
@marsCubed, I'm unsure of how to translate that into a means to get there from here. What specifically are you suggesting we change? Do our "simple relations with nature" including manufacturing things like computers, dishwashers, and hadron colliders? I'd like to see our food source return to the grass farming model of Joel Salatin of Polyface Farms myself, but not because it's a return to anything besides a far healthier way to feed ourselves. But most things seem to need more tech, not less.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts How?
Taking over the means of production, workers internationally refusing to compete each other out of jobs for profits.
But that is actually the most abstract thing.. not even a little bit simple, for it can be arrived at in innumerable ways.
Something which fascinates me is how Luther used a church to defeat a church. nobody looking at the origins of resistance would have predicted this.
The answer is, reason and democracy will win. we be smart.
'How' is for us to discover.
marsCubed 1 year ago
@marsCubed, didn't competition create us in the first place? I don't understand why you now see it as a dysfunctional trait. Gosh, I think competition is just a perfectly natural and very useful consequence of opportunity itself. Everything that is created changes the whole mix of possibilities thereafter in subtle ways. I think what you blame capitalism for actually has nothing to do with it at all. Henry George explains this most clearly in a book titled "Progress and Poverty."
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts Comepetition with nature created our Social species.
Competition can have benefits.
We adapted to ensure that our working together was the advantage,
Again, abstractly, the problem is that we have deflected completion with nature onto competition with each other..it is capitalism's fast failing credo, today it becomes irrational. the reason is that it creates waste.
See this video, it points to reasonable comp etc.
watch?v=rrkrvAUbU9Y
efficiency good, but coop is also good.
balance.
marsCubed 1 year ago
@marsCubed, I disagree. The waste capitalism creates is a measure of the externalities that effectively convert the capitalism we practice into a form of socialism--a wealth transfer from everyone to the enterprise that created the waste. If we, for example, took everything that showed up in the waste stream back to its source manufacturer, with a bill for the cost of doing that, the waste stream would disappear almost overnight.
Shouldn't we at least try capitalism before we condemn it?
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts If capital had that level of social responsibility put onto it, it would surely require a society with enough reason to make it happen.
It would de-facto be socialist
It comes back to Luther.
Capitalism digs it's own grave, but also perhaps can also learn not to dig a hole.
I see reactionary crap in the right 'libertarians', however they are also reasonable and find language to make it sane.
Maybe USA will need to call progress it does 'capitalist' for purely cultural reasons.
marsCubed 1 year ago
@marsCubed, As I said before, if a brutally pure form of capitalism managed to make us, and the entire web of life we're growing part of, then it simply can't be all bad. I don't really care what you choose to call a system engineered to do no more than connect the price we pay for the choices we make to the actual cost of providing them. It looks like capitalism to me because all it does is effectively stop us from stealing from each other surreptitiously and nothing else.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts Real world is that we are talking to each other. we are as prone not to push African miners into low wage as we are disinclined cut wages here.
Raising conditions and standards across the board makes a better world and a level playing field.. where again, we are no longer so ready to compete where we can find mutually agreeable reasonable price.
Markets have their place for sure... but humanity is also undermining this with realization of human dignity and rational use of resources.
marsCubed 1 year ago
@marsCubed, this is why I proposed the use of carbon rights. We have a satellite network that monitors our co2 production. Americans produce about 20T/year. Avg/human is about 2 tons. For the poorest it is .01T(src: Economist)
Suppose we give everyone 2T rights/year and make the folks who wish to produce more than 2T buy the unused rights from those who must have then made less in an open global market? Poverty and exploitation from that point on decline automatically with rising productivity.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts Without addressing CO2 directly, I think the principle here is that we are becoming more aware of each true costs.
We are coming to understand that GDP should not be determined by how big someone's yacht is, but by how much wealth is produced.
Wealth is fish in the river. profit is the boat which can empty it out first.
Any fisherperson will tell you, it is fishers who maintain the fish stock in most rivers.
If we can do that, we will be fine.
marsCubed 1 year ago
@marsCubed, co2 is just the best proxy we have for our overall impact on others. It really is a very good measure of our impact on everyone else on earth. Your fish story is a testament to private property and capitalism as the wisest way to address conservation. I've been explaining to mrx0066600 how, with a curious change in the employment model, we could ensure that only responsible boat owners could survive on the river. The co2 model is similar. It gives control to people rather than gov.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts You miss something I fear, that is the majority of the population who are disenfranchised.
