GW is a right wing myth
chazwin
> The one valid argument leftist radicalism has had going for it lately
> is this consensus by scientists across the world on global warming and
> a supposed correlated anthropogenic [human] cause to a rise in
> atmospheric CO2.
You are conflating two issues. You are mistaken that the pro GW debate
is populated by the left whilst the deniers of anthropogenic GW are of
the right.
Nothing could be further from the truth.The numpties of GW are now in
both ends of the political spectrum.
The entire CO2 myth was stated by Thatcher and Reagan in the 1980s.
There were two main reasons for this. IN the UK Thatcher wanted an
environmental argument to break the power of the coal unions, whilst
in the US they need ammunition against the growing power of the middle
east oil interests. Both countries wished to put nuclear power on a
more positive footing and so the IPCC was founded to look at ways to
discredit Fossil fuels in general. This was aided by a growing lobby
of anti-pollution greens and interests from a burgeoning nuclear
industry.
You have only to consult the history of the IPCC to find who were the
key players in its establishment and what the terms, goals and aims
were at the time of its foundation.
As many are basically ignorant of most things I point out that IPCC is
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and that PM Thatcher and
President Reagan were both right wing leaders of the Western World.
Also for those dingbats that have been asleep on still unborn in the
1980s here is a link for you to read if you are able.
"She was a chemist, you know," says Spencer R. Weart, director of the
Center for the History of Physics at the American Institute of Physics
in College Park, Md. "Margaret Thatcher was the first major world
leader to come out and warn that climate change, that the greenhouse
effect, was a serious matter."
And another one...
http://www.margaretthatcher.org/speeches/displaydocument.asp?docid=108237
Charles Bell
> On Oct 31, 12:18 am, tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > The one valid argument leftist radicalism has had going for it lately
> > is this consensus by scientists across the world on global warming and
> > a supposed correlated anthropogenic [human] cause to a rise in
> > atmospheric CO2.
>
> You are conflating two issues. You are mistaken that the pro GW debate
> is populated by the left whilst the deniers of anthropogenic GW are of
> the right.
The left uses the GW myth to shape an international socialist
governance and the right does not.
Puppet_Sock
> You are conflating two issues. You are mistaken that the pro GW debate
> is populated by the left whilst the deniers of anthropogenic GW are of
> the right.
http://people-press.org/report/556/global-warming
Richard Dawson holds up his hand, points at the big board
and shouts: Survey says.... A rude horn goes off.
Thanks for playing.
If you are a dem, then there's a 75% chance you believe in
catastrophic
anthropogenic global warming. If you are a repub, only 35%.
Three years ago, the numbers were 91 and 59.
Pretty sure it's divided lefty-believer, non-lefty-not-so-much.
Socks
1Z
> On Nov 4, 12:36�pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> > You are conflating two issues. You are mistaken that the pro GW debate
> > is populated by the left whilst the deniers of anthropogenic GW are of
> > the right.
>
> http://people-press.org/report/556/global-warming
>
> Richard Dawson holds up his hand, points at the big board
>
> Thanks for playing.
>
> If you are a dem, then there's a 75% chance you believe in
> catastrophic
> anthropogenic global warming. If you are a repub, only 35%.
>
> Three years ago, the numbers were 91 and 59.
>
> Pretty sure it's divided lefty-believer, non-lefty-not-so-much.
> Socks
"Gallup recently released a survey showing that Republicans are much
more likely to believe in creationism--the idea that God created humans
in their present form about 10,000 years ago--than Democrats or
independents are. Notably, Republicans are also significantly more
likely to attend weekly church services, a factor that past research
has shown is tied to belief in creationism."
Puppet_Sock
[snip]
> "Gallup recently released a survey showing that Republicans are much
> more likely to believe in creationism--the idea that God created humans
Yeahupp!
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/andrewbrown/2009/nov/06/religion-atheism
And the lefties are deeply envious of the organization and commitment
they see in religion. They are desperately attempting to get in on the
deal and make it an article of faith that they must be given wider
powers
to deal with the enviro-apocalypse.
Plus, you seem to think you've posted something that is surprising to
me.
Socks
Charles Bell
> "Gallup recently released a survey showing that
. . . a socialist will have his head up his ass.
chazwin
> On Nov 4, 12:36�pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 31, 12:18 am, tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > The one valid argument leftist radicalism has had going for it lately
> > > is this consensus by scientists across the world on global warming and
> > > a supposed correlated anthropogenic [human] cause to a rise in
> > > atmospheric CO2.
>
> > You are conflating two issues. You are mistaken that the pro GW debate
> > is populated by the left whilst the deniers of anthropogenic GW are of
> > the right.
>
> The left uses the GW myth to shape an international socialist
> governance and the right does not.
Stop running around with cloth in your ears and a plug up your arse!
GW is not a left/right issue you stupid Yank.
The world is larger than the USA you moron!
ANd if you have that assumption in the US it does not follow that it
is so on the rest of the earth.
Fac ut vivas!
>
> http://thepostnemail.wordpress.com/2009/10/16/lord-monckton-copenhage...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/ygu6cg3
Charles Bell
> On Nov 6, 10:04�am, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 4, 12:36�pm, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 31, 12:18 am, tooly <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > The one valid argument leftist radicalism has had going for it lately
> > > > is this consensus by scientists across the world on global warming and
> > > > a supposed correlated anthropogenic [human] cause to a rise in
> > > > atmospheric CO2.
>
> > > You are conflating two issues. You are mistaken that the pro GW debate
> > > is populated by the left whilst the deniers of anthropogenic GW are of
> > > the right.
>
> > The left uses the GW myth to shape an international socialist
> > governance and the right does not.
>
> Stop running around with cloth in your ears and a plug up your arse!
The Treaty in Copenhagen is for the purpose of bringing down the US
economy (and your piddling euro-socialist economies as well) and
redistribution of wealth from the US to the third world. In the words
of President Potatohead himself:
"The developed nations that caused much of the damage to our climate
over the last century still have a responsibility to lead, and that
includes the United States . . . and . . wealthy nations have a
responsibility to help developing nations financially to make the
changes"
chazwin
You have failed the enlightenment test of maturity. You respond with a
childish ideological Americentric right wing knee jerk reaction
without looking at the facts.
The governments meeting in Copenhagen are wrong, not because they are
left wing but because they are just plain wrong. All of their
economies are at risk. Their leaders come from a spectrum of left and
right and centre - and quite frankly countries where your stupid left/
right distinction is meaningless and irrelevant. If you didn't have
your American head up your American arse you might be able to see
that.
Take out your butt plug and smell the coffee!
Charles Bell
> The governments meeting in Copenhagen are wrong, not because they are
> left wing but because they are just plain wrong.
To be left-wing is wrong, and they are both.
> All of their
> economies are at risk.
The Wealth of Nations is irrelevant to euro-socialists. Only social
justice is important.to them. The global warming hoax is only a means
to an end. America's problem has always been Europe. Nice music and
all that art stuff, though, for the most part.
Fred Weiss
> And the lefties are deeply envious of the organization and commitment
> they see in religion. They are desperately attempting to get in on the
> deal and make it an article of faith that they must be given wider
> powers to deal with the enviro-apocalypse.
And so they have turned AGW into their own religion - the evidence for
which is that they deny anything which questions their faith, e.g. the
undeniable cooling of the last 10yrs.
Or, just like self-flagellating monks attempt by their own individual
acts to atone for the sins of mankind, so enviroHysterics engage in
their own versions of extreme self-denial, rejecting technology in the
name of adding to the drudgery of life, deluding themselves that it
makes the slightest difference to the condition of the earth.
Fred Weiss
1Z
I can't say how devastated I am by the incisiveness of your comment.
1Z
> The Treaty in Copenhagen is for the purpose of bringing down the US
> economy
..and the Martian Illuminati are behind it all.
Idiot.
1Z
> The governments meeting in Copenhagen are wrong, not because they are
> left wing but because they are just plain wrong.
People are wrong because the evidence contradicts their beliefs.
