From conspiracy theories to climate change denial, a cognitive psychologist explains

Apr 17, 2014 by Stephan Lewandowsky
Facts don’t matter. Credit: dlytle, CC BY-NC-SA

Stephan Lewandowsky, chair of cognitive psychology at the University of Bristol, answered questions posed by the public on Reddit. The Conversation has curated the highlights.

Conspiracy theories

Under what conditions do conspiracies spread? What can one do to convince people to be more sceptical of extraordinary claims in conspiracy theories?

In societies that are not transparent and less democratic, conspiracy theories flourish because the government cannot be trusted. In general, the people who believe in conspiracy theories are low on trust and feel that they have been treated badly by life or society.

Countering this is very difficult, but education and reducing inequality will go a long way.

Can you name one conspiracy theory that turned out to be true?

The is now known to have "conspired" against the public in their efforts to undermine the well-established scientific evidence linking smoking to ill health. One of the US judges famously said: "The US tobacco industry has engaged in a criminal conspiracy for more than 50 years."

What kind of cognitive traits does conspiratorial thinking exhibit?

There are some researchers who have linked conspiracy beliefs to personality variables. So yes, it is quite possibly a stable characteristic of some sort. The most striking thing is that conspiratorial thinking can be self-contradictory, for example people think MI6 killed Princess Diana while also thinking that she faked her own death.

To what extent do you see climate conspiracists denying climate change science as opposed to denying the feasibility of providing an economically acceptable solution to reversing its effects?

Very interesting question. I cannot be certain because I do not have data that speak to this issue directly. However, in general, conspiracism is just one form of "motivated cognition". There are others, such as worldview defence. The reason worldviews are inflamed by climate change is because of the threat of government interference with the free market that might result from mitigation efforts. It is for this reason that people who cherish free markets are less inclined to oppose mitigation when it is framed as providing an opportunity for the nuclear industry than when it is framed as pollution cuts.

Bottom line: It is pretty clear that fear of the solutions drives much opposition to the science. This manifests itself in motivated cognition, and one form of that is conspiracism. That said, it is notable that other science denial – for instance HIV-AIDS – also involves conspiracism, and the links to worldviews are less clear there.

Climate change denial

How important are political ideologies in understanding the rejection of climate science?

I can ask people four questions about the and I have roughly 67% "confidence" (that is, variance) in their attitudes towards climate change.

As a conservative, I find myself in the frustrating position of being one of the few among my inner circle who is not a dogmatic climate change sceptic. It's happening and humanity is contributing in a major way. Something that does frustrate me, however, is misinformation about exactly what steps would need to be taken to seriously combat global warming effects. What are your thoughts on this?

Recycling is largely a farce. Yes, it is better to recycle that soda bottle than to throw it out. But what is far better is to reuse it or not use it in the first place. But there's no political will to move the needle on the economic to support such a system. (I do try to recycle anyway, by the way. I just don't pretend that it makes any significant difference.)

Gasoline use is even worse. The fact is that, without abundant sources of non-fossil-fuel power, we are going to burn every last bit of carbon we can pull out of the earth's crust. Me driving an electric vehicle (which I don't, by the way) just makes it that much easier for someone on the other side of the world to fill up their gas tank.

I think there is, however, some utility in the example that it sets. If my vegan friends make a dinner that is fantastic and satisfying, maybe their decreased resource consumption gives me some ideas how to reduce my consumption of meat. My neighbour's electric vehicle might convince me that I don't need to drive a gas-guzzling SUV, and might help incrementally advance the technology to make a wholesale change in power for transportation possible.

Overall, the micro-level stuff is small potatoes, and won't make a difference without the macro stuff. But I think the micro stuff can help sell the macro stuff, and that's the reason it matters.

Do you think that people with same views (no matter how absurd) will easily find each other and gather around somewhere?

Yes, there are cyberghettos and clusterings. This is a problem all in itself already, but to make matters worse, it creates an incentive for politicians to engage in more extremist dialogue. Work by economists has shown that it is advantageous for politicians to be extreme if messages to their followers remained inside an echo chamber. As a consequence, whereas politicians used to compete for the "median voter", it is now advantageous to be extremist. This has undesirable consequences for us all.

How much of an effect has science denial had on the progress of the science itself?

It is difficult to quantify, but there is some evidence to suggest that science denial has affected not just public discourse but also science itself. For example, an analysis of media coverage found that the IPCC reports in 2007 were more likely to underestimate than overestimate the risk from climate change. A more recent analysis expanded on this topic and argued that scientists' natural reticence biases them towards cautious estimates rather than alarmism, a tendency they call erring on the side of least drama.

Is it a waste of my time trying to convince those that don't believe in climate change or should I just focus on helping those that do become more educated?

The answer is pretty nuanced: There are some people who are so entrenched in their contrarian views that there is little point in talking to them about anything other than solutions. In the end, it doesn't matter what a person thinks about if they put a solar panel on their roof – and who wouldn't in Geraldton, Western Australia?

However, there are also people who really want to know more, and whose reticence to accept the science arises from lack of information. I would send those people to Skeptical Science. Differentiating between entrenched contrarians and those who are open to knowing more is challenging because sometimes it is difficult to know at the outset.

What kind of dialogue may perhaps serve to move the national discussion in a more productive direction, given your insights into the psychology of denial?

My views are: first, the public is currently being denied the right to be fully informed about the risks it is facing. Second, there are many reasons for this, from "doubt-mongering" to ideologically-motivated denial. Third, we know from much research on misinformation that people cannot dismiss "noise" or misinformation unless they are given a reason to do so. This is why it is important for the public to understand who the people are who oppose .

In a nutshell: underscore the consensus which will move all but the hardcore, and identify who the hardcore contrarians are so the remainder of the population can make an educated choice about who to listen to.

I will graduate this year with an MSc in Climate Change. What should someone with my skills be doing in order to do a job which benefits the planet?

I think that scientists themselves could refine their messaging. Often they put the uncertainty first, without saying what we do know or without saying that uncertainty is a compelling reason to mitigate. That said, also remember that the problem is compounded by the role of worldviews. To overcome that, emphasising the consensus is only a partial tool.

Explore further: Scientists unmask the climate uncertainty monster

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Right, left, wrong: People reject science because ...

Oct 03, 2013

You'd be forgiven for thinking science is under attack. Climate science has been challenged by deniers and sceptics, vaccination rates are falling thanks to anti-vaccination movements, and GM crops are pillaged ...

What motivates rejection of (climate) science?

Aug 23, 2012

(Medical Xpress)—Researchers from The University of Western Australia have examined what motivates people who are greatly involved in the climate debate to reject scientific evidence.

Scientists unmask the climate uncertainty monster

Apr 04, 2014

(Phys.org) —Scientific uncertainty is a 'monster' that prevents understanding and delays mitigative action in response to climate change, according to The University of Western Australia's Winthrop Professor Stephan Lewandowsky ...

Recommended for you

Study shows no lead pollution in oilsands region

17 hours ago

New research from a world-renowned soil and water expert at the University of Alberta reveals that there's no atmospheric lead pollution in Alberta's oilsands region—a finding that contradicts current scientific ...

User comments : 229

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

PsycheOne
1.8 / 5 (20) Apr 17, 2014
Why is the are the questions about climate change posed as if climate change is a proven fact? The interviewer should be objective.
Sinister1812
1.9 / 5 (13) Apr 17, 2014
In some cases, like the disappearance of MH370, I think there's good reason to be concerned and suspicious. With mostly conflicting information, I think it's probably the biggest mystery of our time.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (18) Apr 17, 2014
The reason worldviews are inflamed by climate change is because of the threat of government interference with the free market that might result from mitigation efforts.


Also, the threat of gov social engineering and loss of liberty. It is the political far left's environmentalists who are to blame, not the "deniers", just as it was in the 1970's.

....scientists' natural reticence biases them towards cautious estimates rather than alarmism, a tendency they call erring on the side of least drama.


However that may be [*], it is not the climatologists' alarmism that is of concern, so this is irrelevant and deliberately the wrong question,...... it is the leftist political forces using AGW as a 'foot in the door' for increased government control via massive energy market regulation, social engineering, and redistribution of wealth. [* the predictions of the prior two decades have overshot the actual warming though]
Z99
2.4 / 5 (10) Apr 17, 2014
As a scientist who has looked at some of the science behind climate change, its clear to me that it is happening and will continue to do so. Unfortunately, approximately zero percent of the lay public is capable of understanding the science. Additionally, the contrarians "conspiracy" is to keep the public focused on the science, rather than policy. My analogy is that your children are playing on the beach and you feel the ground shake and notice that the ocean is receding. Question: do you move your kids to the highest ground you can get to (policy) or do you wait for someone to announce that a tsunami warning has been issued (science)? Science advises policy. The Kyoto Treaty killed policy. If you want to speculate on a conspiracy, claiming that Kyoto's completely unrealistic goals, which would have literally been a global disaster, literally doomed the policy to oblivion. I can't believe that anyone actually thought it would do anything else. Too big NOT to fail.
Z99
2.4 / 5 (11) Apr 17, 2014
The other point is that given the knee jerk reaction the Climate Change belivers evince, I wonder if general acceptance of the science would actually have led to constructive social policy. Based on the stupidity of our governments' response to 9/11, it seems most likely that the response, given a willing population, would have done more harm than good. Realistically, we are going to burn all the hydrocarbons we can extract. We need to talk about adjusting to climate change rather than preventing it. It is, in my view, a moral requirement that the true blue climate change believers, who want draconian economic mesaures forced on us first need to begin to live on $5/day. After a decade or two, they will be in a credible position to tell us what the world poor should have to sacrifice to prevent change.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (19) Apr 17, 2014
Not surprisingly, the-elephant-in-the-room question is not asked, despite it being perhaps the only question a 'psychologist' is imminently qualified to answer.....

i.e. why don't the masses of those who accept AGW as fact (a majority in most countries), voluntarily reduce their personal standard of living and go to increased personal expense to make use of alternative energy sources, that fail to compete with coal/oil? Is it in fact reasonable to ask the masses to do this, counter to their natural egoistic instincts?

The answer is no, it is not reasonable,.. thus the continued failure and continued blame of "denialism", the continued outrageous propaganda schemes at redefining what is skepticism, into a mental disorder or even a criminal behavior.

....
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 17, 2014
....

Expecting people to behave Counter to natural egoism, is like trying to hold back the ocean; it is intrinsically immovable and a necessary element of human behavior to act in accord to ones best interest.

The answer is in taking Advantage of this egoistic force, and free choice in the context of liberty, not in countering it,... The clear evidence that this works is that the greatest economies on the planet are founded on this principal.
Pejico
Apr 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Sinister1812
4.6 / 5 (11) Apr 17, 2014
So Noumenon would rather live in an egoist selfish society where people worship money? Real social engineers are the world's richest people.
Noumenon
2.9 / 5 (12) Apr 17, 2014
As a scientist who has looked at some of the science behind climate change, its clear to me that it is happening and will continue to do so
Did you ever consider this scenario: the Earth is passing through cloud of dark matter at the galactic plane, the neutrinos contained accelerate the nuclear fusion and decay of radioactive elements inside of soil and marine water, the heat releases the carbon dioxide and methane accumulated in permafrost and marine water? If not, then your perspective is not scientific, because you didn't exclude all options.


It would have been fairly easy to have detected dark matter in that case, so it must not be a viable option.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 17, 2014
So Noumenon would rather live in an egoist selfish society where people worship money? Real social engineers are the world's richest people.


You're taking the word 'egoist' as if I meant it as a subjective and qualitative judgment of ones behavior. Wrong. It was used by me to indicate an evolutionary instinctive and necessary behavior of man. It is as much a moral judgment as it is a moral judgment that people breath too much.

It's not about what Noumenon wants or don't want, it is about what IS in fact the case in reality. This is the deference between a bed-wetting liberal and a libertarian-conservative, ....the former lives in a idealistic world of "what 'should be the case', while the later lives in the world as it IS.

The facts are there are enough believers in AGW in the world to make a immediate difference had they only reduce their standard of living substantially.

Also troll-rating is not an argument. Why 1-rate the prior post while logically you should agree ?
Pejico
Apr 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Noumenon
3.7 / 5 (9) Apr 17, 2014
It would have been fairly easy to have detected dark matter in that case, so it must not be a viable option
But how to do it, if the dark matter is undetectable? Did we ever try?


It's a very active field to hunt for prospective DM candidates.
Pejico
Apr 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (15) Apr 17, 2014
Why is the are the questions about climate change posed as if climate change is a proven fact? The interviewer should be objective.
Because climate change, and specifically climate warming, IS a proven fact. The "interviewer" is a forum of people, how much more objective can you be?
Also, the threat of gov social engineering and loss of liberty. It is the political far left's environmentalists who are to blame, not the "deniers", just as it was in the 1970's.
Baloney, and your usual anti-socialist-clouded garbage! The extremists from both sides share the blame.
Did you ever consider this scenario: the Earth is passing through cloud of dark matter at the galactic plane,
and. of course, Zeph has to chime in with his pseudo-magical "aethor does everything" chatter. Give it a rest Zephyr.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (15) Apr 17, 2014
The real issue is the massive emerging economies of China and India, and the impossibility of convincing them to 'please' stop your economic growth by making decisions that stunt it. One can see that those who think that science 'deniers' are the problem are either clueless imbeciles, or purposeful charlatans trying to make liberty a moral issue.
Pejico
Apr 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (14) Apr 17, 2014
The real issue is the massive emerging economies of China and India, and the impossibility of convincing them to 'please' stop your economic growth by making decisions that stunt it. One can see that those who think that science 'deniers' are the problem are either clueless imbeciles, or purposeful charlatans trying to make liberty a moral issue.
Can you ever see the grey noumenon? China has been taking steps, and they just had a big announcement about their efforts to get the various provinces and cities to help with the effort. They have a lot of problems there because of coal-fired energy.

India, too, are taking steps.

Nothing about it is easy. If you were not so blinded by your prejudices, you might be able to look to workable solutions and the efforts being made to find them.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (11) Apr 17, 2014
We can play a game. I'll present some fifty confirmed phenomena and you'll decide, whether it could support my hypothesis of GW or not. Lets start:

http://adsabs.har...23..589V

Does it support it or not?


Off topic, begging an answer. Get real Zeph.
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (12) Apr 17, 2014
Baloney, and your usual anti-socialist-clouded garbage! The extremists from both sides share the blame.


What do you think motivates "denialism"? It is the threat of a increased government power, ....from the existent state of 'free'-market capitalism within the arena of liberty, to one of increased regulated energy markets and social engineering.

My point is, by proposing solutions that counter Existing economic forces, putting economic control into the hands of an obviously far left UN, you are sending rational people into a defensive position.

Had the solutions proposed not been a trojan horse for socialist ideals, and been more compatible with the Existent economic forces, AGW would have been more accepted. The fault lies in that the political far left made this issue more about their ideology, using alarmism, than about actually proposing solutions that are acceptable within existing economic realities.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (13) Apr 17, 2014
What do you think motivates "denialism"?
Mostly ignorance of the science combined with a predetermined attitude that "they" are out to get us.
It is the threat of a increased government power,
no.
...from the existent state of 'free'-market capitalism within the arena of liberty, to one of increased regulated energy markets and social engineering.
sloganeering.

My point is, by proposing solutions that counter existing economic forces, putting economic control into the hands of an obviously far left UN, you are sending rational people into a defense stance. b
Only the idiots.

Had the solutions proposed not been a trojan horse for socialist ideals, and been more compatible with the Existent economic forces, AGW would have been more accepted. The fault lies in that the political far left made this issue more about their ideology, than actually proposing solutions that are acceptable within the existing economic realities.
More sloganeering.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (12) Apr 17, 2014
The real issue is the massive emerging economies of China and India, and the impossibility of convincing them to 'please' stop your economic growth by making decisions that stunt it. One can see that those who think that science 'deniers' are the problem are either clueless imbeciles, or purposeful charlatans trying to make liberty a moral issue.
Can you ever see the grey noumenon? China has been taking steps, and they just had a big announcement about their efforts to get the various provinces and cities to help with the effort. They have a lot of problems there because of coal-fired energy.


China relies on coal to develop its economy and this will accelerate. If a country lies about even its human right abuses, it will probably do so about AGW.
Noumenon
1.3 / 5 (16) Apr 17, 2014
"ignorance of the science",.... sloganeering.... idiots..... denialists


Tossing ad hominems is not an argument. Claiming a defect in your opposition is akin to rolling up into a intellectual ass-ball. This is what the far left AGW Alarmists do when they fail to convince the 'collective genius of mankind' that they need to immediately submit to their tree-hugging ideology.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (12) Apr 17, 2014
"Yes, it is better to recycle that soda bottle than to throw it out. But what is far better is to reuse it or not use it in the first place."

