Global Warming now officially bullshit

[pat J]

So the very first humans we're born into a government and we've been working to get rid of it ever since then?

No, but they were born into a hierarchical system.

I get it... you would rather have private enterprise perform all the functions that our government does today.

Who will then hold the private enterprise themselves responsible? Sounds like unions would be formed...basically eventually it would evolve back to where we're at now.

No, i'm not for private enterprises. Stop assuming things. Watch the movie, read up on anarchism and soon enough you will call yourself an anarchist as well.

It seems pointless to explain something to someone who's not interested to learn, only to argue against their own straw man... Almost like a creationist.

 

[UnripeArbiter]

I've seen Zeitgeist already I don't feel like watching it again. That movie also has 9/11 conspiracy theories and I don't believe that shit. (The real 9/11 story is simple and is understood...) If they don't get that the whole film is tainted.

If you're not for private enterprise or government where are you going to get all your goods and services?

You want every man to produce everything they need on their own? Again, sounds archaic.

 

[Ar Scion]

You're truly a fucking idiot.


Right, so if human nature is at it's core essentially evil, it makes perfect sense to put an elite group of humans in charge of everyone, right? Because governments are only ever populated by saints. That power only attracts the Gandhis and Mother Theresas of the world. The people in government aren't corrupt or evil. They don't lie and steal...

You are intelligent. You have no need to insult me.

If you believe human nature is good then you can prove it. I'll listen.

 

[LotsOfZeros]

You are intelligent. You have no need to insult me.

If you believe human nature is good then you can prove it. I'll listen.

On your knees!

BOW TO GUERILLA!

 

[colts]

Another dozen replies to this thread, some rambling, some ranting about cable news - none actually addressing Lindzen's data. But that's not particularly surprising, since his data can't really be disproven.

That matches up exactly with what I said in my original post.

Quoting glenn beck or anything fox news will get you nothing but naysayers from the left and circle jerkers from the right.

I think you might need to read, comprehend, then write a response instead of just reading and then writing argumentative posts.

 

[colts]

He made the same mistake the ignorant poster above made, not even watching the data and instead railing mindlessly against 'cable news stations' being used as primary news sources. It's embarrassing sometimes to watch this hollow outrage.

What hellblazer has done here is attack the person who disagrees with him, I'm "the ignorant poster above", by name calling. This is an ad hominem, and unless I always lie this isn't even a valid argument. Just a fairly common logical fallacy in attempt to discredit and overcome someone who's views differ from theirs.

 

[LotsOfZeros]

What hellblazer has done here is attack the person who disagrees with him, I'm "the ignorant poster above", by name calling. This is an ad hominem, and unless I always lie this isn't even a valid argument. Just a fairly common logical fallacy in attempt to discredit and overcome someone who's views differ from theirs.

Do you ever get the feeling the debate left the room hours ago only to leave you arguing with yourself. It's embarrassing, I know, but it happens to the best of us...... really.

 

[pat J]

I've seen Zeitgeist already I don't feel like watching it again. That movie also has 9/11 conspiracy theories and I don't believe that shit. (The real 9/11 story is simple and is understood...) If they don't get that the whole film is tainted.

There are two. The first one is full of conspiracy shit. The second one deals with what i said it was about. Check it out.

If you're not for private enterprise or government where are you going to get all your goods and services?

You want every man to produce everything they need on their own? Again, sounds archaic.

The more technology advances the more can be automated. Eventually, everything a human can do, a computer/machine will be able to do, both better and faster. This includes food production, surgery, construction, electricity generation, gathering of raw material and refining them into anything you need .. heck.. you probably don't even have to get a girlfriend to get your cock rubbed.. just call in the sexdroid for the time of your life.

It's only a matter of time before human labor is a thing of the past, making all market economies, and along with them the government, obsolete. Technological advancements are inevitable. The question is just how many decades, or centuries, it will take.

I like how we always stay on topic.....

 

[UnripeArbiter]

There are two. The first one is full of conspiracy shit. The second one deals with what i said it was about. Check it out.