The peer-reviewed evidence supports GW. YOu are not on the high
ground here. You reject the rightards' silly conspiracy theory, but
accept
their science-denial, which is exactly parallel in every way
to evolution-denial.
1Z
>h. the
> undeniable cooling of the last 10yrs.
One usually hot year, rather
chazwin
Adam SMith lies at the very heart of left wing politics. Your
ignorance knows no bounds.
chazwin
There is a serious problem with the GW debate, that renders peer-
reviewed "evidence" null and void. All the so-called evidence is
circumstantial and unclear, being open to a range of interpretations.
But the key problem is a huge gap on the basic physics of CO2. There
is no physics to account for how 0.01% increase in atmospheric CO2
could possibly contribute to any significant GW.
All the ice-core evidence points to CO2, not as a causal agent but as
an INDICATOR of GW. There is a marked increase in CO2 800 - 1000 years
following GW.
If you can produce evidence as to HOW the heat capacity of Carbon
might contribute significant temperature rises then you might make us
happy, but intil then you mught as well button up.
chazwin
This certainly does characterise many of the environmental movement -
mainly those that had not been listened to for 30 years. But it does
not account for the new wave of politicians that seem to have got
carried away with the idea. These I think are in the business of
playing safe and there are others that are concerned about the
conservation of oil - which IS GOING TO RUN OUT! What I think lies
behind this obsession with CO2 is not GW (as that is far from proven)
but they are guided by the importance to stimulate alternative energy
sources, and to conserve remaining oil supplies before it all runs
out.
So the hysterical 'lefty plot to destroy' civilisation, and the 'self
denial mea culpa' nutcases are basically irrelevant. We still need to
use less oil whilst we work out alternatives for the future before the
energy gap ruins the economies.
1Z
> On Nov 10, 10:01 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On 10 Nov, 00:19, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > The governments meeting in Copenhagen are wrong, not because they are
> > > left wing but because they are just plain wrong.
>
> > People are wrong because the evidence contradicts their beliefs.
>
> > The peer-reviewed evidence supports GW. YOu are not on the high
> > ground here. You reject the rightards' silly conspiracy theory, but
> > accept
> > their science-denial, which is exactly parallel in every way
> > to evolution-denial.
>
> There is a serious problem with the GW debate, that renders peer-
> reviewed "evidence" null and void. All the so-called evidence is
> circumstantial and unclear, being open to a range of interpretations.
All evidence is, full stop. The point is that the experts have come
down overwhelmingly on one interpretation and you don't know
any better than they.
> But the key problem is a huge gap on the basic physics of CO2.
Says who? You're not a physicist. CO2 is known to
absorb specific LW frequencies, leading to a greenhouse effect.
>There
> is no physics to account for how 0.01% increase in atmospheric CO2
> could possibly contribute to any significant GW.
Where did you get that figure from?
WHo sayss CO2 is the only greenhouse gas or the only forcing factor.
> All the ice-core evidence points to CO2, not as a causal agent but as
> an INDICATOR of GW. There is a marked increase in CO2 800 - 1000 years
> following GW.
> If you can produce evidence as to HOW the heat capacity of Carbon
> might contribute significant temperature rises then you might make us
> happy, but intil then you mught as well button up.
Since you are a layperson and have fallen for a common
misunderstanding your rudeness
is uncalled-for.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is an issue that is often misunderstood in the public sphere and
media, so it is worth spending some time to explain it and clarify it.
At least three careful ice core studies have shown that CO2 starts to
rise about 800 years (600-1000 years) after Antarctic temperature
during glacial terminations. These terminations are pronounced warming
periods that mark the ends of the ice ages that happen every 100,000
years or so.
Does this prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The answer is
no.
The reason has to do with the fact that the warmings take about 5000
years to be complete. The lag is only 800 years. All that the lag
shows is that CO2 did not cause the first 800 years of warming, out of
the 5000 year trend. The other 4200 years of warming could in fact
have been caused by CO2, as far as we can tell from this ice core
data.
The 4200 years of warming make up about 5/6 of the total warming. So
CO2 could have caused the last 5/6 of the warming, but could not have
caused the first 1/6 of the warming.
It comes as no surprise that other factors besides CO2 affect climate.
Changes in the amount of summer sunshine, due to changes in the
Earth's orbit around the sun that happen every 21,000 years, have long
been known to affect the comings and goings of ice ages. Atlantic
ocean circulation slowdowns are thought to warm Antarctica, also.
From studying all the available data (not just ice cores), the
probable sequence of events at a termination goes something like this.
Some (currently unknown) process causes Antarctica and the surrounding
ocean to warm. This process also causes CO2 to start rising, about 800
years later. Then CO2 further warms the whole planet, because of its
heat-trapping properties. This leads to even further CO2 release. So
CO2 during ice ages should be thought of as a "feedback", much like
the feedback that results from putting a microphone too near to a
loudspeaker.
In other words, CO2 does not initiate the warmings, but acts as an
amplifier once they are underway. From model estimates, CO2 (along
with other greenhouse gases CH4 and N2O) causes about half of the full
glacial-to-interglacial warming.
So, in summary, the lag of CO2 behind temperature doesn't tell us much
about global warming. [But it may give us a very interesting clue
about why CO2 rises at the ends of ice ages. The 800-year lag is about
the amount of time required to flush out the deep ocean through
natural ocean currents. So CO2 might be stored in the deep ocean
during ice ages, and then get released when the climate warms.]
To read more about CO2 and ice cores, see Caillon et al., 2003,
Science magazine
Guest Contributor: Jeff Severinghaus
Professor of Geosciences
Scripps Institution of Oceanography
University of California, San Diego.
Charles Bell
Adam Smith founded liberal economics. The great neo-liberals of our
time, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher, and the conservatives who
followed them in the U.S., if not in the U.K., are classical
liberals. The left-wing, in contrast, is traditional anti-liberal
totalitarianism or libertarian anarchism having sometimes only in
common with Smith his labor theory of value which has been proven
false in the "right-wing" Austrian School of economics.
Charles Bell
.
> So the hysterical 'lefty plot to destroy' civilisation, and the 'self
> denial mea culpa' nutcases are basically irrelevant. We still need to
> use less oil
Who's this "we"? You can do you want, but leave me out of your silly
lifestyle of self-abnegation.
> whilst we work out alternatives for the future
Pixie dust and puppy dog tails.
Charles Bell
I can't say how surprised I am that you can say anything with your
head up your ass.
x.
xx.
xxx.
xx.
x.
1Z
> > So the hysterical 'lefty plot to destroy' civilisation, and the 'self
> > denial mea culpa' nutcases are basically irrelevant. We still need to
> > use less oil
>
> Who's this "we"?
People who don't believe the Magic Oil Pixie is going
to keep magicing up more oil as we use it up.
1Z
> The left-wing, in contrast, is traditional anti-liberal
The mainstream left in democratic countries is
generally more liberal than the mainstream right
regarding freedom of speach, sexuallity, etc etc.
Charles Bell
The pixie dust of solar energy, for example, uses more oil and/or
fossil fuels than than it saves, as do the batteries involved in all
of those green alternatives. Only morons think that plugging their
battery-driven anything into their A/C outlet is somehow saving on
fossil fuels and that solar energy is practicable in most situations.
The free-market means AS THE PRODUCT OR COMMODITY RUNS OUT, the price
goes up and alternatives either come into existence or existing
alternatives become more feasible. The fact that the price of oil.
accounting for inflation, is still like the price it was in the early
1980's means WE ARE NOT RUNNING OUT OF OIL within the range of those
who are competent to judge the market WHEN THEY CAN SEE LITTLE NEW
GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN PRODUCING SUPPLY.
The international socialist push for energy alternatives has only one
purpose: to destroy the U.S. economy by replacing effective, efficient
and cheap energy with ineffective, inefficient and expensive energy.