There is a company in Israel that makes Soda Steam, a product that does reuse bottles and puts the soda making operation in the hands of the consumer.
But, because the company is in Israel, some anti-Jew 'liberals' are promoting boycotts of Soda Stream.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (16) Apr 17, 2014
I wonder how many AGWites know that Ken Lay from Enron was a big proponent of the Kyoto treating and lobbied GHW Bush heavily to get involved with the first major AGW event in Rio.
For the 'liberals', if they can control the media they can control the 'truth'.
Ever since BHO was elected, the media have been covering up for his failures and when they can't cry 'racism'.
"Look, liberalism has a kind of Tourette's syndrome these days. It's just constantly saying the word "racism" and "racist." It's an old saying in the law. If you have a law on your side, argue the law, if you have the facts on your side, argue the facts. If you have neither, pound the table. "
http://www.realcl...ism.html
AGWites are 'liberals' and are 'pounding the table'.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 17, 2014
For those 'liberals' who are not in the USA, you also share in responsibility for BHO by awarding a Nobel Prize for doing nothing and treating him like a rock star when he had accomplished ...nothing.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (16) Apr 17, 2014
Tossing ad hominems is not an argument.
First, you should learn what "ad hominem" actually means.
Claiming a defect in your opposition is akin to rolling up into a intellectual ass-ball.
No such claim was made. So, second, you should learn comprehension.
This is what the far left AGW Alarmists do when they fail to convince the 'collective genius of mankind' that they need to immediately submit to their tree-hugging ideology.
Hypocrite much? This is an ad hominem. So third, you should learn what logical fallacies are.

China relies on coal to develop its economy and this will accelerate.
True - so they should do what?

PS - you're a lap dog for Rygg now I see. What a good boy! (This is an ad hominem dumdum)



julianpenrod
1.6 / 5 (14) Apr 17, 2014
Among a number of other things, note the provable conspiracy in the article. Despite the fact that it starts out talking about conspiracy theories and even has an illustration at the top of a famous conspiracy theory topic, the article itself is really about climate change denial! Four questions about conspiracy theories, eight about climate change denial! A patently transparent attempt at a scam.
And, consider, again, the dismissal of conspiracy theories as essentially just a mental flaw. People see conspiracies because there's something wrong with them, they don't actually see things that don't add up. Because the people are too stupid to figure things out, as echoed by Z99. "Education" will go a long way in proving to people that the government of the U.S. is perfect. Watergate, "Nayirah", the Iraq Occupation, Fast and Furious, "I never had sex with that woman", the George Washington Bridge shut down all never occurred.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (15) Apr 17, 2014
It is pretty clear that fear of the solutions drives much opposition to the science.

Why to so many cherish free markets? Because socialism creates misery, tyranny and despair.
So why didn't AGWites propose and support free market solutions?
Egleton
2.8 / 5 (8) Apr 17, 2014
Check your assumptions. The USA is capitalist? The average joe lunchbucket is free? (Endangered species) "Fweedom!"
The USA is the most top down socialist country left in the world. Joe lunchbucket works for the bank. The bank which prints up the debt that he uses. He is a debt slave.

Assumption two. Making large turning machines in Detroit will be a lost cause.
What does a captalist do? He finds a need and he makes a profit servicing that need. What does the world need? Non polluting energy. Now brains trust-What do you think Detroit should be doing?
Without windmills Detroit is a ghost town. But they have "Fweedom". Freedom to collapse.
aksdad
1.9 / 5 (15) Apr 17, 2014
Lewandowsky makes some interesting points, but as the first commenter observed, he's accepted as fact the notion that humans are the primary cause of catastrophic global warming and they can reverse it. Bypassing the "experts" and their claims and taking a look at the data itself shows that idea to have very little scientific support.

Lewandowsky's personal bias about climate science is so pronounced that he stooped to publishing an ethically-challenged paper about an imaginary link between anthropogenic global warming (AGW) skeptics ("deniers") and conspiracy theorists whose methods have serious problems. Frontiers in Psychology retracted the paper and offered Lewandowsky an opportunity to bring his methods in line with acceptable standards and re-publish but he has not done so.

http://www.fronti...pers/830

This behavior calls into question any of his statements about climate change skeptics.
aksdad
2.2 / 5 (13) Apr 17, 2014
Here is the original statement by Frontiers in Psychology on why they retracted Lewandowsky's paper:

http://www.fronti...ment/812

Their statement generated so much fury from Lewandowsky and global warming alarmists that they had to follow it up with this statement, trying to soften the blow a little by indicating that the editors at Frontiers in Psychology are on their side; they too think global warming is a problem:

http://www.fronti...pers/830

Nevertheless, the ethical and procedural problems in the paper speak volumes about the kind of "science" being done to prove what is currently unprovable; that humans are causing unprecedented and catastrophic global warming. The Climategate e-mail leaks and accidental comments by prominent alarmists demonstrate their frequent reliance on exaggeration and distortion to make their point.
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (13) Apr 17, 2014
askdad, you have so many things wrong in YOUR summary, it's hard to know where to start.

First, Lewandowsky has no stake in global warming, human caused or otherwise. His paper was dealing with the actions and psychological profiles of people who were responding in public forums to aspects of the science of global warming. Whether or not he has his own opinion of global warming is irrelevant to the paper he wrote.

Secondly, Frontiers choose to remove the paper because they felt the blind use of posters handles gave too much room for those posters to be identified. They did not have an issue with the findings of the paper itself, nor did they argue the conclusion of the paper.

Their actions may have been prompted by the complaints of those whose handle's were used, but regardless of that, their actions have been heavily criticized by editors of their own publication along with other psychological publications due to the perceived taint of bowing to pressure.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (15) Apr 17, 2014
Lewandowsky has no stake in global warming,

Really?
You claim he has no bias?

" I would send those people to Skeptical Science. "
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (12) Apr 17, 2014
Furthermore, the publisher requested that more effort be made to hide the identity of the subjects of the paper, an action Lewandowsky felt was unnecessary. Their only concern was a legal one; that is, they owners of the handles discussed may have grounds to pursue action against the publication. Not that they have a case, but that they have grounds to start it. The cost of defending such an action is what prompted the redaction.

Finally your bs comment that this somehow suggests Frontiers gives a fiddler's cow whether global warming is, in fact, exactly the type of fact changing wishful thinking that so pervades the so called "critics". How the hell you think a PSYCOLOGICAL JOURNAL has any stake or cares at all in whether or not there is global warming speaks to YOUR bias, not Lewdowsky's!
Maggnus
4.1 / 5 (14) Apr 17, 2014
Lewandowsky has no stake in global warming,

Really?
You claim he has no bias?

" I would send those people to Skeptical Science. "
People with questions should go to a site that gives answers based on science Mr POS Anarchist, and from there they can begin to learn for themselves what is going on.

As for you, I would send you to a good psychologist. You'd make an interesting study for a paper to be published in Frontiers.

I disagree with askdad, you're just an idiot.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (15) Apr 17, 2014
The USA is the most top down socialist country left in the world. Joe lunchbucket works for the bank. The bank which prints up the debt that he uses. He is a debt slave.


Ridiculous. Debt/Credit is simply another form of financial transaction; a investment/sale in/of future potential to earn. It is a trade in value. Joe lunch-pale is free to place himself on whatever side he chooses.

What does a [capitalist] do? He finds a need and he makes a profit servicing that need. What does the world need? Non polluting energy...


I'm not sure I understand you word-salad here. If there is no potential for profit then a capitalist does NOT service that need, no matter what is believed the world "needs".

If it were true that all is required is an agreement of what the "world needs", then tree-hugging liberals would have pooled their own money and started a magic energy company selling monkey farts as fuel.
MandoZink
4.6 / 5 (11) Apr 17, 2014
Conspiracy theorists are certainly sensitive to criticism. But with damned good reason. Even the psychologists have it out for them.
Vyhea
3.5 / 5 (16) Apr 17, 2014
Conspiracy theorists are certainly sensitive to criticism. But with damned good reason. Even the psychologists have it out for them.

Psychologists are only human. Someone obviously got to them. I suspect that AGW alarmist faction. Practically the entire core of the atmospheric branch of science fell to those guys. How hard could it be to covertly bias psychologists?

Seriously, they could be using chemtrails.
Maggnus
4.7 / 5 (12) Apr 18, 2014
Psychologists are only human. Someone obviously got to them. I suspect that AGW alarmist faction. Practically the entire core of the atmospheric branch of science fell to those guys. How hard could it be to covertly bias psychologists?

Seriously, they could be using chemtrails.


I love good sarcasm, a five for you!
runrig
4.4 / 5 (13) Apr 18, 2014
Lewandowsky makes some interesting points, but as the first commenter observed, he's accepted as fact the notion that humans are the primary cause of catastrophic global warming and they can reverse it. Bypassing the "experts" and their claims and taking a look at the data itself shows that idea to have very little scientific support.


Excuse me !?
Is this an exercise in reverse logic??
You say that what "experts" claim has "very little scientific support". What?
Talk about proving the premise of this piece correct.

So you are saying that experts in the fields do not know what they are talking about?
And why pray... Are you a better expert?
Or have you decided that those with a beef about AGW and spin mistruths/myths and influence right-wing media are correct.
FFS
When you go to your docs and pass through the gamut of the medical profession in search of a cure.
Then do turn around to that profession, wont you? and say "you all know nothing - I'm off to a psychic surgeon".
FFS
Steven_Gaylord
1 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2014
Sage of Quay Radio - Dane Wigington and the Global Geoengineering Crisis - April 14, 2014
https://www.youtu...re=share
jakack
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2014
What intention do these pyscho-political-analysis articles actually have? It's beginning to look eerily similar to a not too distant past...

https://www.wpi.e...eich.pdf

"Although psychiatrists did play a vital role in the mutilation and killing of thousands of
patients and helped lay the groundwork for the Holocaust, it is once again important to see that psychiatry is heavily influenced by modern ideology."

"Psychiatry by nature incorporates contemporary ideology in its approach to the individual
and society, and psychiatrists during that period were in essence state-controlled. All of
these factors may have led to their tendency to objectify patients. Thus, these
psychiatrists were primed to become involved in furthering Nazi ideology.(19)"
Sigh
4.4 / 5 (13) Apr 18, 2014
My point is, by proposing solutions that counter Existing economic forces, putting economic control into the hands of an obviously far left UN, you are sending rational people into a defensive position.

So only those who deny climate change are rational?

The fault lies in that the political far left made this issue more about their ideology, using alarmism, than about actually proposing solutions that are acceptable within existing economic realities.

And no fault lies with libertarians/conservatives who fail to propose a solution they can live with? You've had decades. Put some of that intellectual effort into finding solutions, rather than denying the problem.
Sigh
5 / 5 (11) Apr 18, 2014
It is pretty clear that fear of the solutions drives much opposition to the science.

Why to so many cherish free markets? Because socialism creates misery, tyranny and despair.
So why didn't AGWites propose and support free market solutions?

Why don't you? You are the one who likes them so much. But you don't believe in your own proposal enough to support it with more than a few sound bites. You have never answered my questions how your property rights based proposal could be made either logically consistent or politically possible. If even you don't believe in your solution enough to put in a little intellectual effort, why should anyone else? All the indications coming from you are that it's a dead end, and not worth pursuing.
Sigh
5 / 5 (13) Apr 18, 2014
Because socialism creates misery, tyranny and despair.

One more thing. You think that even the US is socialist, but I expect you would consider the Scandinavian countries to be more socialist. Yet they score highly on indices of happiness, transparency, lack of corruption, political freedom, and so on. So can you offer some logically consistent quantitative measure of how socialist a country is, and show how that relates to misery, tyranny and despair? Or is your claim another sound bite?
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 18, 2014
Protection of property rights are the ONLY logical and consistence approach that has been proven to be effective.
How can a govt be allowed to commit acts that would be criminal for an individual and still be a just government?
those who deny climate change are rational?

Another socialist misdirection.
Who can deny climate has been changing for millions of years? 12000 years ago much of the norther hemisphere was covered ice. It is irrational to deny that climate has changed.
What is not irrational is to challenge those those who assert humans are the only cause of any changes in recent climate.
It is irrational for any scientist to assert any science is 'settled' or that consensus is a solid basis for science or that any theory is indisputable.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (14) Apr 18, 2014
Scandinavian states are socialist, but they also know the limits of socialism and have backed away from many aspects of socialism.
Sweden elmiinated a wealth tax to stop encouraging wealthy successful Swedes from leaving the country and taking their wealth with them.
Scandinavian states rank high on state protection of property rights. They are a fairly homogenous society and have personal ethics.
"Swedes have for hundreds of years benefited from sound low-level institutions, such as a strong work ethic and high levels of trust and cooperation. "
"The 4.4 million Americans with Swedish origins are considerably richer than the average American."
" "In Scandinavia we have no poverty." Milton Friedman replied, "That's interesting, because in America among Scandinavians, we have no poverty either." "
"what makes Sweden uniquely successful is not the welfare state, "
http://www.newgeo...e-utopia
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 18, 2014
"As taxes in Sweden have grown rapidly towards taking up half of the economy, that social capital is being eroded. In the 1990s, supposedly hyper-healthy Sweden established itself as being sickest country in the rich world, in terms of sick-leave. In addition, half a million working-age people (compared to a total labor force of four million) were placed in health-related "early retirement"."
"Labor union economist Jan Edling calculated that a fifth of working-age Swedes were supported by some form of public unemployment support, including sickness related leave in 2004, when the economy was growing strongly."
http://www.newgeo...e-utopia
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 18, 2014
" Just as the U.S. and Minnesota are moving toward more social democracy, it turns out the birthplace of the Scandinavian-style welfare state is moving in the opposite direction.

Here in Minnesota—where more than 32 percent of Minnesotans still trace their ancestry to the Nordic countries (2010 Census data)—our one-party state government struggles with developing any new policy ideas beyond warmed-over 1970's Scandinavian welfare statism."
""Most of the rich world now faces the same problems that the Nordics faced in the early 1990s—out-of-control public spending and overgenerous entitlement programmes."

Indeed, in Sweden, the government's share of the economy peaked in 1993: for the past twenty years, government has been shrinking, "
{Less govt is making people happier? How can this be?}
"Nordic nations are cutting spending, cutting taxes, cutting government debt and encouraging entrepreneurs."
http://www.americ...-the-gro
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 18, 2014
"Following the Nordic model, a growth agenda for Minnesota looks something like what the Nordic countries are already doing,

Cut government spending as a share of the economy
Reduce debt as a share of the economy
Cut income tax rates, both personal and corporate
Eliminate gift and inheritance taxes
Move state pensions from defined-benefit to defined-contribution
Implement universal school vouchers
Allow private firms to compete with state agencies for delivering public services
Encourage entrepreneurs and innovation
Restore the AAA credit rating

The Economist argues that the Nordic countries reached the natural end of the welfare state some twenty years ago,"
"As the Nordics "have reached the future first," they have much to teach us on"what to do when you reach the limits of big government.""
http://www.americ...h-agenda
ryggesogn2
1.2 / 5 (13) Apr 18, 2014
"Sweden did not become wealthy through social democracy, big government and a large welfare state. It developed economically by adopting free - market policies in the late 19th
century and early 20th century. It also benefited from positive cultural norms, including a strong work ethic and high levels of trust."
"The rapid growth of the state in the late 1960s and 1970s led to a large decline in Sweden's relative economic performance. In 1975, Sweden was the 4th richest industrialised country in terms of GDP per head. By 1993, it had fallen to 14th."
"If one studies Swedish history and society in-depth however it quickly becomes evident that this simplistic
Analysis is flawed. The Swedish experience might as well be used to argue for the benefits of free-market oriented policies, and as a warning of the economic and social problems that can arise when government involvement in society becomes too large."

http://www.iea.or...aper.pdf
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (12) Apr 18, 2014
ut I expect you would consider the Scandinavian countries to be more socialist.

Why?
Sigh
5 / 5 (13) Apr 18, 2014
those who deny climate change are rational?

Another socialist misdirection.

The misdirection is yours. I asked whether Noumenon really meant that only those who deny climate change (or, to be more precise in the present context, the human contribution to global warming) are rational. Your selective quote gives a rather different impression. Are you really unable to see that this is misdirection?

I also notice that, once more, you will not defend your solution. You espouse the grand principle that
Protection of property rights are the ONLY logical and consistence approach that has been proven to be effective.
but you fail to back it up. Again.
mememine69
1.6 / 5 (13) Apr 18, 2014
Why do "believers" allow 32 years of science's 95% certainty be good enough for THEM to "believe" it WILL be a crisis for billions of innocent children? Their eagerness to "believe" in this misery actually happening is sickening and the only ones allowed to have consensus is science not a mob of goose stepping and determined "believers" condemning billions to the greenhouse gas ovens of "their" exaggerated crisis. Science gave us pesticides, cons and libs gave us false wars.
Sigh
5 / 5 (13) Apr 18, 2014
why don't the masses of those who accept AGW as fact (a majority in most countries), voluntarily reduce their personal standard of living

I do.
and go to increased personal expense to make use of alternative energy sources

My electricity supplier uses hydro. It gets more expensive if there is little rain.
Is it in fact reasonable to ask the masses to do this, counter to their natural egoistic instincts?