Yet they built this world, so did their parents.
Economy must mean systems which enhance the totality, the whole system can be made good.
It comes back to informed democracy... informed is growing in leaps and bounds in recent times, we are only beginning
And coolest thing is that it is the silent who rule.
I have yet to meet a narcissistic meat-heads like me who doesn't love them.
marsCubed 1 year ago
@marsCubed, But I agree with that pretty much. I think you're failing to consider the implications for the disenfranchised of a co2 accounting system that requires those who wish to produce more than the average amount of co2 to purchase that right (in an open market) from those who must then have produced less than the average amount of co2. The poorer one is, in such a system, the more of their rights they can't use but can sell. The approach addresses exactly the issue you claim it neglects.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts Ok, I wanted to avoid this, but I see cap and trade as deeply flawed.
In Europe we have already seen huge fraud and cheating with CO2 trading certificates.
I would rather see cap and cooperation.
The Earth is orbited by a huge mass which shifts large bodies of water around the planet.
We could easily tap this with some agreements and not add a single calorie to the system.
I would rather see us work together for clean energy. we do this in other spheres like research already.
marsCubed 1 year ago
@marsCubed, It's not cap and trade. It's distribute and trade. Just because present implementations of some mechanism are flawed doesn't say anything at all about the underlying suitability of the mechanism itself. Just that governments are easily corrupted. All the more reason to adopt a global mechanism that takes that power away from them by giving the "co2 rights" to people directly and letting all producers compete in the same market to purchase them. We get the clean energy incentive free.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts I understand what you are saying, and I understand your motives.
What troubles me is that it is not generally accepted. there is no quick feed-back. This is why I would rather see a generalized 'cap and explanation'.. however now that you know this about my position you may come to see that we perhaps need a suite of approaches, for some industries trade makes sense, for others a cap is better, for others we may not want controls
I don't have an answer except for educating the pop.
marsCubed 1 year ago
@marsCubed, it was definitely one of the better discussion's I've had here. And I do think I understand what you're saying and your motives. I think our disagreement is about 50% implementability, and 50% impact (you fear it could be impossible to implement and might create unnecessary hardships or be insufficiently effective at addressing the underlying problems.) I think I've thought it through very carefully and might even get the chance to convince you of that at some later time. Gnite.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts Something I have found is that climate science is very easy to explain.
Once ppl understand the idea, it gets it's own legs.
NO2 and O2 make up the majority of the atmosphere, they have tight molecular bonds.
CO2 has loose bonds between the atoms and can thus absorb longer (heat) wavelengths.
This is what keeps out atmosphere warm almost alone.
Knowing that at night when the Earth should be cooling, CO2 continues to glow in the infra red, gives ppl enough to figure the rest.
reason.
marsCubed 1 year ago
@marsCubed oops N2 not NO2
marsCubed 1 year ago
@ananiasacts BTW, very nice talking to you too.
If you ever come to London let me know, I will give you a pub tour beyond your scope of understanding, the most boring and yet culturally enlightening mission you will ever go on.. by the end you will know London as well as me.. if you can still think that is. an Amazon river trip with all mosquito and willy fish included.
life is best with the salt added.. I sense you understand that.
Have a good one ananiasacts.
marsCubed 1 year ago
@marsCubed, What's funny about this is that I'm the one that lives in a tiny kingdom. A little island almost wholly owned by the psychotic scion of a soap and chewing gum magnate, William Wrigley, and who seem to share the same general mindset of the House of Windsor.
My suggestion for the CO2 rights isn't really about climate change. It's just the best proxy I know of for the impact we have on each other. It does have the nice consequence of leaving that issue in the hands of people, not govs.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts Democracy is not a sustainable form of government, it is equivalent to "Mob Rule". Look up "Anacyclosis" it has been well known for almost 2500 years.
eudoxus3 1 year ago
@marsCubed Democracy is an outdated and proven failed governmental structure. The ancient Greeks had a pure democracy and it was toppled by the Romans. England reformed the 3 tier structure to give representation in government to both the Landlords and the Common people. 1) The House of Lords (Senate) 2) The House of Commons and 3) The Monarch. The 3 forms of government, mixed together form a more incorruptible structure than any single form by itself.
eudoxus3 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If people stopped saying democracy and began to use the term informed democracy then it would all begin to make sense.