1Z
> The pixie dust of solar energy, for example, uses more oil and/or
> fossil fuels than than it saves,
That is false.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------
Energy Payback Times for Photovoltaic Technologies
Energy payback time (EPBT) is the length of deployment required for a
photovoltaic system to generate an amount of energy equal to the total
energy that went into its production. Roof-mounted photovoltaic
systems have impressively low energy payback times, as documented by
recent (year 2004) engineering studies. The value of EPBT is dependent
on three factors: (i) the conversion efficiency of the photovoltaic
system; (ii) the amount of illumination (insolation) that the system
receives (about 1700 kWh/m2/yr average for southern Europe and about
1800 kWh/m2/yr average for the United States); and (iii) the
manufacturing technology that was used to make the photovoltaic
(solar) cells.
With respect to the third factor, i.e., manufacturing technology,
there are three generic approaches for manufacturing commercial solar
cells. The most common approach is to process discrete cells on wafers
sawed from silicon ingots. Ingots can be either single-crystal or
multicrystalline. However, in either case, the growing and sawing of
ingots is a highly energy intensive process. A more recent approach
which saves energy is to process discrete cells on silicon wafers cut
from multicrystalline ribbons. The third approach involves the
deposition of thin layers of non-crystalline-silicon materials on
inexpensive substrates. It is the least energy intensive of the three
generic manufacturing approaches for commercial photovoltaics. This
last group of technologies includes amorphous silicon cells deposited
on stainless-steel ribbon, cadmium telluride (CdTe) cells deposited on
glass, and copper indium gallium diselenide (CIGS) alloy cells
deposited on either glass or stainless steel substrates.
Recent research has established battery-free, grid-tied EPBT system
values for several (year 2004-early 2005) photovoltaic module
technologies (see Table 1). In Table 1, the values in the last column
are the reciprocals of the respective values in the third column. It
is seen that, even for the most energy intensive of these four common
photovoltaic technologies, the energy required for producing the
system does not exceed 10% of the total energy generated by the system
during its anticipated operational lifetime. Future research will
extend the table to include amorphous silicon and CIGS alloys.
Table 1. System Energy Payback Times for Several Different
Photovoltaic Module Technologies.
(1700 kWh/m2/yr insolation and 75% performance ratio for the system
compared to the module.)
Cell Technology Energy Payback Time (EPBT)1 (yr) Energy Used to
Produce System Compared to Total Generated
Energy 2 (%) Total Energy Generated by System Divided by Amount of
Energy Used to Produce System2
Single-crystal silicon 2.7 10.0 10
Non-ribbon multicrystalline silicon 2.2 8.1 12
Ribbon multicrystalline silicon 1.7 6.3 16
Cadmium telluride 1.0 3.7 27
1Z
> accounting for inflation, is still like the price it was in the early
> 1980's means WE ARE NOT RUNNING OUT OF OIL
This fact means we are:
"During the 1920s, 50 barrels of crude oil were extracted for every
barrel of crude used in the extraction and refining process. Today
only 5 barrels are harvested for every barrel used. When the net
energy gain of an energy source reaches zero, then the source is no
longer contributing energy to an economy".
1Z
> GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN PRODUCING SUPPLY.
What about the "goverment interference" that consists of
heavily subsidising the oil industry?
http://cleantech.com/news/node/554
http://domesticfuel.com/2009/09/18/report-finds-oil-subsidies-higher-than-et
hanol/
Jim Klein
> "During the 1920s, 50 barrels of crude oil were extracted for every
> barrel of crude used in the extraction and refining process. Today
> only 5 barrels are harvested for every barrel used.
Sorry if I missed it, but what's the source for this?
> When the net
> energy gain of an energy source reaches zero, then the source is no
> longer contributing energy to an economy".
It is, if the energy sought is human power over others!
Indeed, if you'd think about it a bit, you'd discover that
utter waste and lack of progress are the inevitable
result of the sorts of policies you advocate.
You see, when an action is productive, humans
gravitate to it, to make it more and more productive.
When it's zero, there's nothing to do except hope
that something or someone else will take care of
it. You sort of like it that way, don't you?
I've spent over a half-hour trying to figure out
what you're saying underneath, in these umpteen
defenses of me taking care of everyone else and
everyone else taking care of me. Y'know, the
forest that the trees comprise. The best I've got
so far is, "I am persuaded by all these arguments,
and so I have sufficiently excused the plain and
simple truth that I shouldn't take from others."
The incredible irony is that the supposed moral
defense is in the exclusivity of "helping others"
being the only ultimate moral good!
I want absolutely nothing from you, in the physical
world. It just doesn't work the other way around,
does iit?
jk
1Z
> Indeed, if you'd think about it a bit, you'd discover that
> utter waste and lack of progress are the inevitable
> result of the sorts of policies you advocate.
I advocate the sort of policies that have
led the countries of Western Europe into
being wealthy and pleasant places to live.
> You see, when an action is productive, humans
> gravitate to it, to make it more and more productive.
As opposed to what? Where ever did I say
no-one should ever produce?
> When it's zero, there's nothing to do except hope
> that something or someone else will take care of
> it. You sort of like it that way, don't you?
We are not immortal robots. The facts of
biology mean we all need help from time
to time.
> I've spent over a half-hour trying to figure out
> what you're saying underneath, in these umpteen
> defenses of me taking care of everyone else and
> everyone else taking care of me.
I have not put things in such terms. Why
don't you spend some time thinking about
my words and not your own inaccurate paraphrases?
> The incredible irony is that the supposed moral
> defense is in the exclusivity of "helping others"
> being the only ultimate moral good!
I have never said anythign of the kind.
chazwin
Do you have children? Have you any concern for future generations of
AMericans, or would you rather consign the future history to the stone
age?
Just asking.
Charles Bell
> On 10 Nov, 12:17, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > The pixie dust of solar energy, for example, uses more oil and/or
> > fossil fuels than than it saves,
>
> That is false.
You are not competent to engage this debate with me. Perhaps you would
like to contact BP, Shell and Exxon who have spent in vain a decade
and billions of dollars to make the technology work profitably and
now, like GE with solar power, are waiting for the government
subsidies to come in.
Charles Bell
> On 10 Nov, 12:17, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN PRODUCING SUPPLY.
>
> What about the "goverment interference" that consists of
> heavily subsidising the oil industry?
>
"Heavily subsidizing the oil industy" has meant from time to time not
taxing the snot out them for no good reason other than they are an
easy target.
> http://cleantech.com/news/node/554
>
"Construction and protection of the nation's highway system" That's a
good one! Maybe Exxon needs to convince the state Alabama to legalize
dildos to increase artificially the demand for petroleum by-products.
Charles Bell
Actually. I have greater concern for puppy dog tails than any future
generations of little American parasites and their socialist parasites
on parasitism.
1Z
> On Nov 10, 8:56�am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On 10 Nov, 12:17, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > The pixie dust of solar energy, for example, uses more oil and/or
> > > fossil fuels than than it saves,
It's still false.
Tomm Carr
> On 10 Nov, 10:42, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> There is a serious problem with the GW debate, that renders peer-
>> reviewed "evidence" null and void. All the so-called evidence is
>> circumstantial and unclear, being open to a range of interpretations.
This sounds a lot like the reply some people make when they have no
logical basis for their beliefs so they attack logic.
> All evidence is, full stop. The point is that the experts have come
> down overwhelmingly on one interpretation and you don't know
> any better than they.
You should check your premises -- and your facts. There happens to be a
lively debate among climate experts concerning GW and there is nowhere
near a consensus. In fact, many of the scientists who's signatures
appear on the UN study have become upset that their names were used to
imply agreement with the conclusions of that report.
Some years ago you heard enough what you thought was enough evidence to
convince you of rightness of one side of the debate. I reached the same
conclusion at about the same time, as many of us did. But we kept our
minds open and allowed subsequent facts to enter. Yes, that is a
dangerous practice. It many times lead us to have to admit, "Oops, I was
wrong." But that's alright -- it keeps us humble.
One mistake I never made, however, is to base any of my beliefs on the
number of "experts" amassed on one side or the other. The history of
science is too full of examples of how this is a huge mistake.
