If you think government is necessary for x, y, or z (where x, y, or z are valuable traits), or if you believe that government is in any way desirable for non-government actors *at all*, then I'm here to answer your assertions and assumptions about why you think that way.
tomwoods.com
The pdf above lists responses to most general questions, complaints, and assertions that I generally hear.
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
im a libertarian in most cases but I still think that the government needs to protect the environment. either by active or by passive stuff like a high co2 tax.
what do hardcore libertarians have to say about this?
you won't solve global warming without state involement is all i am saying.
because
Here is an answer regarding the question of the environment.
...
...
If ya have any questions on anything there, feel free to ask 'em.
so i read this correctly the sollution to factories that emit harmful particles into the air would be to sue them?
Erect your livertarian paradise.
I flood it with statists.
Your livertarian paradise is now a totalitarian state.
In many cases that would be the case, yes. Just like if your neighbor dumps garbage on your lawn now you can take him to court or otherwise stop him or have him stopped.
There is of course obviously a cost-benefit analysis. I'm not likely to take a person to court if he throws a cigarette butt in my yard once every month - the trouble his action causes me is not worth my time to try to remedy. It's the same principle in regard to anything, including air polution.
You erect your totalitarian paradise (lol).
I flood it with libertarians.
Your totalitarian paradise (lol) is now a free society.
I don't know what point you think you have.
Quick rundown cause I don't feel like reading all that shit. I'm libertarian except for infrastructure and environmental regulations
When you think of people paying for a clean environment, remember this does not have to be done directly. It can be done indirectly though their willing to pay more for property located in areas where the environment is kept in good condition. People value clear air, clean water, untouched forestland/nature etc. and therefore such land would be snapped up by property developers and those looking for a plot to place their home.
I'd read those four pages in regard to the environment - it's very light reading.
For infrastructure, I'll post a few paragraphs in a moment. If you have any questions about them, hit me up.
Still, this one fails to explain how to regulate pollution which doeant effect someones property but the whole globe through adding up like co2
Here's the bits on infrastructure - it's addressing public goods as a whole, but the arguments made why government must to infrastructure are made on the "public good" premise - that there won't be sufficient amount of a thing provided by private enterprise, so the state must take from people and ensure that it is provided.
>roads
If something is sufficiently damaging to someone's life and property, one would imagine they would take actions against such a thing.
The issue with CO2 is that people are largely not convinced - I think for good reason - that there is sufficient reason to impose by force measures that would heavily increase their cost of living.
Roads indeed.
...
Alot of people's misunderstandings on the public good issue stems from some very fundamental mistakes in reasonings.
Thats the point, IT does no direct damage to you but to the next Generation, which is something ignorant egoists dont Care about.
Here exemplified.
All this data and referencing
Well here we can talk about it further.
I don't think much in terms of global change is going to happen. I also don't think that - even if they did - that it would be extreme enough (both in quickness of onset and in peak severity) that people couldn't adapt fairly easily (given the very gradual and slight nature of changes combined with the fact that humans very easily adapt).
Of course.
Or do you want the citations? I'm omitting them because I would have to zoom out further. You can look at them in the actual pdf if you'd like.
...
"Public goods" are a very strange thing indeed.
How about a Group of People owning big Parts of the Amazon forest deciding to destroy IT to build something on IT? Or do you think this wont have any effects on the globe either
>How about a Group of People owning big Parts of the Amazon forest deciding to destroy IT to build something on IT?
If they own property I think they can do whatever they'd like with it. I think you're implying some things about global oxygen and CO2 levels there, but you know they have a converse relation when it comes to the balance of plant life right? If you have more CO2, you get more plants. If you have more oxygen, you get less plants insofar as you're getting less CO2. Even if all the forests on earth were scrapped, we wouldn't run out of oxygen. It doesn't work like that senpai
en.wikipedia.org
>government cuts down vast areas of the forest for private profit with no profit incentive for improving the land
>it's private property that's the problem
The public goods issue has been surmised long past at this point. What I've been posting and am posting now are just pointing out the natures of some of those specific things people deem "public goods".
I feel like more attention than is deserving has been put on scientific research in its perceived capacity of being a public good than it really warrants. The academic nature of it is what pushes that as a popular go-to I think.
...and this is the last one on the topic of public goods specifically.
Happy to answer any questions.