NationStates Jolt Archive

Well this is just genius:

http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1962797,00.html

Good.

If people want to fund research, they can donate their own money. I don't see why people should be forced to pay.

Good.

If people want to fund research, they can donate their own money. I don't see why people should be forced to pay.

That way, when climate change causes famine, all the people who didn't pay can be charged with manslaughter for those who starved! :rolleyes:

That way, when climate change causes famine, all the people who didn't pay can be charged with manslaughter for those who starved! :rolleyes:

So you support coercion and theft?

So you support coercion and theft?

Government spending to save the environment is theft?

Is all tax theft?

Coercion and Theft?

Coercion, saying that if something isn't done, something else will happen. They dont get to choose or enforce the consequence, it will happen.

Theft, your taxes goin somewhere is theft? They steal your money via taxes? I agree, but unfortunately tax is neccesary in basically all current forms of government.

Sorry for answering a question aimed at someone else, I'm sure they'll refute it themselves better, I just wanted to throw in my two cents on the matter.

Is all tax theft?

Yes.

If people want to fund research, they can donate their own money. I don't see why people should be forced to pay.
Because it's a pressing matter of national and individual self-interest to fund this research?

Everyone is going to be affected; it makes sense that everyone pay.

So you support coercion and theft?
So you support doing nothing to combat the possibly devastating effects of global warming?

So you support coercion and theft?

So you think we should ask criminals nicely to go jail and let them keep anything they stole? I can play this game too.

So you support coercion and theft?
Taxes as theft?
Tell you what. You don't use public roads, the fire dept, cops, public schools, watch PBS, drink clean water or worry about safety considerations in about any aspect of your life. And the rest of us will all agree you don't have to pay taxes.

Taxes as theft?
Tell you what. You don't use public roads, the fire dept, cops, public schools, watch PBS, drink clean water or worry about safety considerations in about any aspect of your life. And the rest of us will all agree you don't have to pay taxes.

Seconded.
:D

Yes.I'm sure the US government could support itself on donations. :rolleyes:

Seems like the research is done! No need to confirm the obvious. Time to get started on the solution!

Yes.

Bullshit. Consentual contract dear. Don't like it, the door's open.

Seems like the research is done! No need to confirm the obvious. Time to get started on the solution!

I think it is actually research into a solution...the fact that really got me was that the MoD is taking away it's contribution to climate change - they needed machines that the Defense department use but they can't have them any longer...

I think it is actually research into a solution...the fact that really got me was that the MoD is taking away it's contribution to climate change - they needed machines that the Defense department use but they can't have them any longer...

Thing is. We already know the solution. (and have for a long time) We ban gas powered autos and switch to electric. We order the industries to clean up or shut down. And we get India and China to stop burning all that coal.(I hope this is the plan)

We either do this or we are toast. No ifs ands or buts!

Thing is. We already know the solution. (and have for a long time) We ban gas powered autos and switch to electric. We order the industries to clean up or shut down. And we get India and China to stop burning all that coal.(I hope this is the plan)

We either do this or we are toast. No ifs ands or buts!

I agree but the problem is this:

It's work helps Britain and other countries plan for rises in sea level, droughts and storms, and staff recently requested more money.

If we can't stop climate change because world governments won't cooperate, we need clever people like the Met office to figure out how the fuck we're still going to have a world in 100 years time.

In addition the Met office helps developing countries with contingency plans re climate change that they can't afford themeselves; cutting the budget is cutting them off even further...

I don't see why people should be forced to pay.

Because this has an obvious free rider problem.

Yes.

Why?

Why?
Do you need to ask? I'm sure his reasons are the same ones that have been destroyed a thousand times.

Yea that sucks! The whole world will recognize global warming as our biggest threat before the end of this decade! (just hope it's not too late)

Do you need to ask? I'm sure his reasons are the same ones that have been destroyed a thousand times.

So I'll destroy it a thousand and first time.

Or maybe I'll be convinced this time. Perhaps he has an argument I haven't heard before, or can present the argument in a way where I can better follow and accept the logic.

So I'll destroy it a thousand and first time.

Or maybe I'll be convinced this time. Perhaps he has an argument I haven't heard before, or can present the argument in a way where I can better follow and accept the logic.

Wouldn't bet on it: I used the words unregulated capitalism in a negative sense and he laughed at me yesterday....

I'm sure his reasons are the same ones that have been destroyed a thousand times.

Bingo.

Wouldn't bet on it: I used the words unregulated capitalism in a negative sense and he laughed at me yesterday....

I'm sure some of the things I say would make you laugh, too. ;)

I'm sure some of the things I say would make you laugh, too. ;)

No. I don't think taxaphobia is funny. I understand it totally: I disagree with you but I wouldn't laugh at you because of you're centrist views...


*realises he's being too serious and fellates a stuffed badger to lighten the mood....*

Taxes as theft?
Tell you what. You don't use public roads, the fire dept, cops, public schools, watch PBS, drink clean water or worry about safety considerations in about any aspect of your life. And the rest of us will all agree you don't have to pay taxes.

You win.

Taxes as theft?
Tell you what. You don't use public roads, the fire dept, cops, public schools, watch PBS, drink clean water or worry about safety considerations in about any aspect of your life. And the rest of us will all agree you don't have to pay taxes.

Clean water? What the hell is that? :p

*realises he's being too serious and fellates a stuffed badger to lighten the mood....*

Now that is funny! :D

*videotapes*

And I wasn't laughing at you per se.