--
Tomm Catt
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In
practice, there is.
Jim Klein
> > Indeed, if you'd think about it a bit, you'd discover that
> > utter waste and lack of progress are the inevitable
> > result of the sorts of policies you advocate.
>
> I advocate the sort of policies that have
> led the countries of Western Europe into
> being wealthy and pleasant places to live.
What's the problem...world isn't big enough?
I'm from the States and I advocate the sort
of policies that led the US into being wealthy
and a pleasant place to live.
I've known folks from Africa who would say the
same things about their countries.
But none of that gets to the issue, does it? It's
just as I said...YOU need something from others,
even as they need nothing from you. Or at least
some of us, anyway.
> > You see, when an action is productive, humans
> > gravitate to it, to make it more and more productive.
>
> As opposed to what?
As opposed to being pushed to it.
> Where ever did I say
> no-one should ever produce?
Ha...that's a good one. No doubt you think
they should produce ever more! Our
disagreement is about who should receive
the results of that production.
It's sort of obvious to me..."the guy who
does the production." But apparently
there's a lot more to it---a whole bunch of
words and arguments and fantasies. And
somehow at the end, it comes out, "It's
alright to take things from other people."
> > When it's zero, there's nothing to do except hope
> > that something or someone else will take care of
> > it. You sort of like it that way, don't you?
>
> We are not immortal robots. The facts of
> biology mean we all need help from time
> to time.
As if this were under dispute. What's under
dispute is, "So, therefore what?"
Personally, I think the answer is, "So, help 'em,"
and I do and I will. Look how generous I am
with you; you can imagine how I am with
someone who didn't choose to be messed up!
> > I've spent over a half-hour trying to figure out
> > what you're saying underneath, in these umpteen
> > defenses of me taking care of everyone else and
> > everyone else taking care of me.
>
> I have not put things in such terms.
Why no, of course not. That's why I like to
focus on the referents and I have nailed the
same referent with my verbiage as you do
with yours.
If I'm wrong, then please explain clearly. In what
manner do you not advocate a world (if that's
the right word!) where everyone takes care of
everyone else?
Even that's alright with me BTW. Go for it. Go
live in France and enjoy wine and cheese and
tax the shit out of each other while you pretend
everyone's producing. Maybe the US will still
be available in case another Hitler rolls around.
That's cool. Or go to Rhodesia or whatever it's
called these days, to see how the people take
care of each other, without the mean old farmer
taking profits and building generations of wealth.
Have at it. All I'm saying is stop pretending that
you're offering anything but taking something
from other people and distributing in some way
that you find justified for some reason (and I
know that's not the right word!).
Oh, and I'm saying one more thing. Count me out.
> Why
> don't you spend some time thinking about
> my words and not your own inaccurate paraphrases?
Yeah, okay. I'll try to play closer attention.
> > The incredible irony is that the supposed moral
> > defense is in the exclusivity of "helping others"
> > being the only ultimate moral good!
>
> I have never said anythign of the kind.
Oh, that's nice. So what is the ultimate moral good
to you, and roughly where does "helping others" fall?
jk
Tomm Carr
>
> And so they have turned AGW into their own religion
http://tinyurl.com/y87g2nb
"Als Gore's much-anticipated sequel to An Inconvenient Truth is
published today, with an admission that facts alone will not persuade
Americans to act on global warming and that appealing to their spiritual
side is the way forward."
http://tinyurl.com/yexj5fu
"In a landmark ruling, Mr Justice Michael Burton said that 'a belief in
man-made climate change ... is capable, if genuinely held, of being a
philosophical belief for the purpose of the 2003 Religion and Belief
Regulations.'"
1Z
> 1Z wrote:
> > On 10 Nov, 10:42, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> There is a serious problem with the GW debate, that renders peer-
> >> circumstantial and unclear, being open to a range of interpretations.
>
> This sounds a lot like the reply some people make when they have no
> logical basis for their beliefs so they attack logic.
>
> > All evidence is, full stop. The point is that the experts have come
> > down overwhelmingly on one interpretation and you don't know
> > any better than they.
>
> You should check your premises -- and your facts. There happens to be a
> lively debate among climate experts concerning GW and there is nowhere
> near a consensus.
"Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing
has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-
committal positions.!
> In fact, many of the scientists who's signatures
> appear on the UN study have become upset that their names were used to
> imply agreement with the conclusions of that report.
Pfft. Creationists are always saying they have lots of support in
science.
If you *quantify" the claim, it turns out to be false.
http://www.skepticwiki.org/index.php/Evolution_is_losing_support_among_scientists
"As to whether the small number of people on these lists really
represent how tiny the support is for creationism among scientists,
the magazine Newsweek reported in 1987: "By one count there are some
700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total
of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who ascribed to Biblically
literal creationism." [5]. That would be a little over 0.1%. "
"You need two qualifications to sign the petition. First, you must
have a Ph.D. in biology, geology, paleontology, or a related
scientific field. And secondly, you must be called Steve. or other
variants on the name, i.e. Stephen, Steven, Stephanie, or Stefan. At
the time of writing, there are over a thousand "Steves" on the list,
outnumbering by ten to one or more the creationists with similarly
relevant qualifications appearing on the creationists' lists. "
SO how about quantifying *your* "many".
> Some years ago you heard enough what you thought was enough evidence to
> convince you of rightness of one side of the debate. I reached the same
> conclusion at about the same time, as many of us did.
The consensus has firmed up since then.
"A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at Earth
and Environmental Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago received
replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were
analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists
who "listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also
have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on
the subject of climate change" believe that mean global temperatures
have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and 75 out of 77 believe that
human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global
temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have
risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans
significantly influence the global temperature. Petroleum geologists
and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47
percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.
A summary from the survey states that:
"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming
and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among
those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term
climate processes."[84]"
>But we kept our
> minds open and allowed subsequent facts to enter. Yes, that is a
> dangerous practice. It many times lead us to have to admit, "Oops, I was
> wrong." But that's alright -- it keeps us humble.
>
> One mistake I never made, however, is to base any of my beliefs on the
> number of "experts" amassed on one side or the other.
What do you do instead? Stay non-commital? Use your own judgement
as a single non-expert? How rational is it to believe that
1 non-expert is more likely to be right than N experts?
>The history of
> science is too full of examples of how this is a huge mistake.
History is full of examples of experts getting it wrong. However,
it is a crashing fallacy to suppose that that means that expertise
should be ignored. Expertise is not guaranteed to be correct, it is
just
more likely to be, and non-experts are no smarter.
1Z
> On Nov 10, 12:57 pm, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > �I advocate the sort of policies that have
> > led the countries of Western Europe into
> > being wealthy and pleasant places to live.
>
> What's the problem...world isn't big enough?
You don't advocate anything?
> I'm from the States and I advocate the sort
> of policies that led the US into being wealthy
> and a pleasant place to live.
No. The US is a mixed economy. You want
to implement the kind of government Somalia
has.
> I've known folks from Africa who would say the
> same things about their countries.
There are objective measures.
> But none of that gets to the issue, does it? �It's
> just as I said...YOU need something from others,
> even as they need nothing from you. �Or at least
> some of us, anyway.
Inaccurate again.
> > As opposed to what?
>
> As opposed to being pushed to it.
Nothing to do with what I have said.
> Ha...that's a good one. �No doubt you think
> they should produce ever more! �Our
> disagreement is about who should receive
> the results of that production.
>
> It's sort of obvious to me..."the guy who
> does the production." �But apparently
> there's a lot more to it---a whole bunch of
> words and arguments and fantasies. �And
> somehow at the end, it comes out, "It's
> alright to take things from other people."
It's better than leaving people to die, yes.
You seem determined to ignore the nuances and
translate everything into black-and0-white terms.
> > We are not immortal robots. The facts of
> > biology mean we all need help from time
> > to time.
>
> As if this were under dispute. �What's under
> dispute is, "So, therefore what?"