Sure. People do it quite often. According to Robert H. Frank, in behavioural game theory studies, the only people who behave as Homo economicus should are economists. The fact that charities even exist tells you that, or that many people don't steal when they could be confident to get away with it. That all goes counter to "natural egoistic instinct".

The answer is no, it is not reasonable,.. .

Robert H. Frank shows it is quite reasonable, in his book "Passions within Reason". Have a look.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 18, 2014
but you fail to back it up.

Sweden went from protecting private property and prospered, and then began to plunder private property and suffered, and are now returning to protecting private property and limiting state power, and are prospering.
Communist Cuba is beginning to use private property rights to improve their economy.
Sigh
5 / 5 (11) Apr 18, 2014
ut I expect you would consider the Scandinavian countries to be more socialist.

Why?

Things like mandatory health care come to mind. Weren't you criticising that as socialist? And minimum wage, and unemployment benefits. And high taxes. I heard recently on the radio that Denmark came top in a survey of where people are happiest, and it has the highest rate of taxation in the world. Aren't you one of the people who think that taxes are theft, and a socialist policy?

but you fail to back it up.

Sweden...

Let me clarify. I mean your persistent refusal to explain how your grand scheme to protect natural resources through property rights can work unless you make sure that property rights are defined the same way world wide. Or who decides whether your property rights allow you to prevent someone from doing something, or demand compensation, and how the level of compensation would be determined.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 18, 2014
Socialist AGWites and 'watermelons' respect the power of private property and markets by attempting to create faux markets for pollution and CO2 and subvert markets to promote alternate power.
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 18, 2014
"the Danes pay a huge amount in income taxes. But it looks like they get a lot for it; medical care and education are covered, childcare and parental leave policies are generous, public transport is good, the streets are safe.

However, I noticed one difference between Denmark and many other countries with a high level of socialized services: it seemed remarkably un-bureaucratic. Things were organized without being regimented or restrictive. "
"It turns out the Danes also have high levels of trust. They trust each other, the government, and they even trust 'outsiders' – visitors and foreign nationals who come to Denmark to live and work."
http://www.forbes...ow-come/
Who trusts a lying president BHO with their healthcare or education or any socialist who only wants power?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 18, 2014
"So, if my speculations (and the research) are correct, and high trust is not only a business driver but also increases happiness, the question is: how can we increase trust at work, both within our organizations and between organizations and their stakeholders?"
http://www.forbes...ow-come/

Why aren't the AGWites, Ehrlich disciples and other socialists more trustworthy?

"Strongly underpinning Denmark's economic dynamism, the judicial system, independent and free of corruption, enforces contracts reliably. Openness to global trade and investment has enabled Denmark to become one of the world's most competitive and flexible economies. On the other hand, the overall tax regime that finances Denmark's large-scale government programs remains burdensome and complex."
http://www.herita.../denmark
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 18, 2014
A significant loss of trust began in the US over 100 years ago with the promotion of the 'progressive' state and the arrogance and hubris that socialism will create a better world.
It is no coincidence that recent science discoveries of the day enabled that hubris. Eugenics was supposed to create super man.
The industrial revolution created such wealth that many individuals became more wealthy than the state. This was an age when the new rich wanted to emulate European royalist and began the estate building in New England and motivated attempts at empire with the ginng up of the Spanish American War.
After the JP Morgan saved the economy in 1907, the 'progressives' and Morgan created banking cartel, the Federal Reserve to control the economy, the income tax (but only for the rich, a lie). Then came WWI, the Great Depression, socialist New Deal, WWII, ..
Who trusts the NSA or any US govt agency or even NASA with its AGW hype?
ryggesogn2
1.3 / 5 (13) Apr 18, 2014
"But while free enterprise keeps expanding globally, its success may be faltering in the United States. According to research from Pew's Economic Mobility Project, men in their 30s in 2004 were earning 12 percent less in real terms than their fathers' generation at the same point in their lives. That was before the financial crisis, the Great Recession, and years of federal policies that have done a great deal for the wealthy and well-connected but little to lift up the bottom half.

The solution does not lie in the dubious "fair share" class-baiting of politicians. We need to combine an effective, reliable safety net for the poor with a hard look at modern barriers to upward mobility. That means attacking cronyism that protects the well-connected. It means lifting poor children out of ineffective schools that leave them unable to compete. "
http://www.nytime...amp;_r=1
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2014
My point is, by proposing solutions that counter Existing economic forces, putting economic control into the hands of an obviously far left UN, you are sending rational people into a defensive position.


So only those who deny climate change are rational?


No, please reread the entire post. Above and below what you quoted I stated what I think motivates "denialism" to begin with, and in other posts that it is Political alarmism that is the means.

It is NOT rational to offer solutions that are counter to existing economic forces, and the intrinsic egoism that motivates the masses.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2014
The fault lies in that the political far left made this issue more about their ideology, using alarmism, than about actually proposing solutions that are acceptable within existing economic realities.


And no fault lies with libertarians/conservatives who fail to propose a solution they can live with? Put some of that intellectual effort into finding solutions, rather than denying the problem


Not true at all. Libertarians/conservatives understand what will actually work, egoism, individualism, profit motive, capitalism. Proof; the strongest economies rely on some form of capitalism, while the greatest failures are by government.

If you want to change people's behavior wrt form of energy, arrange to make it in THEIR best interest to do so. This is what freedom and economic markets do best if left unhindered. The most robust alternative energy will be the one that competes with coal/oil. The market WILL be the arbiter of the next energy source. That is the solution.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2014
By definition, Libertarians/conservatives can live with solutions that are within the boundaries of the existing state that the masses desire most,... solutions that do not threaten liberty nor threaten the economy.

Liberals rely on a failed premise,.... expecting the masses to voluntarily reduce their standard of living,... expecting them to voluntarily endure increased personal expense for some non-experienced hypothetical future effect,... expecting the gov to pick and choose alternatives when only the market can do this,... operating counter to elements that created the greatest economies on the planet and that has done more to raise the global standard of living than government could ever do even in principal.
Sigh
5 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2014
Proof; the strongest economies rely on some form of capitalism, while the greatest failures are by government.

If you want to use this as proof, you need to show that government policies do lead to greater failures than market mechanisms. I also see large scale market failures in failing to deal with externalities and in applying steep discounting rates. The latter happens, I think, partly because the people who will pay the cost are not yet in the market, partly because it's humans making the decisions, and humans have steep discounting rates.

If you want to change people's behavior wrt form of energy, arrange to make it in THEIR best interest to do so.

Can you be more concrete? Are you thinking about carbon taxes? They address a market failure, they don't prescribe specific solutions, yet free market enthusiasts tend to oppose them. Do you have something else in mind?
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 18, 2014
And no fault lies with libertarians/conservatives [?]


Yes, libertarians/conservatives are at fault in one respect, as I have stated in other threads,.... I think it is a mistake for conservatives to argue the validity of AGW with climatologists, ...after all they're the ones who are entitled to interpret what is true in their field, ....whether they are ultimately accurate or not.

All that is accomplished is that conservatives hand liberals an opportunity to call them anti-science or ignorant and cloud the legitimate debate, which is to argue against the political Alarmism element, and argue against proposed solutions that counter EXISTING economic conditions.

Liberals live in a fantasyland. They don't understand that it is not a issue of controlling markets and human behavior,... it is a technological issue only and requires time. Until an alternative is as cheap as coal/oil, the world will continue to burn it. AGW Alarmists are "deniers" of this fact.
Sigh
5 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2014
Liberals rely on a failed premise,.... expecting the masses to voluntarily reduce their standard of living

That is a form of abstinence-only campaign, and unless the consequences are an imminent threat, it works just as badly when applied to consumption as when applied to sex.

Liberals live in a fantasyland. They don't understand that it is not a issue of controlling markets and human behavior,... it is a technological issue only and requires time.

What do you think of "Conservatives live in a fantasyland. They don't understand that it is not an issue of markets,... it is an ecological issue only and if we want to sustain the ecosystems that sustain us, we don't have a lot of time"?

Technology will have to be part of the solution, but the market doesn't seem to be delivering. Energy technologies have very long lead times to market penetration, and markets seem to have a short time horizon.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2014
why don't the masses of those who accept AGW as fact (a majority in most countries), voluntarily reduce their personal standard of living


I do.


Not enough AGW advocates do that, so why blame "deniers"?; That was the point here.

Thankfully, most rational people are motivated by natural egoistic tendencies as it is human nature,... because it would be very bad for economies if people reduced their standard of living (either voluntarily or by coercion), and it is going to require a strong economy to evolve off of co2 based energy.
Sigh
5 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2014
Thankfully, most rational people are motivated by natural egoistic tendencies as it is human nature,... because it would be very bad for economies if people reduced their standard of living (either voluntarily or by coercion), and it is going to require a strong economy to evolve off of co2 based energy.

So now you're telling me I'm doing a bad thing? Not having a car saves me a lot of money, though by economic definitions, it reduces my standard of living. I have the opportunity to give some of that money to a tidal energy project. They failed to answer a question about the physics that I find important, but let's imagine they had. How would me spending that money on a car for myself be better for the future of humanity than me giving that money to development of useful technology?

Also, reducing consumption reduces CO2 production, which is rather the point. Are you saying we must magnify the problem in order to solve it?
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2014
Proof; the strongest economies rely on some form of capitalism, while the greatest failures are by government.


If you want to use this as proof, you need to show that government policies do lead to greater failures than market mechanisms.


This is almost too ridiculous to respond to. Only a "denier" of epic cartoonish proportions would deny that capitalism functions better than government for the masses. USA GDP = $16.244 trillion dollars,.... USA Gov Debt = $17.555 trillion dollars. Existing standard of living IS a direct consequence of capitalism, not government.
Sigh
5 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2014
Yes, libertarians/conservatives are at fault in one respect, as I have stated in other threads,.... I think it is a mistake for conservatives to argue the validity of AGW with climatologists, ...after all they're the ones who are entitled to interpret what is true in their field, ....whether they are ultimately accurate or not.

All that is accomplished is that conservatives hand liberals an opportunity to call them anti-science or ignorant and cloud the legitimate debate, which is to argue against the political Alarmism element, and argue against proposed solutions that counter EXISTING economic conditions.

And for that, I gave you 5 stars, despite my disagreement with the fantasy land remark. Please do carry on trying to shift the debate to solutions. The failure to come up with potential solutions that also appeal to conservatives and libertarians costs time and resources. So I would really like to see the people who want free market solutions to work on them.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2014
If you want to change people's behavior wrt form of energy, arrange to make it in THEIR best interest to do so.


[carbon taxes] address a market failure, they don't prescribe specific solutions, yet free market enthusiasts tend to oppose them. Do you have something else in mind?


I already addressed this. What is needed ultimately is a energy technology that does not exist at present at the volume of coal/oil, to compete with and replace it or render it 'clean' through sequestration or whatever. People will naturally seek what is the cheaper, no matter what they say "we" need to do.

Btw, 'free market "enthusiasts"' is a bit much even for you. Striving for a free market as an ideal is not like 'a hobby', as even a cursory glance at history will tell you. Even Obama has to at least pretend that he understands,..."the free market is the greatest force for economic progress in human history", and by logical extension, the greatest force for improving the human condition.
Sigh
5 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2014
This is almost too ridiculous to respond to. Only a "denier" of epic cartoonish proportions would deny that capitalism functions better than government for the masses. USA GDP = $16.244 trillion dollars,.... USA Gov Debt = $17.555 trillion dollars. Existing standard of living IS a direct consequence of capitalism, not government.

I don't measure success in terms of GDP. If you crash your car and have to replace it, that increases GDP. If you poison ground water and money is spent to clean up the mess, that increases GDP. And according to Ha-Joon Chang (23 Things They Don't Tell You About Capitalism), government policy had rather a lot to do with South Korea's economic success, while radical free market policies didn't do a lot for Russia and the rest of the former Eastern Bloc.
US government debt has a lot to do with specifics of the US system, where even people who rail against pork barrel spending fight for it in their own constituency.
Sigh
5 / 5 (6) Apr 18, 2014
I already addressed this. What is needed ultimately is a energy technology that does not exist at present at the volume of coal/oil, to compete with and replace it or render it 'clean' through sequestration or whatever. People will naturally seek what is the cheaper, no matter what they say "we" need to do.

You failed to address the point that markets fail to price the full cost of coal, and that coal is cheap because of that market failure.

Btw, 'free market "enthusiasts"' is a bit much even for you.

What term would you recommend for people who tell me the free market is a solution, but fail to tell me how it is supposed to work beyond a few generalities? Measuring success only in terms of total spending is something I consider a generality. It doesn't tell me what the money is being spent on, how that translates into a drain on limited resources, or into investment in new technologies.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2014
What do you think of "Conservatives live in a fantasyland. They don't understand that it is not an issue of markets,... it is an ecological issue only and if we want to sustain the ecosystems that sustain us, we don't have a lot of time"?


Unless you change the form of government to communism, or an environmental dictatorship, or full on socialism, it IS a matter of markets. In other words you can't magically by-pass global economies to 'fix the earth'.

Also, the notion that "we don't have a lot of time" is unfounded speculation, or at the very least is of no more a risk than that of tanking economies by over regulation and ad-hoc installation of alternatives that are not stress tested naturally by the market.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2014
As emerging economies continue to grow more and more co2 based energy will be used, driving up the price say of oil, which then naturally allows other alternatives to compete.

Fact: The world continues to use oil/coal at an accelerating rate despite a AGW consensus.

"estimations of peak production forecast the global decline will begin after 2020, and assume major investments in alternatives will occur before a crisis, without requiring major changes in the lifestyle of heavily oil-consuming nations. These models show the price of oil at first escalating and then retreating as other types of fuel and energy sources are used. Pessimistic predictions of future oil production made after 2007 stated either that the peak had already occurred, that oil production was on the cusp of the peak, or that it would occur shortly."

It is not a adolescent game of blaming "deniers",... it is cold Reality and will resolve itself via natural economic forces, or we shall 'go down with the ship'.
Sigh
5 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2014
Lewandowsky's personal bias about climate science is so pronounced that he stooped to publishing an ethically-challenged paper about an imaginary link between anthropogenic global warming (AGW) skeptics ("deniers") and conspiracy theorists whose methods have serious problems.

The problem was that the Lewandowsky et al paper allowed readers to identify individuals whom Lewandowsky et al classified as conspiracy theorists. Do you have any suggestion how the paper could have been written without the alleged conspiracists being identifiable? If Lewandowsky et al provide quotes, then the authors of those quotes can be found because the paper analysed public comments. But without quotes, how could anyone have judged the merits of the paper? Then all you would have had is Lewandowsky et al saying they think their earlier paper is seen as part of a conspiracy, and you just have to take their word for it. Would that have satisfied you?
Sigh
5 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2014
As emerging economies continue to grow more and more co2 based energy will be used, driving up the price say of oil, which then naturally allows other alternatives to compete.

And that is exactly one of the market failures. You say yourself that the market does not price the cost of the emissions, it only prices the cost of extraction.

It was the same with ozone. It was not depleted by extraction, depletion was not stopped by ozone becoming more expensive but by (shock, horror) government action. When someone then tells me, after admitting the market failure, that we must rely on free markets, I think that shows more enthusiasm for markets than they deserve.

Fact: The world continues to use oil/coal at an accelerating rate despite a AGW consensus.

Due to a market failure that you acknowledge. So why should I have faith in the market's ability to fix it? You say nothing is changing about the reason for the market failure, and you seem to oppose doing anything about it.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (10) Apr 18, 2014
Technology will have to be part of the solution, ..


"Part of the solution"? It will be THE solution. Social engineering of human behavior, redistribution of wealth, expecting emerging economies to 'hold off', ... are not realistically viable.

but the market doesn't seem to be delivering.


Give it time, it is not magic. It delivers the most efficient, robust, and economically stable energy sources to mass use. This is what you want alternatives to be, right?

Governments can only bring less efficient and economically unstable energy sources to limited use.
Sigh
5 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2014
Unless you change the form of government to communism, or an environmental dictatorship, or full on socialism, it IS a matter of markets.

Please apply that to a carbon tax. Is it an example of one of those three forms of government you listed?

Also, the notion that "we don't have a lot of time" is unfounded speculation

Really? When dealing with a system that has very much delayed feedback? And I got "not a lot of time left" from hearing interviews with the scientists involved in the research. You said something about not denying problems.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2014
You failed to address the point that markets fail to price the full cost of coal, and that coal is cheap because of that market failure.