Democracy is useless if it is cattle being asked to vote on rocket science. all that matters in such a system are the ranters who can sway votes with fear.
To have a good informed democracy ppl need the power to investigate and come to decisions based on higher informed reasoning.
Fox is the biggest enemy of reasonable governance there is.
Lies and fear is not democracy.
marsCubed 1 year ago
If people stopped saying democracy and began to use the term "informed democracy" then it would all begin to make sense.
Democracy is useless if it is cattle being asked to vote on rocket science. all that matters in such a system are the ranters who can sway votes with fear.
To have a good informed democracy ppl need the power to investigate and come to decisions based on higher informed reasoning.
Fox is the biggest enemy of reasonable governance there is.
Lies and fear is not democracy.
marsCubed 1 year ago 9
@marsCubed "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed sheep contesting the election results." Benjamin Franklin.
Democracy is only good when it tends to preserve liberty and the natural rights of each individual. Majorities often vote to do horribly evil things.
Churchill said that the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. But he also said that D is better than all the other forms of govt.
freesk8 1 year ago
@freesk8 Very nice, I like your first quote from Ben. Franklin, also take a look at the wiki page on mixed government. Plato and Socrates believed that if you could form the right structure of government body that was incorruptible your state would never fail. Also take a look at "Anacyclosis" analyzed by Polybius after the Republic by Plato was already completed.
eudoxus3 1 year ago
@freesk8 Infromed voter is what he was arguing for. I dont see what you have to say about liberty effects what he said. Also what is liberty, and why is it always a good thing. Is the liberty to kill another man a good thing, or is the liberty to control a business a good thing always and forever. Liberty is too loose of a word and unless you have a clear meaning for it, liberty is not useful in this or most dialogs. Liberty can mean anything, because anything can be a liberty for all.
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan A good definition of liberty is: "the individual right to do whatever you like, as long as in so doing you harm no one else." Or, we could use the following ending: "as long as you do not violate the equal or symmetrical rights to life, liberty or property of any other individual."
This is the definition accepted by the founders of the USA and by modern libertarians.
Would you like to accept my definition, or would you like to propose changes, or an alternative?
freesk8 1 year ago
@freesk8 This definition is perfect and I can show why it doesn’t work. Do you count just direct harm or indirect harm. There are so many examples of the problems with this philosophy that its amazing that people believe in libertarian ideas. What if you lie, and then the lie causes harm? What if you pollute on your property but it effects others? What about externalizations in a corporation? And who protects people form others violating others liberty?
thesparitan 1 year ago
@thesparitan If you lie, and the lie causes harm, you are liable under this definition. Your actions, the lie, have caused harm. Our civil laws justly punish such lies.
If you pollute your own property, and it does not despoil the property of another, then there can be no just punishment. But if it DOES encroach another property, there IS liability. It is no different when corporations pollute or cause other negative externalities.
Limited govt or private security protects us from others.
freesk8 1 year ago
@freesk8 Good answer on the lies, but still unsatisfactory. Who decides what lie hurts who and the punishment, if any? What laws are put into place, and who? Sounds to me like a system you have would have a very powerful state, with many agencies and countervailing powers. I don’t see how this systemn can work and follow the tenets of your beliefs. Also libertarian systems cannot deal with externalities or indirect harm to others. I dont see it working
thesparitan 1 year ago
Democracy is not "Diplomacy", and
A lot of talking doesn't make you wise.
Justice is Everyone minding their own business.
Definitely not nation policing, and not a nanny government.
eudoxus3 1 year ago
Comment removed
tyrannicoystercult 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eudoxus3 you are uneducated on this topic and your definition of justice is pathetic. good to see you use the term 'nanny' to describe rational governance. you'd like to have never have been taken care of? you live in canada and you were. you dont like the idea of police or nannies, this is not a view with any application -maybe it's your personal code, but it only proves you don't understand the history of economics and the last 2 centuries of society that slowly grew state education, health.