So you are going against these facts when
you insist that you never have and never will
need help.
> Personally, I think the answer is, "So, help 'em,"
> and I do and I will. �Look how generous I am
> with you; you can imagine how I am with
> someone who didn't choose to be messed up!
"Them". That's your fallacy. You think you
are exempt from having needs.
> > I have not put things in such terms.
>
> Why no, of course not. �That's why I like to
> focus on the referents and I have nailed the
> same referent with my verbiage as you do
> with yours.
No.
> If I'm wrong, then please explain clearly. �In what
> manner do you not advocate a world (if that's
> the right word!) where everyone takes care of
> everyone else?
I approve of some forms of welfare and redistribution
and disapprove of others. I can't answer
a question phrased in terms of a non-specific
"taking care".
> Even that's alright with me BTW. �Go for it. �Go
> live in France and enjoy wine and cheese and
> tax the shit out of each other while you pretend
> everyone's producing.
It's the fifth largest economy in the
world. You and your black-and-white....
>�Maybe the US will still
> be available in case another Hitler rolls around.
Oh good grief...
> That's cool. �Or go to Rhodesia or whatever it's
> called these days, to see how the people take
> care of each other, without the mean old farmer
> taking profits and building generations of wealth.
"Western Europe" remember...
sheesh, have you got any idea at all
how to conduct a debate?
> Have at it. �All I'm saying is stop pretending that
> you're offering anything but taking something
> from other people and distributing in some way
> that you find justified for some reason (and I
> know that's not the right word!).
I never have. It is your schtick that taxation
is an absolute evil. I have argued that it
is not.
> Oh, and I'm saying one more thing. �Count me out.
Of taxation? Where are you going to move
to, then?
> > > The �incredible irony is that the supposed moral
> > > defense is in the exclusivity of "helping others"
> > > being the only ultimate moral good!
>
> > I have never said anythign of the kind.
>
> Oh, that's nice. �So what is the ultimate moral good
> to you,
Preserving life.
> and roughly where does "helping others" fall?
I could volunteer to mow my neighbour's lawn, but then he
could do it for himself. There is no life issue there.
Fred Weiss
> ...there are others that are concerned about the
> conservation of oil - which IS GOING TO RUN OUT! ... So the hysterical 'lefty plot to destroy' civilisation, and the 'self
> denial mea culpa' nutcases are basically irrelevant. We still need to
> use less oil whilst we work out alternatives for the future before the
> energy gap ruins the economies.
Oh, but we are clearly NOT running out, nor will we for the
foreseeable future.
Massive new discoveries, adding to known reserves, have been
discovered (as they always have) in this instance with the application
of new technologies, e.g. deep water drilling.
It's irrelevant anyway because the free market would take care of any
impending shortage by raising prices thus encouraging the pursuit of
substitutes. I would not care to guess what those substitutes might be
and it is profoundly mistaken (and immoral) for the gov't to get
involved in subsidizing one or the other. It is also totally
unnecessary. As the price of oil rose, there would be massive
investment in such substitutes, and the best and/or most practical
would win.
It's a total non-issue.
We agree on AGW but disagree here because you are a Marxist - a
Marxist of the old school (vs. the "new left" hippies) who doesn't
want to hinder technology, but still a Marxist. Therefore you don't
understand how the free market works.
Fred Weiss
Charles Bell
Thomas Edison and George Westinghouse saved more lives than Mother
Teresa and Joseph Stalin.
Charles Bell
Says the one who thinks anthropogenic global warming is real.
1Z
> On Nov 10, 5:51 am, chazwin <chazwy...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > ...there are others that are concerned about the
> > conservation of oil - which IS GOING TO RUN OUT! ... So the hysterical
> > 'lefty plot to destroy' civilisation, and the 'self
> > denial mea culpa' nutcases are basically irrelevant. We still need to
> > use less oil whilst we work out alternatives for the future before the
> > energy gap ruins the economies.
>
> Oh, but we are clearly NOT running out, nor will we for the
> foreseeable future.
>
> Massive new discoveries, adding to known reserves, have been
> discovered (as they always have) in this instance with the application
> of new technologies, e.g. deep water drilling.
World wide oil discoveries have been less than annual production since
1980.[6] According to several sources, worldwide production is past or
near its maximum.[5][6][7][8] World population has grown faster than
oil production. Because of this, oil production per capita peaked in
1979 (preceded by a plateau during the period of 1973-1979).[24]
The increasing investment in harder-to-reach oil is a sign of oil
companies' belief in the end of easy oil.[36] Additionally, while it
is widely believed that increased oil prices spur an increase in
production, an increasing number of oil industry insiders are now
coming to believe that even with higher prices, oil production is
unlikely to increase significantly beyond its current level. Among the
reasons cited are both geological factors as well as "above ground"
factors that are likely to see oil production plateau near its current
level.[70]
Recent work points to the difficulty of increasing production even
with vastly increased investment in exploration and production, at
least in mature petroleum regions. A 2008 Journal of Energy Security
analysis of the energy return on drilling effort in the United States
points to an extremely limited potential to increase production of
both gas and (especially) oil. By looking at the historical response
of production to variation in drilling effort, this analysis showed
very little increase of production attributable to increased drilling.
This was due to a tight quantitative relationship of diminishing
returns with increasing drilling effort: as drilling effort increased,
the energy obtained per active drill rig was reduced according to a
severely diminishing power law. This fact means that even an enormous
increase of drilling effort is unlikely to lead to significantly
increased oil and gas production in a mature petroleum region like the
United States.[71]
> It's irrelevant anyway because the free market would take care of any
> impending shortage by raising prices thus encouraging the pursuit of
> substitutes. I would not care to guess what those substitutes might be
> and it is profoundly mistaken (and immoral) for the gov't to get
> involved in subsidizing one or the other.
It's already subsidising conventional energy so it's already immoral.
1Z
Fine. I'm not a communist or a back-to-nature hippy.
1Z
Says the one who can tell the difference between
scientific fact and political plemic.
You should try it some time.
Fred Weiss
> Recent work points to the difficulty of increasing production even
> with vastly increased investment in exploration and production, ...
Don't be dizzy, Izzy.
"A careful examination of the facts shows that most arguments about
peak oil are based on anecdotal information, vague references and
ignorance of how the oil industry goes about finding fields and
extracting petroleum. And this has been demonstrated over and over
again..."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/25/opinion/25lynch.html?_r=4&th&emc=th
Fred Weiss
Jim Klein
> > On Nov 10, 12:57 pm, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > I advocate the sort of policies that have
> > > led the countries of Western Europe into
> > > being wealthy and pleasant places to live.
>
> > What's the problem...world isn't big enough?
>
> You don't advocate anything?
I advocate plenty of things, just not taking from others.
> > I'm from the States and I advocate the sort
> > of policies that led the US into being wealthy
> > and a pleasant place to live.
>
> No. The US is a mixed economy. You want
> to implement the kind of government Somalia
> has.
Implement? Stuck in a rut there, are you?
You must be falling against the ropes, since you're
chock full of misrepresentations in this post.
I wrote, "I advocate the sort of policies that led the US
into being wealthy and a pleasant place to live."
And I do, even as I stand against their coercive
implementation. Rand covered all this adequately.
The US was a place where the individual may do
pretty much anything not prohibited by law and
the State may do nothing except that which is
explicitly permitted. This was even codified, in
the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
Now, it's exactly reversed. Citizens must engage
virtually every act in compliance with a myriad of
regulations and taxes...if not of themselves, then of
the parties with whom they are dealing. Meanwhile,
Govco employees run rampant, basically unchecked,
with crimes from fraud, embezzlement and theft to
outright brutality and imprisonment for victimless
crimes. Such is your "mixed economy."
> > I've known folks from Africa who would say the
> > same things about their countries.
>
> There are objective measures.
Hahahahaha. Lemme guess---voting is one of them?
> > But none of that gets to the issue, does it? It's
> > just as I said...YOU need something from others,
> > even as they need nothing from you. Or at least
> > some of us, anyway.