No, it's not a failure of the market.
It the failure of the state to protect private property, air.
The state has declared the air is public property and no individual has any right to sue for damages from a power plant.
Why shouldn't any individual that has his property violated, regardless of damage, have the govt protect those rights?
f you crash your car and have to replace it, that increases GDP. If you poison ground water and money is spent to clean up the mess, that increases GDP.


Sounds like Obamacare. Break all the health care plans and force people to buy more expressive ones.
Another reason govt control of economies fail. They don't factor 'the broken windows'.
Sigh
5 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2014
Social engineering of human behavior, redistribution of wealth, expecting emerging economies to 'hold off', ... are not realistically viable.

Advertising is social engineering to increase GDP. If we trust the market to direct spending to something that works, we must treat the massive spending on advertising as evidence that social engineering can work. The campaign to make drink driving socially unacceptable was social engineering, at least as I understand the term.

Ryggesogn keeps having a go at China's one child policy, but never comments on Rosling saying that the most successful population control policy has been the advertising campaign of the Iranian government. Would you not see the latter as social engineering? Social engineering seems to have become a term of abuse that is applied according to whether one agrees with the aims of policy, rather than according to how it is implemented.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2014
Also, reducing consumption reduces CO2 production, which is rather the point. Are you saying we must magnify the problem in order to solve it?


By reducing consumption, you're slowing the economy, the very thing that is expected to support an alternative energy market. By reducing consumption, you are not in fact reducing CO2 production in any case, you are merely prolonging it's use in time.

I'm saying that it is an inevitability, that until the economic threshold is reached where alternatives can compete with co2 based energy (particularly oil) in quantitative terms of cost and efficiency, the world will continue to accelerate it's consumption.

The psychologist should analyze why environmentalist liberals are "deniers" of this fact.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2014
government policies do lead to greater failures than market mechanisms.

That's all?
Proof: Cuba, USSR, China, ....BLM, US Forest Service, ....
Market successes: Nature Conservancy,
"By assigning economic value to animals, hunting preserves more wildlife than it kills. "
http://www.hoover...le/81076
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (8) Apr 18, 2014
"In Iran, free condoms and government-backed vasectomies are out, replaced by sermons praising larger families and discussions of even offering gold coins to the families of newborns."

Read more: http://www.ctvnew...zFxc8ZVq
One govt policy fails so they try another.
Romania tried to encourage population growth by banning abortion and birth control without creating a prosperous economy because they were communists.
The results are orphans and horrendous state orphanages.
State sponsored social engineering is wrong, insidious and ultimately fails as the state can have no knowledge of all the consequences of the coercion.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2014
Social engineering of human behavior, redistribution of wealth, expecting emerging economies to 'hold off', ... are not realistically viable.


Advertising is social engineering to increase GDP.


Advertising is categorically NOT social engineering in this context. Generally with respect to form of government, one means by social engineering, coercion by the Force of government laws. In the private market, advertising is powerless to manipulate human behavior without the element of personal free choice. There are good bacteria and there are bad bacteria. To fail to understand the difference is dangerously foolish.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 18, 2014
As emerging economies continue to grow more and more co2 based energy will be used, driving up the price say of oil, which then naturally allows other alternatives to compete.


And that is exactly one of the market failures. You say yourself that the market does not price the cost of the emissions, it only prices the cost of extraction.


Even in an idealistic laissez faire capitalistic system, if one is harmed by emissions, the government would be expected to act to protect their rights.

Because I am a libertarian and advocate the private market and limited government does not equate to being Anti-government by acknowledging no role for it. For example, I have no issue with government establishing clean air regulations. CO2 can not be a pollutant if we naturally exhale it. Although I don't reject the notion that dumping tons of it will have some effect upon the climate, it does not effect my view wrt markets being the arbiter of future energy use.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 18, 2014
The campaign to make drink driving socially unacceptable was social engineering,

No, it is being arrested and tossed in jail that is most effective.
Again, another legitimate function of the state, protecting private property (your life is your property).
never comments on Rosling

What is a Rosling?
Sigh
5 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2014
By reducing consumption, you're slowing the economy, the very thing that is expected to support an alternative energy market.

Why do you ignore the alternative I suggested to buying consumer goods, which is investing in technology? I thought the point of markets was efficient allocation of resources. If my spending increases resources available for consumer goods, any effect on technologies for alternative energy can only be accidental, while increasing resource consumption. If we want those technologies, how can spending on consumer goods be more efficient than investing in the technologies we want?

By reducing consumption, you are not in fact reducing CO2 production in any case, you are merely prolonging it's use in time.

Providing more time to develop the technologies.

Your argument begins to look like a rationalisation for consumer spending, rather than anything to do with economics.
Sigh
5 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2014
I'm saying that it is an inevitability, that until the economic threshold is reached where alternatives can compete with co2 based energy (particularly oil) in quantitative terms of cost and efficiency, the world will continue to accelerate it's consumption.

And what you keep telling me with this, over and over, is that markets have absolutely no way of dealing with externalities. Yet you rely on the coincidence of fossil fuels getting more expensive to deal with the problems created by this externality. Do you know that people are looking at exploiting methane clathrates? For a thought experiment, assume that the technology that matures first makes clathrate extraction cheap. Where is your market solution to carbon emissions then? To rely on the market when you admit it fails goes beyond mere enthusiasm.

The psychologist should analyze why environmentalist liberals are "deniers" of this fact.

Because it's a fact only if you treat the market as sacred.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (9) Apr 19, 2014
...Not having a car saves me a lot of money, though by economic definitions, it reduces my standard of living. I have the opportunity to give some of that money to a tidal energy project.


If this is your motivation for reducing your consumption of goods then I stand corrected. Kudos in fact.

Keep in mind though that "Big Oil Evil Tycoons" don't care where their profit comes from,... they will invest also in whatever technology looks promising on a given scale.. there is nothing particularly special about oil or coal in this regard other than the demand. If wind mills and chicken lips were the next big thing for energy, then they would just assume invest in that.

Also, reducing consumption reduces CO2 production, which is rather the point.


If this is your motivation then I don't agree as pointed out above.
Sigh
5 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2014
ryggesogn2:
Why shouldn't any individual that has his property violated, regardless of damage, have the govt protect those rights?

So I can get compensation for CO2 concentrations above 250ppm? How is that different from a carbon tax? It would even be enforced by government, sending men with guns, to take your stuff.

Noumenon:
Even in an idealistic laissez faire capitalistic system, if one is harmed by emissions, the government would be expected to act to protect their rights.

Same idea as Rygg?

Noumenon:
CO2 can not be a pollutant if we naturally exhale it.

Try breathing CO2-enriched air, still enough O2, just more CO2. See how you feel. Read about ocean acidification. Consider that the reason you excrete something, not only CO2, is because your body has no further use of it. Think what happens if you can't excrete, or if the concentration of those excretions in your immediate environment rise. Besides, exhalations are not the problem.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (9) Apr 19, 2014
The psychologist should analyze why environmentalist liberals are "deniers" of this fact.


Because it's a fact only if you treat the market as sacred.


It's a reality. Look out the window. Is the world accelerating its use of CO2 or not? We will be using CO2 based energy for a long time to come. That is reality. Governments are not going to risk collapsing their respective economies. That's a reality.
Sigh
5 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2014
Advertising is categorically NOT social engineering in this context. Generally with respect to form of government, one means by social engineering, coercion by the Force of government laws. In the private market, advertising is powerless to manipulate human behavior without the element of personal free choice.

That sounds like a definition designed so that only governments can engage in social engineering. Yet the people who invented the term use it to describe persuasion tactics used by private individuals, and which certainly leave the target an element of free choice. I consider the redefinition self-serving, making social engineering a term of abuse to be hurled at any government policy of which the speaker disapproves.
There are good bacteria and there are bad bacteria. To fail to understand the difference is dangerously foolish.

What makes it bad? Government? Or force? Private enterprise can use force, and often enough does. Remember Chico Mendes?
Sigh
5 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2014
It's a reality. Look out the window. Is the world accelerating its use of CO2 or not? We will be using CO2 based energy for a long time to come. That is reality. Governments are not going to risk collapsing their respective economies. That's a reality.

So was slavery. Still is, in many places. Surely you have heard of human trafficking. Market forces maintain it. Government action has reduced it. That something is reality does not mean it must be, at least not to the same extent.
Sigh
5 / 5 (6) Apr 19, 2014
never comments on Rosling

What is a Rosling?
Hans Rosling, statistician. I told you before to look him up, when you kept going on about population control being socialist coercion. Try his TED talk.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2014
And what you keep telling me [...]is that markets have absolutely no way of dealing with externalities.


If those externalities provide feedback cause and effect then it in fact does,.... despite the feedback delay of AGW, .... warmer would mean more energy consumed-> higher price -> motivation for alternatives to compete.

Yet you rely on the coincidence of fossil fuels getting more expensive to deal with the problems created by this externality. .[....]. Where is your market solution to carbon emissions then?


I don't admit it "fails" because I don't expect it to do anything other than provide the cheapest and most efficient energy source available to humanity.

Likewise, I don't expect government to succeed at solving inequality, starvation, modern genocide, wars,... yet it's expected to set the global thermostat?

As I pointed out above AGW is a technological problem,... getting to mass use. The market just is not ready to make the evolution yet.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 19, 2014
:
CO2 can not be a pollutant if we naturally exhale it.

Try breathing CO2-enriched air, still enough O2, just more CO2. See how you feel. Read about ocean acidification. Consider that the reason you excrete something, not only CO2, is because your body has no further use of it.


Try eating wood or sand or shit, are they pollutants? Makes as much sense. CO2 is not a pollutant. Plants live off it, we eat plants. As I said though I don't have issue with emission regulations on account of AGW.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2014
It's a reality. Look out the window. Is the world accelerating its use of CO2 or not? We will be using CO2 based energy for a long time to come. That is reality. Governments are not going to risk collapsing their respective economies. That's a reality.

So was slavery. Still is, in many places. ... Market forces maintain it. Government action has reduced it. That something is reality does not mean it must be, at least not to the same extent.


Slavery was categorically NOT a legitimate free market enterprise. In order for such to exist government is required to ensure protection of property rights without loss of freedom to others. Governments failed to do this,... and eventually corrected that failure.

The mistake of liberals in their anti-free market indoctrinations, is that they assume the premise that 'free market' means NO gov, when in fact gov must play a vital role in protection of freedom and private property for it to work.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 19, 2014
with respect to form of government, one means by social engineering, coercion by the Force of government laws. In the private market, advertising is powerless to manipulate human behavior without the element of personal free choice.
That sounds like a definition designed so that only governments can engage in social engineering. Yet the people who invented the term use it to describe persuasion tactics used by private individuals, and which certainly leave the target an element of free choice. I consider the redefinition self-serving, making social engineering a term of abuse to be hurled at any government policy of which the speaker disapproves.


Well, you are just factually wrong here. "Socialism" in the context of "form of government", political science, is specific to gov.

Again, the private sector has no coercive power in a negative sense. Only in a positive sense where the freedom of the individual willingly participates.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 19, 2014
,... the far left definitely uses the tactic of conflating the term "social engineering" with the private free market operations, for dishonest indoctrination purposes.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (9) Apr 19, 2014
ry eating wood or sand or shit, are they pollutants?

Not according to the govt agencies that allow such products in food.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (10) Apr 19, 2014
when you kept going on about population control being socialist coercion.

It is among the Ehrlich disciples who advocate socialist policies to 'save the planet'.
Yet it is economic liberty and prosperity that is reducing the fertility rate around the world.
Economic liberty and prosperity is not in the 'watermelon's' vocabulary so what do the green socialists really want? Control.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Apr 19, 2014
Cornmeal: Action level
"Average of 1 or more rodent hairs per 25 grams
OR
Average of 1 or more rodent excreta fragment per 50 grams"
http://www.fda.go...6174.htm
thermodynamics
4 / 5 (8) Apr 19, 2014
Cornmeal: Action level
"Average of 1 or more rodent hairs per 25 grams
OR
Average of 1 or more rodent excreta fragment per 50 grams"
http://www.fda.go...6174.htm


Rygg2: Do you consider this to be acceptable or unacceptable? I am asking this because I know you like small government and you think that the role of government should be limited. Considering that more stringent standards would raise the price of cornmeal would you prefer that the standard stay the same, be more stringent, be more lax, or not exist? I actually am interested in your answer.

My opinion is that it is probably about right unless a Hanta virus shows up in the rodent excrement fragments. I am of the opinion that government should be involved in the quality of food.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (9) Apr 19, 2014
"Average of 1 or more rodent hairs per 25 grams
OR
Average of 1 or more rodent excreta fragment per 50 grams"
in all actuality, Ryggy, depending on where you live, you are likely to already have contaminated your own self with similar rodent hairs, droppings, insect bits and pieces, aerosol fecal matter and more!!.
you are assuming that your own home is free of all this?

I am willing to bet that I can come to your own home and gross you out with everything that is REALLY happening in there, by showing you that your own home is probably far dirtier than you would think. and that is assuming you are a very clean person.

you would be surprised what lurks in your own home.

P.S. take a few forensic courses and learn the truth about your own home. you will be forever changed
Sigh
5 / 5 (9) Apr 20, 2014
That sounds like a definition designed so that only governments can engage in social engineering.

Well, you are just factually wrong here. "Socialism" in the context of "form of government", political science, is specific to gov.

How do we get from social engineering to socialism? I fail to see the relevance, unless you are now arguing that only socialist governments can or will engage in social engineering.

Again, the private sector has no coercive power in a negative sense. Only in a positive sense where the freedom of the individual willingly participates.

Chico Mendes was persuaded to die? Or have you heard of workers who died in China and Bangladesh when factories collapsed or burned down, and the workers were locked in? That was positive coercive power? Have you heard of debt bondage? Or of Monsanto suing farmers for patent infringement if Monsanto's GM seeds had spread from a neighbouring farm?

You'll have to work harder to make that case.
Sigh
5 / 5 (6) Apr 20, 2014
Slavery was categorically NOT a legitimate free market enterprise. In order for such to exist government is required to ensure protection of property rights without loss of freedom to others.

Governments did protect property right: those of the slave owners. You run into the same problem as rygg: you need a universal declaration of property rights.

The mistake of liberals in their anti-free market indoctrinations, is that they assume the premise that 'free market' means NO gov, when in fact gov must play a vital role in protection of freedom and private property for it to work.
Have a look at what libertarians have to say. I have tried to tell people who go on about the evils of government that the protection of property rights they value so highly is a government service. You are the first to agree. I don't understand how that is the fault of liberals.

And what is a pollutant depends on where it ends up, how much, and what it does there.
Sigh
5 / 5 (3) Apr 20, 2014
And what you keep telling me [...]is that markets have absolutely no way of dealing with externalities.

If those externalities provide feedback cause and effect then it in fact does,.... despite the feedback delay of AGW, .... warmer would mean more energy consumed-> higher price -> motivation for alternatives to compete.

IF. Alternatively, burn more coal, or methane from clathrates. There is no necessary causal connection that provides a market-based solution.

Where is your market solution to carbon emissions then?

I don't admit it "fails" because I don't expect it to do anything other than provide the cheapest and most efficient energy source available to humanity.
That just means if the market fails to deal with a problem, you redefine it as not a problem.

The market just is not ready to make the evolution yet.

When do you think the market would have been ready to deal with the ozone hole?
ryggesogn2
1.1 / 5 (7) Apr 20, 2014
I don't understand how that is the fault of liberals.

'Liberals' care more about power, more agencies, more people dependent upon the state by ostensibly saving people from themselves.
Bastiat laid it it out quite well in 'The Law' with the busy body legislator who needs to fix society with his good intentioned laws that in the end fail.
As for rat crap in food, it was implied that only the govt can ensure that doesn't happen yet federal law codifies such contamination and hundreds more.
People die from USDA inspected meat contaminated with salmonella.
Madoff was enabled by the SEC who failed for to do their job.
Securitized mortgages were sold with the implicit guarantee of US govt backing by 'government sponsored enterprises' (what an oxymoronic socialist term!).
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Apr 20, 2014
Governments did protect property right: those of the slave owners.

Yes, that is one way to demonstrate bad law.
There was a time when I was critical of the Dred Scott decision, but I think the SCOTUS did its job correctly.
I am also critical of the Lincoln's decision to use violence to prevent secession.
If the Missouri compromise not been allowed, the free states would have quickly outnumbered the slave states. State power was more important than individual rights.
Bastiat was very critical of the US for its failure to address slavery as it violated the fundamental principles upon which it was founded.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2014
I have tried to tell people who go on about the evils of government that the protection of property rights they value so highly is a government service. You are the first to agree. I don't understand how that is the fault of liberals.


'Liberals' want the govt to make life 'fair'.