Bingo.
Good. Now can you understand pragmatism? Ideology can be destructive.

Clean water? What the hell is that?

It's this stuff they used to have about fifty years ago. Imagine our water but with nothing in it. *nod*

It's this stuff they used to have about fifty years ago. Imagine our water but with nothing in it. *nod*

My water company is Thames Water...

*dies*

Because this has an obvious free rider problem.

To elaborate:

The prevention of global warming is pretty clearly a public good; if it happens, everyone benefits, and if it doesn't, everyone loses. There is no way to make it exclusive; either everyone benefits or no one does.

So if such prevention is left to private individuals, who will pay for it? Why would anyone pay for something if she will get the same benefit if she doesn't pay for it? Sure, some people will do it out of altruism - but is it really fair to make charitable people pay for everybody else? It's not their fault everyone else won't pay, after all. And what happens if there's a shortfall? What happens if the cause is so desperate that even the altruists think they're wasting their money on it?

So, if it is left to private entities, there are lots of reasons to expect catastrophe - which means that everyone loses. Personally, I would rather have everyone benefit.

Now that is funny! :D

*videotapes*

And I wasn't laughing at you per se.

I have no problem with people laughing at my posts really. But I was tired and I had run out of fags (cigarettes not homosexuals; although I haven't got any of these either, dammitt) and have seven thousand words to write by Wednesday so it got to me slightly.

No worries. :cool:

My water company is Thames Water...

*dies*

My water tasts like aluminum foil.

Good. Now can you understand pragmatism? Ideology can be destructive.

I agree.

Which is why I plan on converting to centrism (although, admittedly, it may be a slow process).

I agree.

Which is why I plan on converting to centrism (although, admittedly, it may be a slow process).
I don't see how it's so hard to reject the notion that taxes are theft.

To elaborate:

The prevention of global warming is pretty clearly a public good; if it happens, everyone benefits, and if it doesn't, everyone loses. There is no way to make it exclusive; either everyone benefits or no one does.

So if such prevention is left to private individuals, who will pay for it? Why would anyone pay for something if she will get the same benefit if she doesn't pay for it? Sure, some people will do it out of altruism - but is it really fair to make charitable people pay for everybody else? It's not their fault everyone else won't pay, after all. And what happens if there's a shortfall? What happens if the cause is so desperate that even the altruists think they're wasting their money on it?

So, if it is left to private entities, there are lots of reasons to expect catastrophe - which means that everyone loses. Personally, I would rather have everyone benefit.

Totally agree. This is a valid argument for a secure Welfare state and high taxes for Public services as well, is it not?

I don't see how it's so hard to reject the notion that taxes are theft.

Well, I'm an anarcho-capitalist leaning right-wing libertarian. Cut me some slack. ;)

This conversion may take awhile. :(

Totally agree. This is a valid argument for a secure Welfare state and high taxes for Public services as well, is it not?

It depends on the type of welfare. I'm not really for welfare, but if it's administered wisely, i.e. goes only to those who truly need it (and ensures that no one, or at least, as few people as possible, abuse it), then I can understand it. I do somewhat support workfare, though.

It depends on the type of welfare. I'm not really for welfare, but if it's administered wisely, i.e. goes only to those who truly need it (and ensures that no one, or at least, as few people as possible, abuse it), then I can understand it. I do somewhat support workfare, though.

Does workfare = job seekers benefit (http://www.askcab.co.uk/money_site/mJSA.asp)? If so do you support some form of welfare for those unable to work? Or those who are disabled?

EDIT: Going to leave this up but I have just looked up Workfare and see some glaring holes in it in terms of unskilled workforce remaining on the bottom of society...

Does workfare = job seekers benefit (http://www.askcab.co.uk/money_site/mJSA.asp)? If so do you support some form of welfare for those unable to work? Or those who are disabled?

Unable, yes.

Unwilling, no.

Part of my opposition to (or suspicion of, rather) welfare comes from my being American. Our welfare system sucks. We have lots of slobs who sit on the couch all day watching T.V., while soaking up welfare check after welfare check.

Unable, yes.

Unwilling, no.

Part of my opposition to (or suspicion of, rather) welfare comes from my being American. Our welfare system sucks. We have lots of slobs who sit on the couch all day watching T.V., while soaking up welfare check after welfare check.

But you also have single mothers forced into work-for-welfare programs who can't take care of their families properly...

But you also have single mothers forced into work-for-welfare programs who can't take care of their families properly...

Welfare to working people I have no problem with. Provided they don't use it wastefully.

Totally agree. This is a valid argument for a secure Welfare state and high taxes for Public services as well, is it not?

Some public services, yes. Secure welfare state, not so easily, unless you cite reduction of crime and the like as public benefits.

Some public services, yes. Secure welfare state, not so easily, unless you cite reduction of crime and the like as public benefits.

I see. I suppose I agree. Just wish there was an argument that one could base in 'pro bono publico' rhetoric for the welfare state beyond saying: be more altruisitic....

Good.

If people want to fund research, they can donate their own money. I don't see why people should be forced to pay.

Oh folks are going to pay one way or the other! The damage and the costs just keeps adding up with our current strategy of doing practically nothing. Did you see that massive typhoon the just hit the Philippines? link (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WEATHER/12/01/philippines.typhoon/index.html) The 4th devastsing storm to hit the area in as many months.