>
> Inaccurate again.
How is it inaccurate?
> > > As opposed to what?
>
> > As opposed to being pushed to it.
>
> Nothing to do with what I have said.
It answered your question. Check the record.
> > Ha...that's a good one. No doubt you think
> > they should produce ever more! Our
> > disagreement is about who should receive
> > the results of that production.
>
> > It's sort of obvious to me..."the guy who
> > does the production." But apparently
> > there's a lot more to it---a whole bunch of
> > words and arguments and fantasies. And
> > somehow at the end, it comes out, "It's
> > alright to take things from other people."
>
> It's better than leaving people to die, yes.
See? There you go. Just call some people not
having a claim on others "leaving people to
die," and voila...you've got a fresh pre-packaged
excuse to take things from others.
Unless my memory fails, Q.E.D.
> You seem determined to ignore the nuances and
> translate everything into black-and0-white terms.
No, you like to pretend that simple black-and-white
facts are actually so "nuanced" that they're not
even facts!
> > > We are not immortal robots. The facts of
> > > biology mean we all need help from time
> > > to time.
>
> > As if this were under dispute. What's under
> > dispute is, "So, therefore what?"
>
> So you are going against these facts when
> you insist that you never have and never will
> need help.
I have never insisted any such thing. For various
reasons, me and mine happen to need far more
help than the average guy. Doesn't matter---it
still doesn't create some claim of mine on others.
It's not right to take from others. This is a simple
moral principle derived from other simple moral
principles. Yet still, you think you've trumped it
by finding a bunch of words to invalidate it.
Do you have kids? If you did, would you teach them
that it's not right to take from others, but there are
various exceptions? Then what...the dribble about
"helping others" or "not leaving people to die."
Will you teach them that with enough Govco control,
and enough people claiming other people's lives, that
people will no longer die?
Might as well, the other stuff is so crazy!
> > Personally, I think the answer is, "So, help 'em,"
> > and I do and I will. Look how generous I am
> > with you; you can imagine how I am with
> > someone who didn't choose to be messed up!
>
> "Them". That's your fallacy. You think you
> are exempt from having needs.
What in the world are you talking about? I have
all sorts of needs, from air to water to food and more.
I am saying, "Get the hell out of the way, so people
may fill their needs...AS RATIONAL HUMANS."
> > > I have not put things in such terms.
>
> > Why no, of course not. That's why I like to
> > focus on the referents and I have nailed the
> > same referent with my verbiage as you do
> > with yours.
>
> No.
Oh. Then you can explain this...
> > If I'm wrong, then please explain clearly. In what
> > manner do you not advocate a world (if that's
> > the right word!) where everyone takes care of
> > everyone else?
>
> I approve of some forms of welfare and redistribution
> and disapprove of others. I can't answer
> a question phrased in terms of a non-specific
> "taking care".
Uh huh. So on what basis do you distinguish the
two classes? If it feels like it's "leaving people to
die," then it's okay...is that it?
Did it ever occur to you that sucking the productive
ability from individuals in pursuit of that ever-ethereal
"common good" and "benefit to all" and all that other
claptrap, actually CAUSES people to die?
Well, it should because that's exactly what happens.
There are always people at the edge, and any amount
of coercive taking will always cause some people to
not be able to fulfill their needs any longer. So they die.
How come you don't care about THEM?
> > Even that's alright with me BTW. Go for it. Go
> > live in France and enjoy wine and cheese and
> > tax the shit out of each other while you pretend
> > everyone's producing.
>
> It's the fifth largest economy in the
> world. You and your black-and-white....
>
> > Maybe the US will still
> > be available in case another Hitler rolls around.
>
> Oh good grief...
Oh, I'm sorry. History isn't my specialty...did I
get that wrong? It didn't happen?
> > That's cool. Or go to Rhodesia or whatever it's
> > called these days, to see how the people take
> > care of each other, without the mean old farmer
> > taking profits and building generations of wealth.
>
> "Western Europe" remember...
>
> sheesh, have you got any idea at all
> how to conduct a debate?
Sure...just let your words and ideas come to light.
It's the FACTS that have you against the ropes, not me.
> > Have at it. All I'm saying is stop pretending that
> > you're offering anything but taking something
> > from other people and distributing in some way
> > that you find justified for some reason (and I
> > know that's not the right word!).
>
> I never have. It is your schtick that taxation
> is an absolute evil. I have argued that it
> is not.
IOW it's sometimes good, right? So when it's good,
is it not "taking something from other people and
distributing in some way that you find justified..."?
If not, how not? If it is, then that's what I thought.
> > Oh, and I'm saying one more thing. Count me out.
>
> Of taxation? Where are you going to move
> to, then?
I was speaking to you, not 5 million bureaucrats
and armed officers.
> > > > The incredible irony is that the supposed moral
> > > > defense is in the exclusivity of "helping others"
> > > > being the only ultimate moral good!
>
> > > I have never said anythign of the kind.
>
> > Oh, that's nice. So what is the ultimate moral good
> > to you,
>
> Preserving life.
Period? Should we take everyone's earnings to keep some
sick dog alive? Why not?
What PRINCIPLE do you use to determine when the extorted
loot is the right amount for the right purpose? Vote? Feeling?
> > and roughly where does "helping others" fall?
>
> I could volunteer to mow my neighbour's lawn, but then he
> could do it for himself. There is no life issue there.
There are lots of people who could die from mowing their
own lawn...some do, in fact.
So now, all you've got to do is explain how to distinguish
that event from the events that you say justify taking
that which belongs to others.
Piece of cake, I'm sure. Imagine how many you'll persuade.
jk
1Z
> On Nov 11, 4:48 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 10, 12:57 pm, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > �I advocate the sort of policies that have
> > > > led the countries of Western Europe into
> > > > being wealthy and pleasant places to live.
>
> > > What's the problem...world isn't big enough?
>
> > You don't advocate anything?
>
> I advocate plenty of things, just not taking from others.
Even if it would save lives?
> > > I'm from the States and I advocate the sort
> > > of policies that led the US into being wealthy
> > > and a pleasant place to live.
>
> > No. The US is a mixed economy. You want
> > to implement the kind of government Somalia
> > has.
>
> Implement? �Stuck in a rut there, are you?
>
> You must be falling against the ropes, since you're
> chock full of misrepresentations in this post.
>
> I wrote, "I advocate the sort of policies that led the US
> into being wealthy and a pleasant place to live."
So you're not an Objectvist or a Libertarian ---
someone who wants to radically transform the US into
a zero-tax, miniscule-government nation?
You're just a happy taxpayer arguing about the details
of the mixed economy? Fine!
> And I do, even as I stand against their coercive
> implementation. �Rand covered all this adequately.
> The US was a place where the individual may do
> pretty much anything not prohibited by law and
> the State may do nothing except that which is
> explicitly permitted. �This was even codified, in
> the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
So are lots of western-style democracies.
Do you actually want to see change. or what?
> Now, it's exactly reversed. �Citizens must engage
> virtually every act in compliance with a myriad of
> regulations and taxes...
Acting within the law is exactly the same thing a
as complying with regulations.
>if not of themselves, then of
> the parties with whom they are dealing. �Meanwhile,
> Govco employees run rampant, basically unchecked,
> with crimes from fraud, embezzlement and theft to
> outright brutality and imprisonment for victimless
> crimes. �Such is your "mixed economy."
Errr... could you tell me when the
Golden Age was, exactly?
> > > I've known folks from Africa who would say the
> > > same things about their countries.
>
> > There are objective measures.
>
> Hahahahaha. �Lemme guess---voting is one of them?
No, and you have nothing better than
my objective measures.
> > > But none of that gets to the issue, does it? �It's
> > > just as I said...YOU need something from others,
> > > even as they need nothing from you. �Or at least
> > > some of us, anyway.
>
> > Inaccurate again.
>
> How is it inaccurate?
I need something from them, and they need something
from me.
> > > > As opposed to what?