tyrannicoystercult 1 year ago
@eudoxus3:"Justice is Everyone minding their own business." Then who's business is the atmosphere that we're all forced to share? Maybe that's the place to start looking for those mechanism which might redress the inadvertent impact we each have on everyone else via the dumping of greenhouse gasses, particulates, and noise into the atmosphere.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts You pose a complex problem and point to no solution ? Give a solution or you have said nothing helpful except to spread despair. There are many problems in the world and pointing out problems without solutions does not move either side of the argument forward. Would you suggest that the proposed monopolies on carbon credits is a fair solution ? I think you are not looking at the potential for misuse of such a long term monopoly.
eudoxus3 1 year ago
@eudoxus3, I'm not sure which of many complex problems I've pointed out that you're referring to. The inanity of our approach to justice? The poverty created by externalities that pervert our implementation of capitalism? The frailty of our democracy? But I agree it's not terribly productive to just point to problems without offering solutions. I think that if you read the discussion I had with marsCubed or mrx0066600 you'd see that I do offer fresh solutions to these problems and blog as well.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts Well if you agree with my point, then I have nothing more to add. The particular problem is irrelevant to the point.
eudoxus3 1 year ago
@eudoxus3, yes, I just don't believe it's possible to always state both the problem and solution in the same 500 character comment. Standing ready to explain and elaborate is most likely the best we can do here.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts Well, in this particular case I was referring to a problem added to the discussion that could have been stated by any side of the discussion without really gaining a point for either. But the despair caused by a complex world problem, sometimes makes people feel there is a valid point supporting the persons argument. That is the confusion that is not moving the discussion forward. A distraction basically.
eudoxus3 1 year ago
@eudoxus3, I'm not sure I really understand your message. I get the feeling that you consider my attempts to convince either 'mars' or 'mrx' that there is nothing wrong with capitalism, if implemented fairly, as recklessly misguided because it really is capitalism itself that's at fault, and my sophistry (from your perspective) might actually be confusing people into believing that it may be redeemable. I apologize in advance if that's utterly misguided. Perhaps you could be more specific.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts I'm impressed at your use of the term "sophistry". To clear up my previous comments to you, I was specifically replying to your mention of the global climate change issue, that may look like you have a point, but really only leads to a secondary debate on the causes and dangers of climate change. Which does not directly relate to the prior comments on monopolies and capitalism. Although I don't mind discussing climate change, I'd rather do that elsewhere to avoid confusion.
eudoxus3 1 year ago
@eudoxus3, but I don't want to discuss climate change either for the same reasons. And my idea has nothing to do with climate change, doesn't restrict carbon production in any way, nor promises to. It only distributes "rights" equal to the measured global carbon produced last week to this weeks citizens of earth, and requires that producers of carbon buy up enough rights to cover their production. I'm only using CO2 as a proxy for our impact on each other because it really is a good one.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@eudoxus3,BTW, how can I tell if my arguments are sophistic or not? It's not deliberate, of course. But it i speople like you that might be able to show me what's wrong with my reasoning. I honestly think these ideas make sense which is why I'n here trying to explain them. In any event, I sure hope you don't think I found your remarks the least bit insulting.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts I am glad you don't find my remarks insulting, as I never intend to insult, but I may disagree. Not sure what you mean "people like me" (chuckles) Now that I hear your suggestion and I see it in a more pattern sense I can tell you that something is wrong but it will take me time to describe my feelings. I can show you another example which resembles your solution. See my next post for example.
eudoxus3 1 year ago
@eudoxus3 Toronto Canada is where the banks HQ's are located and a lot of money flows through there as it is a large city and central location. It gains the flow of money by having advantages that other smaller cities with less advantageous locations do not have. Mainly more taxes are paid by Toronto to support the province than the smaller cities. Although the smaller cities are using more of their share of the taxes than Toronto.
eudoxus3 1 year ago
@eudoxus3 A rich man will gladly suggest that everyone pays their share for their usage of resources. But the poor man is already disadvantaged and will slip deeper into poverty without assistance from the rich man. The rich man gains his wealth from business and is able to harness the labor of many poor men. There are 2 requirements for PEACE, the 1st is JUSTICE, but the more important is the 2nd which is CHARITY. When Justice fails, Charity is always available.
eudoxus3 1 year ago
@eudoxus3 and finally, if as I originally stated, Justice is "Everyone minding their own business". Then the question remains, whose business is "Charity" ? Would it be the business of the poor man ? Perhaps the rich man ? I leave the question open for further pondering.