It's too bad morals of stories are so seldom discussed. The Lord of the Rings is all about what happens with too much power.
Star Trek endured because of its stories. One such story was how a history professor failed to learn from history and used the NAZIs template to 'help' a society.
After 9/11/01, the federal govt response was to ADD more layers of bureaucracy to address the failure of other bureaucracies. That is the typical 'liberal' response.
I agree with FDR that govt employees should not be unionized. FDR feared unions would pit the people against the govt as govt employees would be more concerned about their power instead of doing their job.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2014
". In Washington, the U.S. Census Bureau conceded that it has changed its annual survey questions to make it impossible to determine whether Obamacare is succeeding in increasing the number of Americans who have health insurance."
"
City University of New York has offered liberal columnist and Princeton professor Paul Krugman $225,000 to join a new center focusing on "income inequality." The obvious irony was somehow lost on administrators at CUNY, where the salary—for nine months' work—is double what the highest-paid professors receive."
"
a demonstration organized by the Service Employees International Union against Twitter.

The janitors, nurses, and others said they were marching to protest tax breaks that San Francisco officials gave to Twitter to keep the company in the city."

Read more: http://www.realcl...zQoSRtdv
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Apr 20, 2014
"What he is discovering is that today's pattern has existed since the formation of the United States itself: An entitlement program with a noble purpose is proposed—say, to aid wounded combat veterans of the Revolutionary War—and Congress enacts it.

Then other claimants emerge, with compelling reasons why they, too, are deserving of relief. Soldiers, for instance, who weren't wounded, but who served in wartime and couldn't find employment in peacetime. Politicians cannot resist such entreaties, so the program grows, and keeps growing. Constituencies arise around these programs, along with special interests with fiduciary interests in perpetually expanding them.

And so it goes."

Read more: http://www.realcl...zQosGVk5
Follow us: @RCP_Articles on Twitter
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 20, 2014
Liberalism is mental disorder.
"Piketty suggests that Americans are intoxicated by "meritocratic extremism"—an impulse to pick "winners" and reward them enormously. It's Stockholm Syndrome for an age of inequality."
http://www.thedai...lem.html
The article blames meritocracy for the income disparity with no, none, zero criticism of the special favors and cronyism, or more accurately fascism, that is the real cause.
But then a 'liberal' can't blame fascism because the 'liberals' need fascism to redistribute wealth and keep power.
So the 'liberal' must attack merit based reward and continue to grow the entitlement state.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) Apr 20, 2014
For those who think the state must pick winners and losers:
" Renowned art originals will always be scarce, and so will high-quality mined diamonds, at least while De Beers holds sway. But what will happen to the lofty prices of such goods if there is an inexhaustible supply of inexpensive perfect copies? "
http://www.nytime...tml?_r=0
De Beers was a govt protected monopoly. It has failed, just as all govt protected monopolies must. And those perceived 'monopolies' that 'liberals' claim need state coercion to destroy, will fall to market forces more quickly than state protected monopolies.
Shootist
1 / 5 (8) Apr 20, 2014
The Soviets used to declare people insane and put them in asylums.

"The polar bears will be fine", says Freeman Dyson. Case closed.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 20, 2014
How about the overwhelming evidence that confirms the AGW conspiracy.
The now infamous and thoroughly debunked HOCKEY SCHTICK that played the central role in "False Profit" Gore's "Convenient LIE".
The Climate Gate emails which not only confirmed the conspiracy, but revealed the shameless depths the AGW "scientists" would go to conceal and propagate their deceit.
Pejico
Apr 20, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) Apr 20, 2014
"As former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who has pioneered the use of social media to get her message out, has said, the "new media rose up precisely because the old media failed to tell the truth."

"That very first new media breakthrough was about 15 years ago when this lowly little store clerk in a lowly little apartment equipped with his computer and a modem broke one of the biggest stories of the decade. His name was Matt Drudge and the rest is history," she said. Palin added that the establishment "denounced Drudge as irresponsible and unprofessional and even dangerous and anti-everything from motherhood to apple pie."

"How dare that nobody from nowhere without a degree or a pedigree try to influence the national discourse? But the real reason they feared him was because he wasn't beholden to the old media's machine and the Thought Police. Unshackled, he was free," Palin explained.

And so were millions of other Americans who would have access to news and alternative points of view.
russell_russell
1 / 5 (2) Apr 21, 2014
When permission is required keep in mind permission is not set in concrete.
Like saving (or destroying) worlds or lives with or without permission (retracted or not).

Addressed to the Frontiers of Psychology and all of science too.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 21, 2014
Slavery was categorically NOT a legitimate free market enterprise. In order for such to exist government is required to ensure protection of property rights without loss of freedom to others.


Governments did protect property right: those of the slave owners. You run into the same problem as rygg: you need a universal declaration of property rights.


As I stated, it was a FAILURE of government that it protect property rights of slave owners, precisely because that act conflicted with the natural rights of man to his personal property, i.e. himself. The notion of 'man as property' was an illegitimate concept admitted to by government.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (9) Apr 21, 2014
The mistake of liberals in their anti-free market indoctrinations, is that they assume the premise that 'free market' means NO gov, when in fact gov must play a vital role in protection of freedom and private property for it to work.

Have a look at what libertarians have to say. I have tried to tell people who go on about the evils of government that the protection of property rights they value so highly is a government service. You are the first to agree. I don't understand how that is the fault of liberals.


I am a libertarian/conservative. It is a fallacy and a source of your confusion to equate or even associate 'libertarianism / conservatism' with advocating for NO government or just plan anti-government.

Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2014
Where is your market solution to carbon emissions then? To rely on the market when you admit it fails goes beyond mere enthusiasm.


I don't admit it "fails" because I don't expect it to do anything other than provide the cheapest and most efficient energy source available to humanity.


That just means if the market fails to deal with a problem, you redefine it as not a problem.


Where did I say AGW was not a problem? The political USE of that problem, by the far left, as a means of advocating for increased government control at the cost of liberty,.. is a problem.

I am not offering free market capitalism and Liberty as "Solutions" to problems.

I'm pointing out an existent reality; that since free market capitalism is more compatible with the intrinsic egoistic nature of man than loss of liberty by coercion and force, it will be the only possible means of 'saving ourselves',... or as I said above, we shall go down with the ship.

...
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2014
...

Conversely, YOU in fact DO offer government as a solution to AGW,... yet world government can't even do basic things, even more disturbing, immediate, and relatively simpler,...

....like preventing massive genocide as recently as 1994,.. or preventing starvation to this day, or making poverty a thing of the past,.. or fixing 'inequality',.. or making wars obsolete by diplomacy,... or making crime obsolete by understanding the causes,... even obesity,...... but yet you expect that the earths thermostat can be controlled?

I can admit to problems scientifically understood, but yet that are too complex to solve, can you?

History readily admits to many, ....especially to the danger of government power and loss of liberty,... the cause of the greatest mass deaths in human history.

Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2014
.... yet the political far left offers government as the solution to every possible problem that their army of statisticians can mine from society or from space. The 'progressive liberal' is the most prolific 'Denier' of all,... they Deny historical examples of failure of their ideology taken to its logical potential, ...they Deny the egoistic individualistic nature of man with their ideology of collectivism and social engineering.

The greatest threat to liberty and thus mankind, is the 'liberal progressive', the social engineer, and their army of statisticians.
Sigh
5 / 5 (7) Apr 21, 2014
As I stated, it was a FAILURE of government that it protect property rights of slave owners

I agree. My point is that there is nothing inherent in property rights that makes sure they will be applied evenly. Governments will always be tempted to use property rights to favour those who keep them in power. You need to keep governments accountable, and that is true whether you deal with property rights or anything else. Property rights by themselves are no panacea.

It is a fallacy and a source of your confusion to equate or even associate 'libertarianism / conservatism' with advocating for NO government or just plan anti-government.

The source of my confusion is many libertarians' emphasis on government being evil, without acknowledging that even their preferred system still needs government services, and refusing to discuss whether their substitutes might act exactly as governments, e.g. Rygg's refusal to explain how his scheme would be different from a carbon tax.
Sigh
5 / 5 (7) Apr 21, 2014
Where did I say AGW was not a problem?

Your solution is to wait until an entirely coincidental factor, the rising cost of fossil fuels, provides enough incentive to search for an alternative. You don't address the failure of markets to deal with externalities, you just ignore them. I see two plausible explanations for your response: either you redefine anything markets fail to deal with as not a problem, or you treat non-interference with markets as a sacred value, more important than anything else. You tell me which.

I am not offering free market capitalism and Liberty as "Solutions" to problems.

I'm pointing out an existent reality; that since free market capitalism is more compatible with the intrinsic egoistic nature of man than loss of liberty by coercion and force, it will be the only possible means of 'saving ourselves'

What is the difference between something being a solution to a problem as opposed to it being the only means to save ourselves?
Sigh
5 / 5 (7) Apr 21, 2014
Conversely, YOU in fact DO offer government as a solution to AGW

I wasn't aware of advocating anything, just questioning what makes no sense to me. If you want me to advocate, I advocate examining problems, letting people propose solutions they like, then choose a solution. And I advocate that people who can't come up with a solution they like admit to that fact. For example, running an economy by central planning doesn't work terribly well. Government control is unsuitable for a whole lot of things. But it is a rare libertarian who admits that the market might not offer a suitable solution to some problems. I only know of one, and it's not you, so far.

I can admit to problems scientifically understood, but yet that are too complex to solve, can you?

Sure, but I want to be specific. The complexity is not scientific, or even economic. The complexity is psychological. How can you reduce motivated reasoning enough that people will even think about solutions?
Sigh
5 / 5 (8) Apr 21, 2014
History readily admits to many, ....especially to the danger of government power and loss of liberty

You can lose liberty to private organisations. I have given you examples, and you have either redefined them as a failure of government to protect property rights evenly, or you have ignored them. Can you give me any fundamental reason why I should believe only government has negative coercive power? What makes government so different from other organisations?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Apr 23, 2014
"The first Earth Day took place April 22, 1970. The centennial of Lenin's birth took place April 22, 1970. Needless to say, the Lenin centenary was a huge deal to the communist movement, which goes bonkers over dates and memorials to its icons.

Here are more striking similarities: Vladimir Lenin and the communist and environmental movements all remonstrated against capitalism, profits, corporations, industry, free markets, the West."
http://spectator....enin-day

What makes government so different from other organisations?

Govt has a monopoly on coercive power either granted by the citizens or seized.

You can lose liberty to private organizations.

I have given you examples,

What examples?
workers who died in China and Bangladesh when factories collapsed or burned down

Like these?
Why is Bangladesh and China so poor? Could it be they state govt is corrupt and fails to protect the private property?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) Apr 23, 2014
The telling feature of the failure of states to protect property rights, and acknowledging that failure, are special economic zones set up in various countries around the world, and even in US states.
"With a view to overcome the shortcomings experienced on account of the multiplicity of controls and clearances; absence of world-class infrastructure, and an unstable fiscal regime and with a view to attract larger foreign investments in India, the Special Economic Zones (SEZs) Policy was announced in April 2000. "
http://www.sezind...ndex.asp
A local Indian wanted to open a clothing shop, a small enterprise in an Indian city. After 8 years he was still waiting for state permission.
Say he violated the law, and the local police tried to shut him down and he then hired mercenaries to fight off the police.
Only high profit, high risk 'enterprises' like running illegal drugs makes this 'profitable' for states, corrupt officials, not for people who want to open a clothing factory.
Sigh
5 / 5 (7) Apr 26, 2014
What makes government so different from other organisations?
Govt has a monopoly on coercive power either granted by the citizens or seized.

Remember the context was Noumenon saying
the private sector has no coercive power in a negative sense
If you truly believe that the government monopoly on power is so effective that private enterprise CAN'T have negative coercive power, would you be in favour of gun control? One reason given for opposing gun control is that government is not effective enough at monopolising violence, and private need violent options to defend against the negative coercive power of openly illegal private enterprise, like a mugger.

And do you understand that if government monopoly on violence is the only thing that prevents private enterprise from exercising negative coercive power, then you concede that there is nothing INTRINSIC to private enterprise that prevents it from using negative coercive power?
Sigh
5 / 5 (9) Apr 26, 2014
You can lose liberty to private organizations. I have given you examples

What examples?
workers who died in China and Bangladesh when factories collapsed or burned down

Like these?

You omitted
and the workers were locked in
Surely you recognise that this is relevant to a discussion of negative coercive power? We are not just talking about an industrial accident.

Why is Bangladesh and China so poor? Could it be they state govt is corrupt and fails to protect the private property?

And again you concede my point. If that negative coercion by private enterprise is ultimately a failure of government, that can only be if government is the only thing that prevents private enterprise from exerting negative coercive power and violating property rights.

I am surprised that you agree with me instead of Noumenon. I wonder whether you are equally surprised.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 26, 2014
If that negative coercion by private enterprise is ultimately a failure of government, that can only be if government is the only thing that prevents private enterprise from exerting negative coercive power and violating property rights.

Of course it's not the only thing that stops an employer from killing his employees.
If there is competition from other employers who don't want to kill their employees, then those who do want to kill their employees will have to stop killing their employees if they want to stay in business.
And, again, what will typically restrict competition is govt coercion, aka crony socialism.
Also, the employees themselves can take up arms and kill the employer that refuses to protect them.
The potential for violence from individuals for their self-defense is one very strong deterrent from violence from criminals and the state.
I bet the state does not allow citizens in Bangladesh or China keep and bear arms.
An armed citizenry is a polite citizenry.
Sigh
5 / 5 (8) Apr 27, 2014
Of course it's not the only thing that stops an employer from killing his employees.
If there is competition from other employers who don't want to kill their employees, then those who do want to kill their employees will have to stop killing their employees if they want to stay in business.

I'll need persuading that even you can honestly believe this. Tell me what aspect of competition is supposed to produce this result, and show me how it makes, e.g. ship breaking in India so much safer than in Germany.

Also, the employees themselves can take up arms and kill the employer that refuses to protect them.

Seriously? Not just unions, but truly militant unions? Or just individual vigilantes? People with a grudge can claim health and safety violations as cause for justifiable homicide?
Sigh
5 / 5 (8) Apr 27, 2014
The potential for violence from individuals for their self-defense is one very strong deterrent from violence from criminals and the state.

Or else it encourages them to escalate before the victim can? Or to threaten or retaliate against family?

An armed citizenry is a polite citizenry.

The way the prospect of an armed opponent deterred Curtis Reeves, and kept him polite? http://www.thegua...-florida
Sigh
5 / 5 (8) Apr 27, 2014
Also, the employees themselves can take up arms and kill the employer that refuses to protect them.

Further, if you even consider this could be necessary, you yet again concede that there is nothing intrinsic to private enterprise that prevents it from exerting negative coercive power.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 27, 2014
... if government monopoly on violence is the only thing that prevents private enterprise from exercising negative coercive power, then you concede that there is nothing INTRINSIC to private enterprise that prevents it from using negative coercive power?


No, because your premise of 'private enterprise as existing independently of the govs role of the protection of private property', ...is what is faulty.

Capitalism, private enterprise, REQUIRES the protection of private property by government and establishment of laws for that purpose,... otherwise it is illegitimate.

This would mean that "mugging" is not a legitimate private enterprise, nor "enslaving" other human beings.

Private enterprise has no power nor coercive force over free citizens. Free citizens hold power over private enterprise by virtue of their free choice. In private enterprise free choice matters in a positive sense, while in government coercion it matters in a negative sense.
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 27, 2014
An armed citizenry is a polite citizenry.


The way the prospect of an armed opponent deterred Curtis Reeves, and kept him polite?


Nope, .....I'm sure ryggesogn2 was referring to law abiding armed citizenry, not illegal acts of murder.

The event cited by you was just another acceptable consequence of the freedoms enjoyed by the public en masse,.... like deaths due to obesity, or car crashes.

Liberals wrongly view these consequences as things to be 'fixed', rather than acceptable effects and costs of freedom en masse. Since they are direct consequences of freedom, the only means to 'fix' them is to reduce the freedom of law abiding free citizens.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 27, 2014
The way the prospect of an armed opponent deterred Curtis Reeves, and kept him polite?

Had the movie theater enforced the rules...
Shooting someone for being annoying in theater is extreme, but when authority, the movie theater, refuses to enforce their own rules, I can understand how this incident could be the straw that broke...
I seldom attend a cinema primarily for the high cost, but today people act like they are in their living room instead of in a room with others who may want to listen to the movie instead of them.
Had patrons of a cinema in CO had a firearm, maybe fewer would be dead.
'Gun free zones' attract those who want to inflict as much harm as they can.
Vietvet
4.1 / 5 (9) Apr 27, 2014
@rggy

It's obvious you don't have any experience with hand guns an/or a sudden chaotic scene. Possibly someone extremely well trained could have taken out the original shooter but it is more likely an average citizen would have caused more casualties.
thermodynamics
3.9 / 5 (7) Apr 27, 2014
Rygg2:

You said: "Had the movie theater enforced the rules...
Shooting someone for being annoying in theater is extreme, but when authority, the movie theater, refuses to enforce their own rules, I can understand how this incident could be the straw that broke..."