>
> > > As opposed to being pushed to it.
>
> > Nothing to do with what I have said.
>
> It answered your question. �Check the record.
What "pushing" have I been advocating
> > It's better than leaving people to die, yes.
>
> See? �There you go. �Just call some people not
> having a claim on others "leaving people to
> die," and voila...you've got a fresh pre-packaged
> excuse to take things from others.
They do have a claim on others. The taking
is the lesser of the two evils by far.
> Unless my memory fails, Q.E.D.
You keep writing as ig your freedom-is-paramount
claim is a fact. It isn't. This debate is a debate
about freedom-is-paramount vs. life-is-paramount.
> > > > We are not immortal robots. The facts of
> > > > biology mean we all need help from time
> > > > to time.
>
> > > As if this were under dispute. �What's under
> > > dispute is, "So, therefore what?"
>
> > So you are going against these facts when
> > you insist that you never have and never will
> > need help.
>
> I have never insisted any such thing.
>�For various
> reasons, me and mine happen to need far more
> help than the average guy. �Doesn't matter---it
> still doesn't create some claim of mine on others.
I wonder if you will pursue that through to the
point of starvation. Not many would.
> It's not right to take from others. �
It's not right to let others die of neglect.
>This is a simple
> moral principle
The key word is "a".
You have not demonstrated it is *the* supreme principle.
> derived from other simple moral
> principles. �Yet still, you think you've trumped it
> by finding a bunch of words to invalidate it.
All arguments use words.
> Do you have kids? �If you did, would you teach them
> that it's not right to take from others, but there are
> various exceptions? �Then what...the dribble about
> "helping others" or "not leaving people to die."
Yes, sure. Life is more important than possessions and
money. Let's say you had a choice between:
a) stealing a car in order to rush a seriously ill person to hospital
and
b) letting them die
what would you do?
> Will you teach them that with enough Govco control,
> and enough people claiming other people's lives, that
> people will no longer die?
No, that;'s another silly exageration.
> > "Them". That's your fallacy. You think you
> > are exempt from having needs.
>
> What in the world are you talking about? �I have
> all sorts of needs, from air to water to food and more.
>
> I am saying, "Get the hell out of the way, so people
> may fill their needs...AS RATIONAL HUMANS."
Am I still supposed to get out of your way when
you lose your legs or your mind? Have you ever
seen a very elderly person?
> > I approve of some forms of welfare and redistribution
> > and disapprove of others. I can't answer
> > a question phrased in terms of a non-specific
> > "taking care".
>
> Uh huh. �So on what basis do you distinguish the
> two classes? �If it feels like it's "leaving people to
> die," then it's okay...is that it?
Who said anything about feeling?
> Did it ever occur to you that sucking the productive
> ability from individuals in pursuit of that ever-ethereal
> "common good" and "benefit to all" and all that other
> claptrap, actually CAUSES people to die?
Did it occur to you to look at the evidence?
THe US has poorer longevity figures than the
kinds of society I am advocating.
> Well, it should because that's exactly what happens.
Evidence, please?
> There are always people at the edge, and any amount
> of coercive taking will always cause some people to
> not be able to fulfill their needs any longer. �So they die.
a) you shouldn't be proposing a theoretical argument above
empirical evidence
b) it's a stupid argument. "Any amount"? SInce when
did taking $10 form amillionaire lead to his death?
3. Law of diminishing marginal utility: Consuming more of a
product within a given period will at some
point result in diminishing marginal utility.
a. Disutility results when total satisfaction decreases
with the consumption of an additional unit.
b. A person can eat only so many hot dogs before they
get sick.
> How come you don't care about THEM?
The situation does not arise.
> > > Maybe the US will still
> > > be available in case another Hitler rolls around.
>
> > Oh good grief...
>
> Oh, I'm sorry. �History isn't my specialty...did I
> get that wrong? �It didn't happen?
"Anther Hitler" didn't happen??
Lemmesee...there's the various the fascist dicators
in South America that the US used to support...
.
There's Saddam, who the US supported and then
deposed....
There's Pol Pot , whom the US supported
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Global_Secrets_Lies/Friends_PolPot.html
etc. etc, etc
> > I never have. It is your schtick that taxation
> > is an absolute evil. I have argued that it
> > is not.
>
> IOW it's sometimes good, right? �
Right.
>So when it's good,
> is it not "taking something from other people and
> distributing in some way that you find justified..."?
It is exactly that, and it really is justified.
> If not, how not? �If it is, then that's what I thought.
>
> > > Oh, and I'm saying one more thing. �Count me out.
>
> > Of taxation? Where are you going to move
> > to, then?
>
> I was speaking to you, not 5 million bureaucrats
> and armed officers.
Evasion. Tell me the country that is tax-free,
and which a sane person would want to live in.
DOn't tell me how you intend to
get there.
> > > Oh, that's nice. �So what is the ultimate moral good
> > > to you,
>
> > Preserving life.
>
> Period? �Should we take everyone's earnings to keep some
> sick dog alive? �Why not?
We should not take their earnings to the point
that it endagers their lives.
> What PRINCIPLE do you use to determine when the extorted
> loot is the right amount for the right purpose? �Vote? �Feeling?
Yeah, democracy. What principle do use to determine
that you would rather spend money on yourself than
save someone's life?
> > > �and roughly where does "helping others" fall?
>
> > I could volunteer to mow my neighbour's lawn, but then he
> > could do it for himself. There is no life issue there.
>
> There are lots of people who could die from mowing their
> own lawn...some do, in fact.
*I* could die mowing his lawn.
> So now, all you've got to do is explain how to distinguish
> that event from the events that you say justify taking
> that which belongs to others.
Some discernible degree of likelihood!
Tomm Carr
> "It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming
> and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among
> those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term
> climate processes."[84]"
This statement is so obviously false that it tends to take ones breath
away. It ranks up there with the Iraqi official claiming the US forces
were being driven away by the glorious Iraqi army while over his
shoulder US tanks could be seen calmly entering Baghdad.
/Thousands/ of climatologists, possibly a majority, either 1) dispute
that global warming is taking place at all, 2) agree that warming is
occurring but dispute that human action has any significant effect on it
3) tend to agree that global warming is taking place and admit there is
/some evidence of/ human contribution, but are not enough to be able to
make a definitive statement one way or the other. There are even some
that make a case for 4) there must be /more/ warming if we are to
forestall the encroaching ice age. This last is a small minority but
they exist.
Before one can claim without doubt the Earth is warming because of human
activity, one must first be able to claim without doubt the Earth is
warming at all.
One doesn't have to be an expert climatologist to know there are just
way, way, way too much that is unknown to be able to make a definitive
statement as to whether the Earth is currently in a warming trend or a
cooling trend. They can't accurately predict if next year (2010) will be
warmer than this year (2009) or cooler. We can look back in the geologic
history and see that the Earth has been much warmer than now and it has
been much cooler than now. So, as for the question, "In the next
century, will the Earth be warmer or cooler?", the correct answer is "Yes."
Look over your shoulder. The tanks are heading your way.
Tomm Carr
> On 11 Nov, 21:41, Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> I advocate plenty of things, just not taking from others.
>
> Even if it would save lives?
Even if it would save lives.
You want to save thousands of lives every year? Take away our cars. Take
away our bathtubs. Fill all of our swimming pools.
The list of things you could force people to do (or not do) that would
save lives is endless.
But there are some people who think longer lives as slaves is not
preferable to shorter lives as free men. That is the crux of the argument.
1Z
> /Thousands/ of climatologists, possibly a majority,
Why don't they show up in surveys, then?
Where are they hiding? Where is the dissent being published?
Which organisations back it?
"Since 2007, no scientific body of national or international standing
has maintained a dissenting opinion. A few organisations hold non-
committal positions."
> Before one can claim without doubt
The actual claim is >90% likelihood
1Z
> The list of things you could force people to do (or not do) that would
> save lives is endless.
I'm no doing the forcing. People make collective decisions about these
things.
Tomm Carr
No snowflake claims responsibility for the avalanche.