I didn't know there were two. I'm glad to hear you may not be one of the 9/11 truthers. (so misguided)

The more technology advances the more can be automated. Eventually, everything a human can do, a computer/machine will be able to do, both better and faster. This includes food production, surgery, construction, electricity generation, gathering of raw material and refining them into anything you need .. heck.. you probably don't even have to get a girlfriend to get your cock rubbed.. just call in the sexdroid for the time of your life.

It's only a matter of time before human labor is a thing of the past, making all market economies, and along with them the government, obsolete. Technological advancements are inevitable. The question is just how many decades, or centuries, it will take.

I like how we always stay on topic.....

Agreed, human labor will become obsolete and way quicker than the commoner realizes. Until then, anarchy hasn't had a chance. I'll check out the second zeitgeist, but don't get your hopes up.

To get sorta back on topic (although futurist and unpractical for the time being) maybe nanobots will be able to enter our atmosphere in the future and eliminate any particulate we target. That would be sweet.

 

[mng4green]

Reliable news source....

What do you deem as a reliable news source?

ones own common sense filter.
no one, not any goverment, not any race or culmination of has ever in the past or will in the future be able to make a change. Change for what?
What we did not stuart well enough for centuries?
Oh, what a cocky animal the humanbeing is.
If we could command the wind, would we not have done so long ago?
I guarantee you, if that were the case, we would not talk about the big 3's, any goverment or institution, news channels - no, we would attack the holders of the power to direct atmosphere.
We all are stting in a glass-house - and boy are we good in throwing rocks.
Oh yeah, that reminds me, wasn't that what the neandertal's did for fun?

 

[guerilla]

It's only a matter of time before human labor is a thing of the past, making all market economies, and along with them the government, obsolete. Technological advancements are inevitable. The question is just how many decades, or centuries, it will take.

This is not actually correct. Markets don't form due to labor. That is a pre-marginal revolution proudhonian/marxian view of economics. The zeitgeist/venus project view of economics is not based in reality.

Markets form to deal with issues of scarcity. There is only so much air, water, metal, vegetation etc at any given time. Even if it is abundant, it is impossible to overcome the fact that the universe including the length of our own lives, is finite.

Mises made the point that the only way to rationally allocate scarce resources is through the price mechanism. Socialists of all manner, including market socialists have tried to refute this, and have failed time and time again. Without rational allocation of goods (with prices set in a market) a society trends towards devolution over the long run due to the compounding of allocation errors.

Labor is not the only price we have to calculate. We also have to calculate the best allocation of shoe leather, silicon microchips and strawberries.

 

[guerilla]

Just tell me what we should do as an alternative to government? Gangland? I don't get it.

Look at all of the political threads on left vs. right. Everyone competing for who gets to decide the universal agenda for everyone. How much easier it would be if the people on the left pursued their agenda, and the people on the right pursued their agenda. Both sides could get what they want.

But politics is a zero sum game. Someone has to win and someone has to lose. So since the stakes are so high (no win-win scenarios) people fight tooth and nail to not be the loser.

In an ancap or libertarian society, people can pursue their own ends, and make their own successes and mistakes. There doesn't have to be a mono-culture, mono-religion, mono-language etc. Diversity can be respected.

Anarcho-capitilalism is all good for the individual that has externalized the rest of the world and deemed everything else as less important than profits. I mean I like money too, but it really isn't the most important thing.

Anarcho-capitalism is not about externalizing anything. It is about internalizing costs. It understands that a moral society is not one that dumps costs on someone else against their will, like welfare for example. It understands that people generally behave better when they are responsible for the costs of their own actions. When there is no way to get the government to bail you out by taking from someone else, you just might try harder to get a job, or to manage your debt, or to be responsible with your lifestyle choices in the first place.

I mean of all the problems in the world you think the solution is to burn the white house down (essentially) ?

Anarcho-capitalists aren't for violence or mindless property destruction. The people you see protesting the G20 and flipping mailboxes and smashing store windows are radical socialists, they are not anarchists.

A genuine anarchist has to embrace peace because it is the only path consistent with individualism.