eudoxus3 1 year ago
@eudoxus3, one of my all time favorite books is Muhammad Yunus' "Banker to the Poor" where he tells the story of how he stumbled into the idea of micro-lending. In my perspective, the need for charity at all is a testament to our moral bankruptcy as a species. We have undergone mind boggling increases in productivity and yet people still starve to death? How is this possible? Henry George knew why, and explained it well in "Progress and Poverty" over 100 years ago. I assure you we share goals.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@eudoxus3, I think the natural role of government is to make itself obsolete by finding ways to obviate the need for any utility it now provides. It is, after all, overhead. There isn't a living thing alive that needs a government except our societies. That's what "co2 rights" are really all about--obviating the need for a big chunk of government. We cannot enjoy wealth without having impact on others. If we had to redress that impact it simply wouldn't be possible to be poor at all.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@eudoxus3, ... Every time productivity rose for anyone--regardless of who profited most--it would cause a rise in the standard of living across the board because the increased spending on themselves, by the rich, requires them to redress their now disproportionately larger impact--they must purchase more "co2 rights" from the people who haven't been able to use their share because they're too poor. We could help this by changing the employment model as well, as I explained to mrx0066600.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@eudoxus3, by people like you, I meant people who dislike my ideas (you initially seemed more certain the co2 rights idea would be a disaster, you seem to distrust the utility of capitalism, etc.) I'm hoping you stay that way to be honest. It takes a great devil's advocate for me to find compelling ways to explain it. If it is a good idea, that will become clearer the more intensely it gets scrutinized. If it isn't, I want to know that a lot more than you do. I'm grateful to get to discuss it.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts I have no agenda except to push forward the truth. If an argument is valid, there is no point in fighting it. One thing I was trying to point out is the 2 important values to sustain a culture.
1) Never Let the Rich take advantage of the Poor.
2) Never Let the Poor take advantage of the Rich.
When one of those 2 are not being supported, I will try to prop up the missing element in the discussion. Balance is important to sustaining a culture.
eudoxus3 1 year ago
@eudoxus3, That's the basis of my desire to redress our impact on each other. Because of the fact that we share a single planet it isn't really possible to do much of anything without have some minuscule impact on everything else. Because there's nearly 7 billion of us it can add up to a hell of a big impact. CO2 production is a good rough measure of that impact, and thus it seems like an appropriate, easy, and very natural way for us to account for and redress our affects on each other.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts I hope you stay open to alternative solutions. In general there are always 3 ways to persuade anyone to change their behavior.
1) Punish them if they do not behave as you wish.
2) Reward them if they do as you wish.
3) Convince them to do as you wish through reason.
Take note that the first 2 work on animals, the 3rd is reserved for people.
eudoxus3 1 year ago
@eudoxus3, I agree. I wouldn't want to win anything any other way than fairly and directly. What alternative do you have in mind?
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts I am not pushing any specifics, but I can come up with a quick alternative that is more positive. For example, if you consider the payment of credits for CO2 emissions, as a "Punishment" plan. You might try a more positive plan that is based on a "Reward" system instead of demonizing businesses.
eudoxus3 1 year ago
@eudoxus3, I'm not sure what you have in mind. And I don't see how this mechanism demonizes anything. It notes only that we, as people, necessarily share a single atmosphere. It stands to reason from that fact alone that anyone using more than a single share of it must be balanced but one or more people who've used less of it. Do you believe we should require those that wish to use more than one share to purchase that right from those with unused rights or not? (As a matter of fairness.)
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts As I stated I have no specifics in mind. You believe that something needs to be done, and that is debatable. "Fairness" ? Communism is not fairness. Let those who have excellence rise above the common ground. I think your choice of pursuits is not a noble one. Plant trees they breath CO2. Do what is in your power. If you are not in the position to make a difference from your own wealth, then wait until the problem is clear and those who can will.
eudoxus3 1 year ago
@eudoxus3, how do you see this as communistic? Are you disagreeing that we share equal rights to the shared atmosphere of our world? You don't address my reasoning at all but simply condemn it wholesale. How am I to work out what is it about the scheme you perceive as unreasonable?