Wouldn't you be the first one to complain if every theater started frisking customers to make sure they were not packing? What happened to your Libertarian perspective?
ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (8) Apr 27, 2014
Wouldn't you be the first one to complain if every theater started frisking customers to make sure they were not packing?


No.
Business owners have the right to ban firearms on their property.
They have the right to refuse service to anyone.
They also have an obligation to provide the service if money has been paid. If more people walked out of movies demanding refunds because of annoying customers, I suspect cinemas would be enforcing their clearly stated rules.
Any business that wanted to attract those who carry firearms would need to provide secure storage.
Sigh
5 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2014
Capitalism, private enterprise, REQUIRES the protection of private property by government and establishment of laws for that purpose,... otherwise it is illegitimate.

Can you explain this in more detail? Are only perfectly law-abiding businesses legitimate and therefore private enterprise? If a company routinely breaks the law and pays fines when caught because that offers greater profit than obeying the law, does that company become illegitimate?

Private enterprise has no power nor coercive force over free citizens.

Would you explain how this applies to Monsanto's policy of suing or threatening to sue farmers on whose land Monsanto's corn grows without license? As far as I know, they did this even when the most likely explanation was that the corn spread from neighbouring fields. How is that free choice? How is debt bondage? How about the collapsing factories I mentioned?
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 28, 2014
No sigh, i'm not interested in endlessly splitting hairs over particular examples anyone can pull from the air to be contrary to everything ever said. We are speaking about basic principals of capitalism. If a business breaks a law then there are risk of consequences.

Since capitalism requires the protection of private property by government as a foundation for it to work, you have failed in your attempt to sneak in the implication of 'negative coercive force' for private enterprise through your convoluted back door. Given my response, do you admit your argument is rendered nil?

If a company breaks a law and is required to pay a fine, and does so, then that company is following the law. If the law needs to be changed but is not so that the company takes advantage of gov incompetence then that is a failure of gov.
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 28, 2014
@rggy

It's obvious you don't have any experience with hand guns an/or a sudden chaotic scene. Possibly someone extremely well trained could have taken out the original shooter but it is more likely an average citizen would have caused more casualties.


Meaningless speculation you are not entitled to make on behave of another.
Sigh
5 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2014
Since capitalism requires the protection of private property by government as a foundation for it to work, you have failed in your attempt to sneak in the implication of 'negative coercive force' for private enterprise through your convoluted back door. Given my response, do you admit your argument is rendered nil?

How can I when I still don't understand your argument? I try. But for all I know this could be the No True Scotsman fallacy, that you simply define either negative coercive force or private enterprise so that private enterprise can never exert negative coercive force. I keep trying to understand why you think my examples are irrelevant, but I can't because you never respond to specifics. Tell me at least whether you see them as not negative coercive force, or not private enterprise.

If a company breaks a law and is required to pay a fine, and does so, then that company is following the law

If Reeves is jailed for murder, has he then followed the law, overall?
Sigh
5 / 5 (6) Apr 28, 2014
Had the movie theater enforced the rules...

Do you know they forbade firearms, or that there was a law forbidding firearms in that cinema?
Shooting someone for being annoying in theater is extreme, but when authority, the movie theater, refuses to enforce their own rules, I can understand how this incident could be the straw that broke...

You argued that an armed citizenry is a polite citizenry, but now you blame the cinema for not disarming said citizens?

Had patrons of a cinema in CO had a firearm, maybe fewer would be dead.

So now people do need firearms in a cinema?

'Gun free zones' attract those who want to inflict as much harm as they can.

A crazed shooter?
As a police officer for more than two decades until his retirement in 1993, Reeves regularly received outstanding evaluations and numerous letters of commendation for his leadership skills and training he led for other agencies on gun safety


Do you know you contradict yourself?
Sigh
5 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2014
Capitalism, private enterprise, REQUIRES the protection of private property by government and establishment of laws for that purpose,... otherwise it is illegitimate.

This would mean that "mugging" is not a legitimate private enterprise, nor "enslaving" other human beings.

Mugging is openly illegal. That's why I brought up the example of a company openly breaking the law, and continuing to do so, just paying the fine. You redefined that as following the law. You did not require that the company should respect any property rights.

You say slavery is not legitimate private enterprise, yet slavery was not just permitted but supported by law in countries with a capitalist economic system. So does your argument not apply to actual laws, but only to ideal laws, that define and protect property rights in the way you want?

I was thinking of the real world. That's why I kept bringing up real world examples.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2014
a company openly breaking the law, and continuing to do so, just paying the fine. You redefined that as following the law.


I responded to this already. If the law requires the company to pay a fine, and the fine is paid to cleanse the company of further consequences, that is following the law. Originally the law was broken,.. I did not redefine it as not breaking the law.

If there is little consequence for doing so,... "continuing to break the law and just paying off the fine",... then the fault is on government.

For, example you can't keep speeding in your car and just paying "a service fee (ticket), because your points will add up and insurance will go up. If there is little or no consequence, like in illegal immigration, the gov is complicit in the situation or the law itself is faulty/
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (7) Apr 28, 2014
.... the government is the one responsible for making laws and enforcing them.

Since capitalism requires the protection of private property by government as a foundation for it to work, you have failed in your attempt to sneak in the implication of 'negative coercive force' for private enterprise through your convoluted back door. Given my response, do you admit your argument is rendered nil?


How can I when I still don't understand your argument?


I was responding to your argument as follows,...

if government monopoly on violence is the only thing that prevents private enterprise from exercising negative coercive power, then you concede that there is nothing INTRINSIC to private enterprise that prevents it from using negative coercive power?


There is no valid 'private enterprise' (capitalism) without gov protection of private property, thus your premise is faulty.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (8) Apr 28, 2014
I keep trying to understand why you think my examples are irrelevant, but I can't because you never respond to specifics. Tell me at least whether you see them as not negative coercive force, or not private enterprise.


Because in political philosophy, principals are what matters, not particlar examples engineered to obfuscate them. However, please restate one of your examples and I will try to respond.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (8) Apr 28, 2014
You say slavery is not legitimate private enterprise, yet slavery was not just permitted but supported by law in countries with a capitalist economic system. So does your argument not apply to actual laws, but only to ideal laws, that define and protect property rights in the way you want?


I already responded to this point. It was a failure of government to protect private property (ones person) and respect natural rights of man. It was a failure of government that it was not illegal. It was a failure of government that such an obvious conflict of rights could be supported. Since government subsequently ADMITTED to this failure, I am right !!

I was thinking of the real world. That's why I kept bringing up real world examples.


Slavery is not a real world example because it's 2014. It is an old and common tactic for the political far left to associate slavery with capitalism. Instead it merely exposes the failure of government during a particular era
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 28, 2014
supported by law in countries with a capitalist economic system.

The first and most important property right is the right to yourself. NO one or NO state can own people.
True citizens retain their sovereignty and CONSENT to a govt that will assist in protecting their rights to life, liberty and property.
Bastiat called it legal plunder where the law can plunder the many or the few or none. The only just laws are those that plunder none.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 29, 2014
"Piketty claims he is not a Marxist but rather a socialist with a belief in private property. Yet, the contradiction should be apparent: One cannot defend private property and at the same time call for a massive taking of property."
"Piketty reveals his preferences when he states: "Capitalism and markets should be the slave of democracy and not the opposite."

In his view, property is not a natural right prior to the law; it is a creation of the state. Hence, the majority should be able to use the power of government/legislation to heavily tax the rich and near-rich."

http://news.inves...owth.htm

The socialists want to make the 'rich' slaves of the state.
But as Rand showed in Atlas Shrugged, all the rich need do is to shrug, stop creating wealth, and the state no longer has any rich slaves to exploit.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (10) Apr 29, 2014
I like how the usual bed-wetting liberals, .....thermodynamics, Caliban, Vietvet, barakn,.... let me know that they're hanging on my every word with their post ratings. It is arbitrary and merely a count of how many liberals should be taking notes.
ryggesogn2
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 30, 2014
I like how the usual bed-wetting liberals, .....thermodynamics, Caliban, Vietvet, barakn,.... let me know that they're hanging on my every word with their post ratings. It is arbitrary and merely a count of how many liberals should be taking notes.


It is quite disappointing how many socialists read and post here.
Socialism has been failing for thousands of years yet the socialists here fail to apply any rational thought to its failure.
So either they are incapable of rational thought, or they WANT socialism for the power and wealth they can acquire from plundering the wealth of others.
Sigh
5 / 5 (7) Apr 30, 2014
If the law requires the company to pay a fine, and the fine is paid to cleanse the company of further consequences, that is following the law. Originally the law was broken,

You made no such distinction:
If a company breaks a law and is required to pay a fine, and does so, then that company is following the law.


Next:
If there is little consequence for doing so,... "continuing to break the law and just paying off the fine",... then the fault is on government.

You discounted mugging as an example of negative coercive force on the grounds that it is not legitimate enterprise. I am trying to understand what principled distinction you apply between legitimate and illegitimate enterprise. I don't understand what the effectiveness of government policy has to do with legitimacy. If a mugger treats the occasional jail sentence as an acceptable cost of business, why should government possibly being at fault have anything to do with legitimacy?
Sigh
5 / 5 (7) Apr 30, 2014
Because in political philosophy, principals are what matters, not particlar examples engineered to obfuscate them.

They are engineered to clarify. For example:
Slavery is not a real world example because it's 2014.

Irrelevant objection. If you define legitimacy as whatever the law allows or actively protects, you would tell me that slavery used to be legitimate. Your answer would tell me what principles you apply, which I have failed to find out so far.

There is no valid 'private enterprise' (capitalism) without gov protection of private property, thus your premise is faulty.

Does that apply only to general failure in non-capitalist economies, or also to specific failures in capitalist economies? If government fails to deter a company from violating property rights, does that immediately make this company no longer a legitimate or valid private enterprise?
Noumenon
1.4 / 5 (9) Apr 30, 2014
You discounted mugging as an example of negative coercive force on the grounds that it is not legitimate enterprise.


Correct, it is illegal, so it is not an example of coercive force of private enterprise.

I am trying to understand what principled distinction you apply between legitimate and illegitimate enterprise. I don't understand what the effectiveness of government policy has to do with legitimacy.


I find this impossible to believe since I have stated it numerous times besides it already being patently obvious.... legitimate private enterprise implies that the rights of others and their property is not violated, the only way to enforce this is via government;

The fact that you must equate illegal activity with legitimate private enterprise, just demonstrates how convoluted ones logic must be in order to imply coercive force at the hands of the latter.
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (8) Apr 30, 2014
If you define legitimacy as whatever the law allows or actively protects, you would tell me that slavery used to be legitimate. Your answer would tell me what principles you apply, which I have failed to find out so far.


Maybe this will help you....

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson, 17
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (9) Apr 30, 2014
How utterly pathetic of you to equate slavery with private enterprise. while gov admitted it was illegitimate.

There is no valid 'private enterprise' (capitalism) without gov protection of private property, thus your premise is faulty.


Does that apply only to general failure in non-capitalist economies, or also to specific failures in capitalist economies?


Is there private enterprise in non-capitalist economies? My god man!

If government fails to deter a company from violating property rights, does that immediately make this company no longer a legitimate or valid private enterprise?


If by "gov fails" you mean there is NO law or judicial system mechanisms or regulatory mechanisms that one could obtain restitution, then generally there can be no legitimate private enterprise anyway,... otherwise it is a legitimate company in that its business model does not break the law, though is subject to legal consequences on account of a particular case
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) Apr 30, 2014
If you define legitimacy as whatever the law allows or actively protects,

I don't define "legitimacy" to mean this.
Do you?
The socialist will define legitimacy this way. Whatever the law, the state, the dictator declares to be legitimate is.
The axiom of the anti-socialists holds natural law as legitimate in that all human individuals possess the inherent right to life, liberty and property. These rights can either be defended by a legitimate govt or taken by socialists.
Sigh
5 / 5 (7) May 01, 2014
I find this impossible to believe since I have stated it numerous times besides it already being patently obvious.... legitimate private enterprise implies that the rights of others and their property is not violated

The No True Scotsman fallacy: Imagine I say no Scotsman does X, you present a counterexample, I say "He is not a TRUE Scotsman, no TRUE Scotsman would do X". I would maintain the truth of my claim by excluding any counterexample by definition.

You say legitimate business can't exert negative coercive force, when I present what might be counterexamples, you say that if a business violates property, it is no longer legitimate. You have excluded counterexamples by definition.

The fact that you must equate illegal activity with legitimate private enterprise, just demonstrates how convoluted ones logic must be in order to imply coercive force at the hands of the latter.

It took that much to persuade me you used the no true Scotsman fallacy in your reasoning.
Sigh
5 / 5 (7) May 01, 2014
Maybe this will help you....

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson

Among the reasons why it doesn't are these:
In 1803, President Jefferson initiated a process of Indian tribal removal and relocation to the Louisiana Territory west of the Mississippi River, in order to open lands for eventual American settlers.

He didn't respect these people's property rights, and I doubt he had their consent to govern them, unless you count consent under the barrel of guns, which seems like negative coercion to me. Are the businesses legitimate that were founded on resources taken from the native inhabitants?
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) May 01, 2014
You say legitimate business can't exert negative coercive force,

Sure, any business can use force.
Drug dealers and other not-legal 'business' must use force to defend themselves from competition to drive out competitors.
Any enterprise that want to limit risk and maximize profit have historically found violence amongst competitors and violence directed towards their customers maximizes risk and minimizes profit.
Travel around the world and even in places many socialists here call 'anarchy', business takes place with little or no violence and has done so for centuries because it is in everyone's self-interest.

Sigh
5 / 5 (6) May 01, 2014
If you define legitimacy as whatever the law allows or actively protects

I don't define "legitimacy" to mean this.
Do you?

No.

The socialist will define legitimacy this way.

If that is a necessary part of being a socialist, then I'm not. Once again, you simplify my life enormously.
ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) May 01, 2014
In 1803, socialism (state control of property) dominated in that 'sovereign' nation-states/empires used violence to acquire property or to purchase that property as Jefferson did with Louisiana to enrich and empower the state.
Mises discusses this violence quite well in "Socialism".
What limited govt and private property rights brings is limiting the violence in property transfers which promotes positive economic activity.

While many can't or won't comprehend the concept that anarchy is not inherently bad.
The world is in anarchy. There is no world govt and 'sovereign' states continuously employ violence, threats of violence and other coercive means in their relations.
What should be the lesson is that minimum violence and coercion promotes prosperity for those under the 'sovereign' and the 'sovereign'.
Sigh
5 / 5 (7) May 01, 2014
legitimate private enterprise implies that the rights of others and their property is not violated, the only way to enforce this is via government

Just to be sure that I do understand, let's apply this to an example. Monsanto sued (or threatened to sue and settled out of court with) hundreds of farmers on whose land some Monsanto corn was found to be growing without license. It didn't seem to matter whether the farmers had planted that corn, or whether it had spread from neighbouring lands without the sued farmer's knowledge or consent. Monsanto did not break the law, it used the law, but it did violate what I consider the farmers' property rights. If your view of property rights is similar to mine, you would consider Monsanto to be not legitimate. What is your opinion, and why?
Noumenon
1.5 / 5 (8) May 01, 2014
legitimate private enterprise implies that the rights of others and their property is not violated, the only way to enforce this is via government

...Monsanto sued [...] hundreds of farmers on whose land some Monsanto corn was found to be growing without license. It didn't seem to matter whether the farmers had planted that corn, or whether it had spread from neighbouring lands without the sued farmer's knowledge or consent. Monsanto did not break the law, it used the law, but it did violate what I consider the farmers' property rights. ...


If Monsanto owns a patent for that corn, the patent is Monsanto's property, and other farmers cannot legally grow it without paying a license fee, correct? Evidently the farmers were notified of this fact, but refused to destroy the plants.

That is what a patent is for. If one invents a doodad on his own property without knowledge of an existing patent, he is still not allowed to profit off of it.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (8) May 01, 2014
legitimate private enterprise implies that the rights of others and their property is not violated [private enterprise is not legitimate without protection of private property]

The No True Scotsman fallacy: Imagine I say no Scotsman does X, you present a counterexample, I say "He is not a TRUE Scotsman, no TRUE Scotsman would do X". I would maintain the truth of my claim by excluding any counterexample by definition.


It is implied in your claim of "fallacy" that there is no actual intrinsic relationship or logical dependency between a Scotsman and X,.... whereas I have stated that there IS such a logical dependency of the protection of property rights for legitimate private enterprise to function,... therefore your application here of the "The No True Scotsman fallacy" is itself a fallacy.
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (8) May 01, 2014
If one invents a doodad on his own property without knowledge of an existing patent, he is still not allowed to profit off of it.