If you want to discuss this further, PM me. It's a big topic, and I don't feel the need to justify myself in a public forum to everyone with an account on WF. Thoughtful inquiries will be responded to thoughtfully.

 

[UnripeArbiter]

^^^^ I think I'm beginning to understand why I keep seeing guerilla4pres.

I just had to wiki a bunch of things and you're definitely getting me interested... (I kinda jumped into this entire debate with pure emotions rather than intellect) +rep and +i just smoked a blunt

 

[GrindTim3]

I'm buying an escalade. And not the hybrid version either

 

[pat J]

This is not actually correct. Markets don't form due to labor. That is a pre-marginal revolution proudhonian/marxian view of economics. The zeitgeist/venus project view of economics is not based in reality.

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you don't know everything about reality. People would have said the same thing a millenia ago about space travel. We don't know what we will discover in the future so it's impossible to say for certain that something can or cannot be done.

Markets form to deal with issues of scarcity. There is only so much air, water, metal, vegetation etc at any given time. Even if it is abundant, it is impossible to overcome the fact that the universe including the length of our own lives, is finite.

Mises made the point that the only way to rationally allocate scarce resources is through the price mechanism. Socialists of all manner, including market socialists have tried to refute this, and have failed time and time again. Without rational allocation of goods (with prices set in a market) a society trends towards devolution over the long run due to the compounding of allocation errors.

Labor is not the only price we have to calculate. We also have to calculate the best allocation of shoe leather, silicon microchips and strawberries.

Scarcity of the fundamental human needs can easily be eliminated. There's no price on air because it's abundant. It's everywhere you go, and it's pretty much impossible to put a price on it. The same could be true for shoe leather, silicon microchips and strawberries.

Even the things that can't be made abundant will be hard to put a price tag on if the fundamental needs are abundant.

What this boils down to is that you don't believe that we, with the help of technology, will be able to overcome the problem of scarcity (at least of the fundamental human needs). I do. So the only thing i have to say is; time will tell.

 

[UnripeArbiter]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you don't know everything about reality. People would have said the same thing a millenia ago about space travel. We don't know what we will discover in the future so it's impossible to say for certain that something can or cannot be done.

Scarcity of the fundamental human needs can easily be eliminated. There's no price on air because it's abundant. It's everywhere you go, and it's pretty much impossible to put a price on it. The same could be true for shoe leather, silicon microchips and strawberries.

Even the things that can't be made abundant will be hard to put a price tag on if the fundamental needs are abundant.

What this boils down to is that you don't believe that we, with the help of technology, will be able to overcome the problem of scarcity (at least of the fundamental human needs). I do. So the only thing i have to say is; time will tell.

I like where all this is going because I'm a big fan of Ray Kurzweil and his Technological Singularity theory.

However, I've never really put two and two together before.

I was just thinking that if this "singularity" does occur then I can imagine having every, currently scarce, resource suddenly become very abundant. Then I was thinking about what guerilla said above how even if everything is abundant time itself will still be finite. So I guess scarcity will always exist although it will be reduced to time and time alone.

Can we at least agree that government's at the current time are at least "big walls of protection" for the peoples that are planting the seeds of the future where the sovereign individual reigns? This can at least solve my cognitive dissonance about the issue. Im high too.....:stonedsmilie:

 

[hellblazer]

Anarcho-capitalism is not about externalizing anything. It is about internalizing costs. It understands that a moral society is not one that dumps costs on someone else against their will, like welfare for example. It understands that people generally behave better when they are responsible for the costs of their own actions. When there is no way to get the government to bail you out by taking from someone else, you just might try harder to get a job, or to manage your debt, or to be responsible with your lifestyle choices in the first place.

I always thought a perfect system would be one where EVERY single function was run by private companies, rendering the government useless - I just never knew there was an actual word for it. Thanks, this is really interesting.

 

[guerilla]

I just had to wiki a bunch of things and you're definitely getting me interested... (I kinda jumped into this entire debate with pure emotions rather than intellect) +rep and +i just smoked a blunt

Thanks and no hard feelings here.