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts You want to make decisions without principle. I stated clear principles to keep in mind when dealing with any problems. Rather than dealing with only one issue such as climate change, I have stated principles to aid in making your choices. Also, I showed examples of similar situations such as the high taxes paid by Toronto. But Toronto is not using the same proportion of resources. So in the specific case of CO2 rights, it need not be all fair, CHARITY is a very noble aim.
eudoxus3 1 year ago
@eudoxus3, but this isn't about climate. It's just that everything we do has some impact on other people and the best rough measure of that impact just happens to be co2. Noise, dust, other gasses, water pollution, all sorts of other stuff is involved as well, but they all are accompanied by co2 production. That's what makes it such an ideal proxy for gauging and thus allowing us to redress the genuine impact we have on each other. Its stopping a theft, not creating a gift. Its not communism.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts At this point I must point out I have made many attempts to address your request that I explain to you my points. You continue to appear as though I have said nothing in many carefully worded postings that I have made here. If you want to continue this discussion I need you to recap what if anything you have comprehended from my postings, and how you can appreciate the ideas by changing your understanding. Otherwise it appears you are closed minded.
eudoxus3 1 year ago
@eudoxus3, I'm not sure you noticed that as I defined it, they're giving away rights each week for the entire global production of CO2. This is more than is produced by all of humanity, thus at least until we decide to change that, there will always be more credits issued that could actually be used. This should prevent the price from becoming punitive for all but the largest producers of CO2, and they really should reflect some of that cost in the price of their product or service.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
I like what he says about natural selection. Its a process, a fact, not a philosophy or a social structure.
eirefrance 1 year ago 2
we have this idiot from India..Leftist all the way..
dd1857 1 year ago
@dd1857 Idiot? Really? The man is hardly that. Don't you think you might look less stupid if you countered him on the points, not threw out a meaningless label. I mean, why do even watch Fora is thats all you have to say?
eirefrance 1 year ago 5
@eirefrance, LOL.. Mostly what I've learned from a few years of participating here is that our intelligence is skin deep, but our stupidity goes all the way to the bone. The challenge seems to be to engineer our various infrastructures to disenfranchise most of our predispositions.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@eirefrance
yes i see the flora tv and i am a Indian so i shuld respect Sen.. but this ass hole is a Leftist idiot..
In india we have seen the left for 50 years...and 3.6 something growth in india.
only after the leftist idiot stupidity ended we started to rise up.
Fuck Left and fuck communist and also fuck islam
dd1857 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@eirefrance
yes i see the flora tv and i am a Indian so i shuld respect Sen.. but this ass hole is a Leftist idiot..
In india we have seen the left for 50 years...and 3.6 something growth in india.
only after the leftist idiot stupidity ended we started to rise up.
Fuck Left and fuck communist and also fuck islam
dd1857 1 year ago
@dd1857 He's a Nobel Prize Winning Economist, I would hardly call this man a leftist. Without economists like him, there would be no free market.
truvelocity 1 year ago
@truvelocity The free market is what exists without any government interference. Economists study what exists by natural laws of human behavior.
eudoxus3 1 year ago
@eudoxus3 No, a free market exists, because the government regulates them to prevent a monopoly, in order to prevent a corporation from becoming so huge that it raises its prices unfairly... OPEC ring a bell? Economists study both human nature and economic trends, combined.
truvelocity 1 year ago 3
@truvelocity This claim seems superficial. Wealthy businesses often benefit from regulation and creating barriers to entry by capturing politicians or regulatory instruments. These regulations insulate the larger businesses the most bcs they have the capital to invest in additional legal infrastructure. This has been the history of most, probably all, political economies. It is called neo-mercantilism or corporatism and the public choice school studies this phenomenon.
rayyf69 1 year ago
@truvelocity Monopolies are not formed without some sort of policy in place to govern business. One policy requires three more to regulate it and so the exponential growth in policy occurs generation after generation until the weight of governance over business collapses on itself.
eudoxus3 1 year ago
@eudoxus3 monopolies are formed by ambition of business people. it never ceases to amaze me how many of society's woes far-right neoconservatism tries to pin on intervention of government. they stretch the limits of ration and pollute innocent minds all over the world with their fantasies of one big free land, as if that was a step forward. less regulation means more lessez faire exploitation. anyone interested in the social impact of globalization can understand the modern face of this struggle
tyrannicoystercult 1 year ago
@tyrannicoystercult - what do you think of this one?