Nounemon-Skippy if some couyon doodoos on his own property how it anybodys busybodyness what he do with his own doodoo? You got some stranger ideas about the law then you do about the science stuffs. You got to be the most weird thinking man I never did see.
Sigh
5 / 5 (6) May 01, 2014
If Monsanto owns a patent for that corn, the patent is Monsanto's property, and other farmers cannot legally grow it without paying a license fee, correct? Evidently the farmers were notified of this fact, but refused to destroy the plants.

That is not evident. How were the farmers supposed to know? And why should they be required to clean up after Monsanto, if Monsanto fails to control where its intellectual property ends up? If I wrote a computer virus that does no damage, but that contains an algorithm I patented, do you think it would be fair if I sued you for violating my intellectual property if a search of your computer turns up my software, which installed itself without your consent? Would you pay up with a smile?

If a farmer deliberately grew the corn without paying royalties, I would agree with you. But I made quite clear this was not my example. You missed the point. Would you reply to what I actually asked?
Sigh
5 / 5 (7) May 01, 2014
It is implied in your claim of "fallacy" that there is no actual intrinsic relationship or logical dependency between a Scotsman and X,.... whereas I have stated that there IS such a logical dependency of the protection of property rights for legitimate private enterprise to function,...


My question was:
I don't understand what the effectiveness of government policy has to do with legitimacy.
And your answer:
legitimate private enterprise implies that the rights of others and their property is not violated, the only way to enforce this is via government

Whether it is government's job to protect property rights is not the same as whether legitimacy depends on that protection being effective. I would also need to know how effective you require government to be. If you say business can only be legitimate if protection is perfectly effective, then there is no legitimate private enterprise. No law is perfectly enforced. I assume you have something more sensible in mind.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (8) May 01, 2014
If Monsanto owns a patent for that corn, the patent is Monsanto's property, and other farmers cannot legally grow it without paying a license fee, correct? Evidently the farmers were notified of this fact, but refused to destroy the plants.

That is not evident. How were the farmers supposed to know? And why should they be required to clean up after Monsanto, if Monsanto fails to control where its intellectual property ends up? If I wrote a computer virus that does no damage, but that contains an algorithm I patented, do you think it would be fair if I sued you for violating my intellectual property if a search of your computer turns up my software, which installed itself without your consent? Would you pay up with a smile?

If a farmer deliberately grew the corn without paying royalties, I would agree with you. But I made quite clear this was not my example. You missed the point. Would you reply to what I actually asked?


Are the farmers selling the corn?
Noumenon
2 / 5 (8) May 01, 2014
Whether it is government's job to protect property rights is not the same as whether legitimacy depends on that protection being effective.


The legitimacy of private enterprise generally speaking depends on there existing government mechanisms for the protection of private property,... whether in a particular case gov fails in its effectiveness is beside the point. Indeed, one can always mine for counter particular examples about anything, but this exaggerated splitting of hairs does not render the fact that private enterprise is powerless to effect coercive force upon free people without their free consent, any less true.
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (6) May 01, 2014
legitimate private [...] via government


Just to be sure that I do understand, let's apply this to an example. Monsanto sued (or threatened to sue and settled out of court with) hundreds of farmers on whose land some Monsanto corn was found to be growing without license. It didn't seem to matter whether the farmers had planted that corn, or whether it had spread from neighbouring lands without the sued farmer's knowledge or consent. Monsanto did not break the law, it used the law, but it did violate what I consider the farmers' property rights. If your view of property rights is similar to mine, you would consider Monsanto to be not legitimate. What is your opinion, and why?


@Sigh,

It has been a real pleasure observing your takedown of nonoUnme"s and rygsuckn''s tired and trite rhetorical chicanery. They both are and will remain morally bankrupt tools of the Vampire Regime and will continue to prevaricate here at PO,

Keep fighting the Good Fight!

Caliban

Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 02, 2014
LMFAO! rygg posted
The first Earth Day took place April 22, 1970. The centennial of Lenin's birth took place April 22, 1970. Needless to say, the Lenin centenary was a huge deal to the communist movement, which goes bonkers over dates and memorials to its icons
WTF? really?
it is also the birthday of Actor Jack Nicholson, scientist Robert Oppenheimer, Guitarist Peter Frampton, model Bettie Paige, Actor Eddie Albert, Olympian Louis Smith, Producer Aaron Spelling, Singer Glen Campbell, Bassist Charles Mingus and Poet William Jay Smith...
http://www.famous...l22.html

so how do they all tie into the communist movement?
https://en.wikipe...arth_Day
apr 22 was CHOSEN
in order to maximize participation on college campuses
&
the week of April 19–25 was the best bet as it did not fall during exams or spring breaks
http://www.nelson...osal.htm
try reading up on something before posting, moron
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (7) May 02, 2014
@Sigh,

It has been a real pleasure observing your takedown of nonoUnme"s and rygsuckn''s tired and trite rhetorical chicanery. They both are and will remain morally bankrupt tools of the Vampire Regime and will continue to prevaricate here at PO,

Caliban


"nonoUnme"s and rygsuckn''s",.... "rhetorical chicanery",.... "morally bankrupt tools",.... "Vampire Regime",..???.... Do you see how you are not capable of having an objective and respectful debate like Sigh? I respect Sigh and his integrity for not degenerating the discussion into Jerry-Springer style arguments. That fact that you want to proclaim victory to sigh (whom I do not believe is nearly as far left as you) shows that you are not reading this thread objectively.

I never see ryggesong2 calling posters "morons". He basically just posts facts with references, yet the anti-capitalism "cabal" down rates and insults, despite enjoying the benefits of capitalism and egoistic pursuit of profit of others.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (7) May 02, 2014
@caliban, If you need a reminder of what it is like to have your argument roundly defeated, look no further than here.
Caliban
4 / 5 (4) May 02, 2014
"nonoUnme"s and rygsuckn''s",.... "rhetorical chicanery",.... "morally bankrupt tools",.... "Vampire Regime",..???.... Do you see how you are not capable of having an objective and respectful debate like Sigh? [...] as far left as you) shows that you are not reading this thread objectively.

I never see ryggesong2 calling posters "morons". He basically just posts facts with references, yet the anti-capitalism "cabal" down rates and insults, despite enjoying the benefits of capitalism and egoistic pursuit of profit of others.


@caliban, If you need a reminder of what it is like to have your argument roundly defeated, look no further than http://phys.org/n...-toxic.h


My Rx? Ask rygsuckn' for a couple of midol tablets and a few tissues to blot your crybaby eyes with, and maybe then you'll be capable of some objectivity(and I don't mean Objectivism --there's a huge difference, even though you conflate the two).

But I doubt it.
Sigh
5 / 5 (7) May 02, 2014
Are the farmers selling the corn?

Seeing that it would take genetic testing of every single cob to separate the Monsanto stuff from what the farmer planted, sure. If Monsanto wants to claim that corn, they can pay for the testing, and pay the farmer rent for the use of his land. And seeing that they failed to ask the farmer's permission, I think he should be able to charge more than the market rate. I believe that would be consistent with ryggesogn's approach to property rights. If I remember correctly, he protested Monsanto's practices, for much the same reasons as I propose here. But he doesn't always seem pleased when we agree.

Returning to Monsanto, I think a reasonable policy on their part would be that they only claim a violation of intellectual property rights if they can prove that a farmer made a deliberate effort to grow Monsanto corn without paying royalties. That has happened, too.

What do these two different policies mean for the legitimacy of Monsanto?
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) May 02, 2014
I think a reasonable policy on their part would be that they only claim a violation of intellectual property rights if they can prove that a farmer made a deliberate effort to grow Monsanto corn without paying royalties. That has happened, too.


Seems reasonable. Since your example was evidently settled out of court, a) the farmers and Monsanto agreed to some terms (thus no coercion), and b) we can make no legal reference.

What do these two different policies mean for the legitimacy of Monsanto?


Not a thing.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (5) May 03, 2014
... which is to say, the farmers have gov recourse for their personal property protection rights.

If it was simply the case that Monsanto's corn over-grew onto neighboring land owned by another, then I would say that that owner is entitled to the corn but not profit off of it by selling it. IOW, I doubt Monsanto would have been concerned had the adjacent property owner not be a farmer, which by definition SELLS produce.

It's similar to the case, if you intercepted a wifi or 4G signal entering your property, it is yours, but if you then sell it or distribute it (e-book, music, software), then you are violating another's property rights.
Sigh
5 / 5 (6) May 03, 2014
Seems reasonable. Since your example was evidently settled out of court

I read that Monsanto threatened to sue 850 farmers and settled out of court in 700 cases

a) the farmers and Monsanto agreed to some terms (thus no coercion)

Perhaps we disagree on what coercion means. Court cases cost time and money. If you go up against someone with deep pockets, you are immediately at a disadvantage. We also agreed that law can enforce rules that conflict with property rights. So if the law is written to give the advantage to big companies (possibly due to corporate lobbying), and if it is complicated enough that the outcome cannot be reliably predicted, then even someone whom the law should protect may not risk the legal process. Then settling out of court is not evidence that there was no coercion, unless you define coercion as use or threat of force that breaks the law.
Sigh
5 / 5 (5) May 03, 2014
If it was simply the case that Monsanto's corn over-grew onto neighboring land owned by another

Yes, but I understand not in a tidy, spatially separate strip. The stuff is randomly intermixed. Seeds tend to spread. So does pollen.

then I would say that that owner is entitled to the corn but not profit off of it by selling it.

Why should the farmer pay for genetic testing?

I doubt Monsanto would have been concerned had the adjacent property owner not be a farmer, which by definition SELLS produce.

Consider an alternative motive: do you think it possible that Monsanto was trying to increase profits by making farmers pay for its corn who bought something else? Or trying to increase market share? If I thought the corn was a bit better, but not enough to justify the price, but I knew I would be sued when it spread from my neighbour's field, I might decide to buy after all if I have to pay either way.
Sigh
5 / 5 (5) May 03, 2014
Not having access to Monsanto's internal discussions, we can only guess at the motives for that policy. But if intimidation was either an accidental but acknowledged byproduct or the goal of Monsanto's policy, what would that mean for whether you see this as coercion?
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (6) May 03, 2014
You seem to be equating Monsanto's seeking restitution for use of its property rights through government provided means, AS coercive force ,... which does not even qualify as being wrong.

ryggesogn2
1.8 / 5 (5) May 04, 2014
The 'civil' court system in the US is quite abused.
The first major reform I would implement is that once a suit is filed, ALL results are public knowledge. No gag orders.
In the Firestone/Ford accidents a few years ago, many settled 'out of court' but were not allowed to disclose the details.
I consider this an abuse of a govt function. If a case is filed in a govt court, then ALL details must be made public, even if the suit is 'dropped' and 'settled'. Details must be provided.
ryggesogn2
2.6 / 5 (5) May 04, 2014
If a prize bull broke out from his pen and insemenated my cows, I do not owe the owner of the bull anything.
As a matter of fact, the bull's owner should pay me for damages to the fence and if the bull is not the breed I wanted to use with my cows.
Monsanto should have no legal grounds as their property violated another's property.
There was once a concept of common property law where the property owner could sue for the violation of his property, regardless of damage.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (6) May 04, 2014
Monsanto should have no legal grounds as their property violated another's property.


I would agree wrt the ownership of the corn, but what if those farmers started selling the corn even after notified that a license is required to do so (assuminga license is required).

I doubt the example as presented by Sigh is actually what occured,... farmers in the hundreds innocently victimized by Monsanto crazy wild corn,... but that point would be for a jury to decide.

What is your stance wrt private enterprise and coercive force. How can private enterprise (not falsely defined as illegal activity) make use of coercive force counter to one's free choice?
Sigh
5 / 5 (6) May 04, 2014
It's similar to the case, if you intercepted a wifi or 4G signal entering your property, it is yours, but if you then sell it or distribute it (e-book, music, software), then you are violating another's property rights.

That's a long way from being an appropriate analogy. In your scenario, you would have to do something first to get hold of my intellectual property, then to incorporate it in your product. The appropriate analogy is that I insert, perhaps accidentally, my intellectual property into your product without your consent, then sue you.

You seem to be equating Monsanto's seeking restitution for use of its property rights through government provided means, AS coercive force ,... which does not even qualify as being wrong.

Please try again with the analogy as I outlined it.

I doubt the example as presented by Sigh is actually what occured

Then treat it as a thought experiment for now. Works equally well to examine the principles you apply.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) May 04, 2014
The appropriate analogy is that I insert, perhaps accidentally, my intellectual property into your product without your consent, then sue you.


... and upon being notified of this, I continued to sell my product?

Are you saying that Monsanto's corn was mixed with regular corn on innocent farmers property without their knowledge of it having over-grown onto their property? If this is the case then it stands to reason that a jury would conclude, or a logical settlement, that Monsanto would have to pay to remove the existing plants and plant regular corn in its place, and take measures to prevent their special corn from over-growing.

If the Monsanto corn is patented it requires a license to sell, according to law. That is what a patent is. The farmers knowing this, would have a legal basis to sue Monsanto for the above terms. Why didn't they in your example?

Please explain to me where the coercion is.
Noumenon
1 / 5 (5) May 04, 2014
If the farmers were innocent then they should have replanted and sued Monsanto for the cost of doing so.

,... the problem with your example is that it all comes down to whether the farmers were innocent or the more likely case that the farmers liked how well the engineered corn grew, and simply took it and planted it. It requires detailed facts to determine this. One way, the farmers are guilty, the other, Monsanto is responsible for cost of removing the corn and replanting regular corn. My guess is that that is the reason it did not go to trial.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (3) May 04, 2014
If you know anything about hybrid corn, if Monsanto's pollen drifted over to a non-Monsanto field, the resulting corn would be useless for seed, just as all hybrid corn is useless for seed.
The corn and the plant are useful as foodstuffs.
Any foreign corn pollen would result in a hybrid that the farmer did not want and the originator of foreign pollen is liable for damages.
But corn is not that easy contaminate from even a neighboring row.
We planted sweet corn next to field corn and there was little contamination from field corn.

Sigh
5 / 5 (7) May 04, 2014
and upon being notified of this, I continued to sell my product?

My software is in your system, keeps inserting itself in your product, and you would have to check every item you ship, driving you into bankruptcy. You tell me what you would do.

Are you saying that Monsanto's corn was mixed with regular corn on innocent farmers property without their knowledge of it having over-grown onto their property?

That is my understanding of what I read. I searched for more information: http://rt.com/usa...ers-547/

If this is the case then it stands to reason that a jury would conclude, or a logical settlement, that Monsanto would have to pay to remove the existing plants and plant regular corn in its place, and take measures to prevent their special corn from over-growing.

The Supreme Court decided otherwise, although Court of Appeals stated that contamination is inevitable.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) May 04, 2014
SCOTUS supported slavery and killing babies, too.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 04, 2014
SCOTUS supported slavery and killing babies, too
@Rygg
well, in his day, The doctrines for which Duns Scotus is best known are the "univocity of being," but I dont see how someone who died in the14th century relates to now as almost everyone back then believed that way. https://en.wikipe...s_Scotus
or were you referring to Johannes Scotus (Eriugena) the Irish theologian, Neoplatonist philosopher, and poet?
there is also Scotus Academy, a Catholic all-boys day school...

you should be specific, as well as use proper dates and times for context.
if you refer to the US supreme court, then they also did not allow the freedom of religion to all people until the mid 80's, but that is irrelevant to this topic, isn't it.
just like your post is irrelevant. times change, cultures change, people change. modern supreme court rulings changed. deal with it.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) May 04, 2014
times change, cultures change, people change. modern supreme court rulings changed. deal with it.

Sure.
No principles, no problem, right?
Science is whatever the 'experts' say it is, right?
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 04, 2014
Sure.
No principles, no problem, right?
Science is whatever the 'experts' say it is, right?
@Rygg
WTF?
where did you get that from my post?
science = the use of the scientific method to study the universe.
scientific method = The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.

in the past, your "principles" were governed by religion. all religion is good for is controlling people. if you have a problem with that, take it up with the religions of the world, NOT the SCIENCE

SCIENCE is the use of the scientific method to gather EMPIRICAL data to answer questions. whatever you are thinking it is, is your problem due to your conspiracy/politics issues

ryggesogn2
1.5 / 5 (8) May 04, 2014
where did you get that from my post?

You suggested all standards, like murder, are subjective.
As science is a human endeavor, it is open to subjectivity as well.
Why can't murder, slavery, socialism can't be evaluated objectively?
all religion is good for is controlling people.