I always thought a perfect system would be one where EVERY single function was run by private companies, rendering the government useless - I just never knew there was an actual word for it. Thanks, this is really interesting.

If you want any sources to read up on, PM me.

 

[guerilla]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and assume you don't know everything about reality.

I don't need to know everything about reality to know that the universe is finite. That is a red herring.

People would have said the same thing a millenia ago about space travel. We don't know what we will discover in the future so it's impossible to say for certain that something can or cannot be done.

I wouldn't rest my philosophy on a "we can't know anything" paradigm of doublethink. If you can't know, then you can't know for or against. It's one thing to be open minded. Another to be a blank slate.

Scarcity of the fundamental human needs can easily be eliminated.

For starters, there is no such thing as fundamental human needs.

There's no price on air because it's abundant.

Air is abundant now, but specific atmospheric gases do have a price. And with changes to the environment, and with an increasing population base, air may not be abundant in the future. Remember, water was considered abundant 50 years ago, now people pay for it in bottles. With growing asian populations, they will pay dearly for it.

It's everywhere you go, and it's pretty much impossible to put a price on it. The same could be true for shoe leather, silicon microchips and strawberries.

You haven't made this point.

Even the things that can't be made abundant will be hard to put a price tag on if the fundamental needs are abundant.

But that is the socialist calculation argument in a nutshell. You can't have a free society if some group of planners or a council decide what is fundamental for everyone. That is a totalitarian society, that is what the soviets and chinese tried to accomplish. In nearly every case, it ends in famine and genocide.

What this boils down to is that you don't believe that we, with the help of technology, will be able to overcome the problem of scarcity (at least of the fundamental human needs). I do.

I don't believe. You need to prove that the universe is not finite. If you do that, I will be on your side. I have no interest in believing in something that is not true. But just because you assert something, doesn't make it so. For now, we live in a world of scarce resources. There is only so much of everything, even if it is currently abundant.

So the only thing i have to say is; time will tell.

Indeed. Time is also scarce.

 

[pat J]

I don't need to know everything about reality to know that the universe is finite. That is a red herring.

First, no one knows whether or not the universe is or isn't finite. Second, it's not even relevant.

For starters, there is no such thing as fundamental human needs.

For sustaining life? Yes there is. Food, oxygen, water and heat.

Air is abundant now, but specific atmospheric gases do have a price. And with changes to the environment, and with an increasing population base, air may not be abundant in the future. Remember, water was considered abundant 50 years ago, now people pay for it in bottles. With growing asian populations, they will pay dearly for it.

I'm not arguing that scarce resources shouldn't have a price, because they always will. I'm arguing that nothing would have to be scarce.

There is a simple technological solution to the growing asian population and the shortage of water. The technology to separate sodium chloride from seawater already exists. It just need to be refined.

It's true that, eventually, human population might grow to such high numbers that even air might be scarce. But that's so far into the future that it's not even worth arguing. Hopefully we have already terraformed mars and colonized the moon by then.

But that is the socialist calculation argument in a nutshell. You can't have a free society if some group of planners or a council decide what is fundamental for everyone. That is a totalitarian society, that is what the soviets and chinese tried to accomplish. In nearly every case, it ends in famine and genocide.

Not at all. I never said anything about a group of planners or a council who should decide what people should be allowed to own. My point was that even though some things might still be scarce, humans will simply be too lazy to care if they don't get what they want right away if they already have what they need to survive.

I don't believe. You need to prove that the universe is not finite. If you do that, I will be on your side. I have no interest in believing in something that is not true. But just because you assert something, doesn't make it so. For now, we live in a world of scarce resources. There is only so much of everything, even if it is currently abundant.

Scarcity is the sum of two factors; human want and the availability of what humans want. I would only have to prove that universe is infinite if you could prove that human wants are, under all circumstances and at all times, endless. Of course, you can't. Unlimited wants is just a product of indoctrination which will dissapear when the fear of scarcity and actual scarcity diminishes.

Indeed. Time is also scarce.

No, time is limited. It can be scarce though.