/watch?v=tdLBzfFGFQU
It's Milton Friedman speaking about monopolies.
imre1000 1 year ago
@imre1000 i watched that video and left a comment. i think you'll find if you pick apart the things he's describing that they are not the type of international businesses that currently disrupt markets. he tries to paint a world free of tariffs, but that doesnt address currency exchange or differing labor laws. labor law and indecent mafiatic enforcement of slavery in south america africa and china is a gigantic reason why our production chains are horribly distorted today, almost beyond repair.
tyrannicoystercult 1 year ago
@tyrannicoystercult, the examples you gave, South America and China, are one where Governments are heavily involved in the economy and constantly devalue their currency. They have many Government sponsored corporations, and plenty of corruption.
The exception being Chile, which Friedman helped bring economic reform and free markets to.
Chile is a relatively prosperous country in a middle of semi Socialist dictatorships there.
imre1000 1 year ago
@tyrannicoystercult
When big business had the industrial revolution and children were being used for child labor and workers were being worked to the bone and screwed over if they had a work related accident or hell even killed on the job. There were no ethics, it was all for the money. the workers meant shit to big business then, and they still do to this very day.
The freer the market the more rights people give to big companies to walk all over them.
There has to be regulations for sure.
mrx0066600 1 year ago
@mrx0066600, I disagree with this perspective. The trouble with regulations is that they cannot avoid simultaneously creating a "selective pressure" to somehow circumvent them and we end up with an arms race. A better approach would be to look for ways to undermine the very utility of the behaviors we wish to curtail. It seems to me that the best way to ensure that workers are never exploited would be to change the way they are paid. Perhaps they should pay to work--but share in profits.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts
I'm sorry but I just can not see that situation working out to well... I mean how would you even get something like that started? People paying to work? So now they're paying their bills, insurance, etc and jobs? and what type of profits would be earned to people. and in order to keep ones job would you simply pay more? owners would not have it.
If anything that wont curtail bad habits, only create new ones.
We need to get over our fears and regulate, even if just a little.
mrx0066600 1 year ago
@mrx0066600, it might be as simple as just giving companies the tax incentive to reorganize themselves that way, so that their workers pay for their jobs, but share the profits of the company. It could even be tested in a so-called "special economic zone" to make sure it isn't crazy. I couldn't really understand why you think owners would be against a workforce that was paying to be there, as well as more committed to the long term success of the enterprise. I think this better aligns interests.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts
Well think about it like this.
How much money from the collection of the workers would be spent on the company and how much would be taken into the pocket of the owner?
What would decide the pay in?
What about incentive, incentive to pay more in?
How much is split up and would the owners take in more or equally as the worker? There are a ton of questionable actions that would be taken by the owners.
Also what if someone is broke? How are they ever going to pay into a job?
mrx0066600 1 year ago
@mrx0066600, if the owner took too much who would pay to work for him? The owner would decide the pay-in (and might even loan a broke dude enough to get started.) Incentive is built in by the fact that the profits are shared. Again, the owner must make the job attractive to keep the worker, that's why you don't have to worry about the split being fair. If it isn't, someone else could steal the workers by being more fair. The point is only that approach better aligns the interests of parties.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts
How would you know?? no regulation!
Oh, might loan? might??? are you serious? sorry I'm out of here.
Good night every body! and by that I just mean you, good night.
mrx0066600 1 year ago
@mrx0066600, I think the best we can do is engineer an economy that most accurately connects our true impact (both positive and negative) with the benefits and costs associate with that impact. That's the underlying strategy these ideas are born from. I believe we share common goals: to discover the organization and infrastructure that best empowers people to find lifestyles they enjoy and are fulfilled by. In any event, it's been a pleasure chatting with you this evening, good night.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@mrx0066600 Big business and Big government work together to maintain monopolies. Otherwise "monopolies" serve their temporary purpose to give incentive for new inventions. Once the invention is well known the monopoly will fade naturally, unless corrupt politicians are paid grease money to change policy to maintain them.
eudoxus3 1 year ago
@tyrannicoystercult You claim I am uneducated without knowing me, that is not a point that is being argued. Stick to the points of argument. Perhaps you should read the original Statute of Monopolies from England in 1623 to know why our technology in the "West" has grown from ambition of people.
eudoxus3 1 year ago