Are you opposed to people controlling themselves? If people won't control themselves, who will? The state?
Data shows that when the state defines morality, people suffer.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) May 04, 2014
"Bureaucracy disempowers people from acting morally. Thomas Aquinas thought that people who do evil don't think of themselves as evil. What allows evil to persist, Aquinas believed, is the "lack of good" by other people."
http://www.thedai...ept.html
"Like Aristotle, Thomas holds that there is a plurality of both theoretical and practical sciences. Ethics, economics and politics are the practical sciences, while physics, mathematics and metaphysics are the theoretical sciences. "
http://plato.stan...aquinas/
Aquinas, just another socialist dictator to Stump.
Captain Stumpy
4.5 / 5 (8) May 05, 2014
You suggested all standards, like murder, are subjective
@rygg
no, I didnt. Are you stupid? re-read
Are you opposed to people controlling themselves?
nope. but religion doesn't teach people to control themselves, it teaches people to control others through fear, conformity and familiarity
If people won't control themselves, who will? The state?
irrelevant and hypothetical personal conjecture without evidence as well as blatant misdirection
just another socialist dictator to Stump
personal conjecture based upon overwhelming stupidity and strawman, also attempt at misdirection and obfuscation. you have no idea how I think about Aquinas.
also, one person is NOT a religion
and I do not have problems with a persons faith or belief
I DO have a problem with the dogmatic institutions that are considered religions because the whole purpose is to control others by force and with a structured system based usually upon an illogical farce (see Church of Scientology)
Caliban
4.3 / 5 (7) May 05, 2014
The 'civil' court system in the US is quite abused.
The first major reform I would implement is that once a suit is filed, ALL results are public knowledge. No gag orders.
In the Firestone/Ford accidents a few years ago, many settled 'out of court' but were not allowed to disclose the details.
I consider this an abuse of a govt function. If a case is filed in a govt court, then ALL details must be made public, even if the suit is 'dropped' and 'settled'. Details must be provided.

Hahahaha
Rygg,

This is one of those rarer-than-rare occasions when the unthinkable occurs --we actually agree about something. Unfortunately, force of habit/muscle memory 1-starred your comment, when a 5-star was the real intent.
A fully transparent judicial system is just as essential for democracy as working regulation or taxation.
I know you would never in a million years agree on those last two, but yeah- judicial transparency is critical.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 05, 2014
Define 'working regulation' and 'taxation'?
How do you prevent corruption?
When dozens of govt agencies now paralyze people, do you plan to do anything to stop it?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (5) May 05, 2014
religion doesn't teach people to control themselves, it teaches people to control others through fear, conformity and familiarity


Yes, it does.

I notice you dodged the question of how people will learn to control themselves.
one person is NOT a religion

But there are tens of thousands like Aquinas.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) May 05, 2014
I notice you dodged the question of how people will learn to control themselves
didn't dodge it. it is subjective and therefore irrelevant
there are tens of thousands like Aquinas
because he subscribed to a RELIGION. there is a difference in a belief, or faith, than a religion. see above comments.

IOW - its irrelevant STILL... if you're not going to make a point that is relevant, why do you bother?
there are forums that you can go to for spouting your personal belief, and they will likely support you in your delusions... why use a science site?
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) May 05, 2014
it is subjective and therefore irrelevant

Then ALL is irrelevant as any human activity must be subjective.
there is a difference in a belief, or faith, than a religion.

Stump subscribed to a religion he calls science and one of his denominations is AGW.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) May 05, 2014
your "principles" were governed by religion.

Is a Code of Hammurabi a religion?
"14. If a man has stolen a child, he shall be put to death. "
"22. If a man has committed highway robbery and has been caught, that man shall be put to death. "
Noumenon
1.6 / 5 (7) May 07, 2014
Are you opposed to people controlling themselves?

nope. but religion doesn't teach people to control themselves, it teaches people to control others through fear, conformity and familiarity


Is it fair and reasonable for one who is anti-religion to define what religion means to others. Do you reject the moral Christian philosophy along with the notion of god / souls?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) May 07, 2014
Is it fair and reasonable for one who is anti-religion to define what religion means to others
@Nou
1- I'm not dictating to anyone. 2- is it fair for a religion to forcefully shove its dogma down the throats of another culture because it makes them uncomfortable? (See the US Indian wars, the Holy Wars, Inquisition, Witch trials, etc)
moral Christian philosophy
morality is subjective to the culture & perspectives of the individuals. see how human morals have changed over time? and it will change over time again as it is inevitable
Stump subscribed to a religion he calls science
@rygg-tard
no denominations, and I would rather subscribe to science than stupidity, like some political spam troll posters here
Is a Code of Hammurabi a religion
a codification of anything into a set of rules is a means to control. this is where religion and faith separates. a faith is the belief, but a religion is the codification of rules in order to be a "good believer"= control
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) May 07, 2014
Is a Code of Hammurabi a religion?
@rygg
continued
therefore the Code of Hammurabi is no different than the rules or dogma of a religion. ths is much the same as modern laws, which are extracted from society and its beliefs, which may hang heavily on religions (like US/British laws).

and as you can see, the laws are written to control the populace.

This brings it full circle back to religion. RELIGION is the codification of a set of rules in order to show the like minded (or others) your dedication to a (belief) system which is spelled out in some fashion. This is different from a FAITH, which is simply believing in something without proof.
Once the rules come in, it is designed to segregate one from another, and it is a tool for control, like written laws are for us today I countries. Some religions find their dogma of a higher or more important significance than local/cultural laws.

ryggesogn2
1.6 / 5 (7) May 07, 2014
Morality is not subjective. Tens of thousands of years of survival have allowed human societies to discover natural laws supporting human survival.
Many have been codified into various forms. Some into religious books.
Ever wonder why Aesop's fables or the book of Proverbs still have meaning today?
AGWites should read up on Aesop and the boy who cried wolf or the ant and the grasshopper.
Anti-socialists should observe that socialists are like plagues of locusts. They move into a location and soon destroy everything.
And on of the most fundamental truths was put into an acronym by Heinlein, TANSTAAFL.

laws are written to control the populace.

How are laws against murder controlling the populace in Chicago?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) May 07, 2014
How are laws against murder controlling the populace in Chicago?
@rygg
they work about as well as the "laws" the religions use to control thier populace, expecially when a section of the populace decides to NO LONGER adhere to certain laws in order to further their agenda, proving my statement of laws/morals being subjective!

you couldn't have chosen a better and more cogent statement to prove the subjective nature of a law for me. thanks

laws are only as good as the people who choose to follow them, and that goes for your "morals" and other subjective traits. if you truly don't believe morality is subjective to the individual, put yourself (unarmed) in a room with a known sociopathinc serial killer and then do your best to piss them off...
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) May 07, 2014
Tens of thousands of years of survival have allowed human societies to discover natural laws supporting human survival
@rygg
and again, the "natural laws" you speak of are subjective to the individual, time and place and situation. killing is out, unless, of course you are defending your life, or your family, or you want the neighbors land, or they don't subscribe to the same religion as you... it all goes down hill from there... we've found ways around them using our intellect, justifying our actions in situations, which is the reason the laws are SUBJECTIVE.
if you can find a REASON to ignore the law (for the greater good, for instance) then the law is not absolute, it is subjective to interpretation and malleable.

our past is the perfect example. but you will disagree, as it is in your nature to be contrary.

and by the way, I DESPISE socialism and communism... so I would never argue FOR it.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (4) May 08, 2014
the "natural laws" you speak of are subjective to the individual, time and place and situation.

No, they are not.
Utopian libertines may want natural laws to be subjective, but, as the old saying goes, pay me now or pay me later.
TANSTAAFL.
One case where the laws of nature won't be violated with morality, HIV or hepatitis, or syphilis or ...
Successful laws, laws the benefit people and societies, were not made on a whim, or for some dictator to control people, but on the collected wisdom of observing EMPIRICAL data.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) May 08, 2014
No, they are not
@rygg
given the history of humanity and what we've seen from them to date, I would say that you are hoping here. any person has a threshold where they are willing to violate the laws they hold so dear, which means that they are subjective
Successful laws, laws the benefit people and societies ...data
...for the purpose of controlling people, which is why they also have an enforcement arm. if there is a law, there is a person that will break that law meaning that the law is not inherent, nor universal, but subjective to the individual

how many laws do you break a year? picking up a pen and keeping it from work? making a personal copy or keeping a post it note from work? technically theft. not coming to a full stop at stop signs? not wearing a seat belt to move your vehicle in your yard? not claiming the $20 you found in a parking lot on your taxes?

Even you break laws, which only proves they are subjective to the individual
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) May 08, 2014
TANSTAAFL
@rygg contn'd
this is true, but it is still irrelevant to our discussion
Utopian libertines may want natural laws to be subjective
& this is a trolling comment, as well as personal conjecture and irrelevant unless you have some comprehensive survey of all libertines? BTW- I am not utopic or a libertine
[/qOne case where the laws of nature won't be violated with morality, HIV or hepatitis, or syphilis or
where ya going with this? did you forget to finish it?

laws were made by men for men. Laws were made to have an ordered structured society where everyone could have a chance at success etc... this in itself proves that laws are not inherent or universal and are subjective. they may be derived from empirical data, and for the good of all, but they are still subjective to the individual

just like most people go over the speed limit while driving, or take a 1 or 2 cents while short at the register. subjective, although still breaking the law.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) May 08, 2014

Successful laws, laws the benefit people and societies, were not made on a whim, or for some dictator to control people, but on the collected wisdom of observing EMPIRICAL data
Rygg
forgot to add something:

if laws were not subjective, then there would be no such thing as war. there would be no theft either. There would be no rape, no aggravated battery, assault, etc.

Because there is such things in the world, this is the final proof that laws are subjective to the individual. Otherwise, no one would ever be able to kill for a greater good, defense of home, family or whatever reason. there would be no taking of anything for greed or pleasure

because laws are subjective, we have people willing to break them for personal gain, or personal pleasure, whatever their purpose. A law is only as good as the person abiding by it. Should you decide not to follow the law, you can break them, which, again, proves their subjectivity.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) May 08, 2014
Should you decide not to follow the law, you can break them,

No, there are consequences for violating laws.
Maybe those consequences aren't instantaneous, like falling to your death of you try to violate gravity, but there are consequences.
Murder someone? Law or no law it is quite likely the victim's family may take exception and murder you.
Refuse to bath (no law against it)? You will be shunned and will likely acquire a nasty disease. Consequences.
Say you are a 'liberal' baby boomer and you have gotten your way all your life by whining and voting to rob your grandchildren to pay for your retirement, but one day, there is no more wealth to plunder (ant and grasshopper), there will be unpleasant consequences.
The immature/socialists can't or won't see the objective consequences of breaking natural laws so people like Stump assert such laws are subjective because he doesn't want to acknowledge the existence of the consequences.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (6) May 08, 2014
Consequences of violating natural laws:
"Despite adding more than 8 million people to the working-age population since 2007, total employment has declined by half a million, according to an analysis by the Senate Budget Committee."
http://freebeacon...-growth/
"A new Brookings Institution report indicates that businesses are shuttering their doors more quickly than new ones are popping up."
http://www.weekly...127.html
""Of all the troubling aspects of the Obama presidency, none is more dangerous than the President's persistent pattern of lawlessness, his willingness to disregard the written law and instead enforce his own policies via executive fiat," Cruz stated in the report's introductory remarks."
http://dailycalle...actions/
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) May 08, 2014
The immature/socialists can't or won't see the objective consequences of breaking natural laws so people like Stump assert such laws are subjective because he doesn't want to acknowledge the existence of the consequences
@Rygg
are you being intentionally stupid? I didn't say there weren't consequences, I said that you could break laws if you so chose
Murder someone?...may take exception and murder you
which AGAIN proves that the laws are subjective to the individual

and since you are making sh*t up and lying, proving you are still the number one TROLL here... this conversation is done. now that you are being 100% stupid ... what consequences are you going to assign the soldiers who killed to give you the right to be such a blatantly stupid moron on a public thread?

you are a trolling spamming idiot, rygg, without a lick of sense, who is a liar at best (remember, there will be consequences for that ryggy). thanks for reinforcing that yet again.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (3) May 08, 2014
Consequences of violating natural laws:
consequences of being a lying troll on a public thread: you will be downvoted and most likely someone will get enough of your garbage and ferret you out.

you are TROLLING and SPAMMING with irrelevant posts, lies, links to political Bullpuckey that is either off topic or irrelevant as it is not scientific, nor empirical... like above...

and of course, this ALSO PROVES that laws are subjective, because if they were NOT subjective to the individual, you would not be able to LIE like you did above. PROOF POSITIVE FROM YOUR OWN POST

thanks for playing
Pejico
May 08, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) May 09, 2014
ALSO PROVES that laws are subjective,

There are three general classes of laws.
The first are the natural physical laws: gravity, thermodynamics, motion, etc.
There are natural laws of human society that derive from the natural physical laws.
Then there are the un-natural, 'socialist' laws that attempt to control and direct human behavior to what the socialist believes it should be. These are quite subjective.

ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) May 09, 2014
"

positivistic social science … is characterized by the abandonment of reason or the flight from reason….

According to the positivistic interpretation of relativism which prevails in present-day social science … reason can tell us which means are conducive to which ends; it cannot tell us which attainable ends are to be preferred to other attainable ends. Reason cannot tell us that we ought to choose attainable ends; if someone 'loves him who desires the impossible' reason may tell him that he acts irrationally, but it cannot tell him that he ought to act rationally, or that acting irrationally is acting badly or basely. If rational conduct consists in choosing the right means for the right end, relativism teaches in effect that rational conduct is impossible."
http://mises.org/daily/2426
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) May 09, 2014
"One common, flip criticism by opponents of natural law is: who is to establish the alleged truths about man? The answer is not who but what: man's reason. Man's reason is objective, i.e., it can be employed by all men to yield truths about the world. "
"The natural law, then, elucidates what is best for man — what ends man should pursue that are most harmonious with, and best tend to fulfill, his nature. In a significant sense, then, natural law provides man with a "science of happiness," with the paths which will lead to his real happiness. " {What is subjective?}
http://mises.org/daily/2426
ryggesogn2
1 / 5 (7) May 09, 2014
Consequences:
"Health officials say syphilis has reached its highest level since 1995 with the increase all in men.

Syphilis remains far less common in the U.S. than many other sexually spread diseases. But there has been a steady rise in gay and bisexual men catching the disease. They account for most of the recent infectious cases.

Since 2005, the rate in men has nearly doubled. It is much lower in women and hasn't changed much."
http://atlanta.cb...ual-men/
'Laws' like Newton's laws were not pulled from thin air but determined from careful observations.
Laws that Stumpy asserts are subjective are derived in the same manner, from careful observation.
Violation of a law does mean the law is subjective. Violation of a law implies consequences to that violation.
Children and the immature constantly chafe at the collected wisdom of many laws whining they are subjective.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (7) May 09, 2014
I notice you dodged the question of how people will learn to control themselves
Well apparently religion doesnt work, for as you well know the overwhelming majority of people in prison are religious, and were raised in a religious environment.

What is the ratio of atheist/agnostic inmates as compared to the general pop you ask? Well it doesnt matter does it? At the very least religion has NO EFFECT in keeping people from breaking the law.

It does however have a profound effect in convincing people that a loving god will forgive the sins they commit at night if they only ask him in the morning. It provides them with many examples of god encouraging and REQUIRING the victmization of unbelievers which in the holy books is certainly not a sin.

Religion reinforces tribal identities that secular society is committed to eradicating. Religion divides people and sets them against one another by design.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.9 / 5 (7) May 09, 2014
syphilis has reached its highest level
This only means that non-procreative sex was prevalent enough throughout prehistory to enable the evolution of these diseases. That kind of says that non-procreative sex is NORMAL doesnt it?

Humans are plagued with a tropical, 24/7/365 urge to reproduce. This was fine when we were defenseless apes skittering across the pampas. But since then we have been able to eliminate all those natural elements which served to keep our numbers in check.

The result has been chronic overpopulation with all the evils it presents. Overpop in animals is not new - there are many biological compensations which have evolved to counter it. Homosexuality might be one of them.

But religions were invented to capitalize on this unholy tendency to outgrow resources, by maximizing it for the purpose of outgrowing and overrunning their enemies.
cont>
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.7 / 5 (6) May 09, 2014
Western secular society has achieved zero growth. If not for religions there would be no perception of overgrowth, and perhaps no perceived need to compensate for it. Perhaps if there was no religion there would be no homosexuality, did you think of that ryggy? Expectant mothere would not dread bringing another child into an overcrowded world, and would not epigenetically neuter their babies in the womb.

A world without religion would certainly be a world where abortion was rare. There would be plent of room for more people.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.4 / 5 (5) May 09, 2014
RYGGY

In related news

"Jacob has lost its spot as the most popular name for newborn American boys after 14 years, knocked from its place by Noah, the government has said."

-Thus we can see that it is those darned judeo-xians who are still propagating the best. Yes?

And so it is written. In a few decades perhaps it will be dawood or Ibrahim.