So you know what you are trying to do is wrong. You are just trying to
evade culpability through unanimity.
Mob mentality at its finest.
Jim Klein
> > I'm no doing the forcing. People make collective decisions about these
> > things.
>
> No snowflake claims responsibility for the avalanche.
>
> So you know what you are trying to do is wrong. You are just trying to
> evade culpability through unanimity.
Consensus, I think. But hell, at least no snowflake would
claim not be involved!
Does this leave us with a referent for "dumber than
a snowflake"?
"I'm not doing the forcing." I don't know if that's funnier
or the reason is funnier...because "people make
collective decisions about these things."
Snowflake: "I wasn't in the avalanche."
jk
Jim Klein
> > I advocate plenty of things, just not taking from others.
>
> Even if it would save lives?
Depends. When you step up to the plate and
offer us a principle to distinguish whose lives
and how much taking, then we can take a look.
> So you're not an Objectvist or a Libertarian ---
No, I'm not. Though I seem to have plenty in
common with each philosophy, I've got plenty
against each, too.
That must make me an individual. You?
> someone who wants to radically transform the US into
> a zero-tax, miniscule-government nation?
> You're just a happy taxpayer arguing about the details
> of the mixed economy? Fine!
The thing is, your "mixed economy" was not the
distinguishing characteristic of this country for
a fairly long time.
Sure, there was always some "mixture;" that was
guaranteed when the Constitution was snookered
in. Still, freedom of the individual--in all matters,
but especially as concerns production and business--
was the defining characteristic, not governmental
control over what the populace may do.
From the relatively little I know about it, this
bullshit hardly even started before the Civil
War, and it's only since 1913 that it's all
been codified as "law."
And just because I know relatively little about the
details of history, does not imply that I can't
identify what I see in front of my eyes.
> > And I do, even as I stand against their coercive
> > implementation. Rand covered all this adequately.
> > The US was a place where the individual may do
> > pretty much anything not prohibited by law and
> > the State may do nothing except that which is
> > explicitly permitted. This was even codified, in
> > the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
>
> So are lots of western-style democracies.
I can't imagine to what you're referring here. Maybe
if you could give an example or two (of other
western style democracies having constitutional
provisions even close to our 9th and 10th
Amendments), your point will be clear.
Otherwise, I'm very very skeptical. But make my
day---show me wrong about that. Like I say, I
don't know that much of the details.
> Do you actually want to see change. or what?
Your turn...as opposed to what?
> > Now, it's exactly reversed. Citizens must engage
> > virtually every act in compliance with a myriad of
> > regulations and taxes...
>
> Acting within the law is exactly the same thing a
> as complying with regulations.
Not on this point, it isn't. "Acting within the law," means
not doing anything against the law. The referent set is
hugely different between a freedom-protecting society
that allows all non-harmful action, versus a society
that regulates nearly every step you take, from the
goddammed toilet you use to take your morning shit
to the endless regs (and costs and taxes) of the
restaurant where you have your dinner.
Do you not understand? Would you like me to clarify?
> >if not of themselves, then of
> > the parties with whom they are dealing. Meanwhile,
> > Govco employees run rampant, basically unchecked,
> > with crimes from fraud, embezzlement and theft to
> > outright brutality and imprisonment for victimless
> > crimes. Such is your "mixed economy."
>
> Errr... could you tell me when the
> Golden Age was, exactly?
Already answered.
> > > > I've known folks from Africa who would say the
> > > > same things about their countries.
>
> > > There are objective measures.
>
> > Hahahahaha. Lemme guess---voting is one of them?
>
> No, and you have nothing better than
> my objective measures.
I may be in bad shape, but not THAT bad!
> > > > But none of that gets to the issue, does it? It's
> > > > just as I said...YOU need something from others,
> > > > even as they need nothing from you. Or at least
> > > > some of us, anyway.
>
> > > Inaccurate again.
>
> > How is it inaccurate?
>
> I need something from them, and they need something
> from me.
What in the world do you fancy that I need from you?
> > > > > As opposed to what?
>
> > > > As opposed to being pushed to it.
>
> > > Nothing to do with what I have said.
>
> > It answered your question. Check the record.
>
> What "pushing" have I been advocating
Either put the record up--the original quote
and question I answered--or let it go. You
left that out, last time.
> > > It's better than leaving people to die, yes.
>
> > See? There you go. Just call some people not
> > having a claim on others "leaving people to
> > die," and voila...you've got a fresh pre-packaged
> > excuse to take things from others.
>
> They do have a claim on others.
Wow, cool. So how's this work---you just string
those words together and shazzam...claims are
created?
Here's what I mean. Either shut the fuck up, else
show the claim and how it came to exist.
> The taking
> is the lesser of the two evils by far.
No doubt that'll be easier to see when we
can see those claims.
> > Unless my memory fails, Q.E.D.
>
> You keep writing as ig your freedom-is-paramount
> claim is a fact. It isn't. This debate is a debate
> about freedom-is-paramount vs. life-is-paramount.
I doubt that, since I don't have any quibble with
"life-is-paramount" really.
To me, the two are nearly synonymous in an
important, epistemological, way. It's like
debating whether cats have four legs or
cats have tails.
> > I have never insisted any such thing.
> > For various
> > reasons, me and mine happen to need far more
> > help than the average guy. Doesn't matter---it
> > still doesn't create some claim of mine on others.
>
> I wonder if you will pursue that through to the
> point of starvation. Not many would.
IT DOESN'T MATTER. Even as you yap about
"objective measures," you fail to recognize
that things like "claims" don't arise just
because we imagine them. They either exist
or they don't.
To the point, it matters not one whit whether I
would act like I have a claim on others or not,
as to whether such a claim really exists.
I say no such claim exists, irrespective of
whether or not I (or anyone else) would act
as if it did. You say such a claim does exist,
but you refuse to pin down how and why it
does. WHERE IS IT already, and how did it
come to be?
> > It's not right to take from others.
>
> It's not right to let others die of neglect.
Neglect? What does that mean? Does that
mean that if someone's sick and has nobody
that cares, that some claim has arisen upon
me, to care?
You spout these cliches and are so convinced
of their truth, that you hardly even look at what
they say.
> >This is a simple
> > moral principle
>
> The key word is "a".
>
> You have not demonstrated it is *the* supreme principle.
There is no supreme moral principle except that I
ought to live the happiest life I can. And same for
you, and same for anyone else.
IOW, live...as a human. And let live.
> > derived from other simple moral
> > principles. Yet still, you think you've trumped it
> > by finding a bunch of words to invalidate it.
>
> All arguments use words.
Yeahbut some arguments refer to existential
facts, and some don't. Guess which yours do!
> > Do you have kids? If you did, would you teach them
> > that it's not right to take from others, but there are
> > various exceptions? Then what...the dribble about
> > "helping others" or "not leaving people to die."
>
> Yes, sure. Life is more important than possessions and
> money. Let's say you had a choice between:
>
> a) stealing a car in order to rush a seriously ill person to hospital
>
> and
>
> b) letting them die
>
> what would you do?
Me, personally? I'm very big on life--virtually all
life--so I'd be inclined to do almost anything I
could to save a life.
What I would NOT do, is force SOMEONE ELSE to
hold my hierarchy and act as I would.
You don't have that much courtesy though, do you?
> > Will you teach them that with enough Govco control,
> > and enough people claiming other people's lives, that
> > people will no longer die?
>
> No, that;'s another silly exageration.
Then what the hell are you saying? Are you just
saying that your supreme moral principle is one
that's not achievable?
Or are you saying something even more idiotic
than that?
> > > "Them". That's your fallacy. You think you
> > > are exempt from having needs.
>
> > What in the world are you talking about? I have
> > all sorts of needs, from air to water to food and more.
>
> > I am saying, "Get the hell out of the way, so people
> > may fill their needs...AS RATIONAL HUMANS."
>
> Am I still supposed to get out of your way when
> you lose your legs or your mind?
Do whatever the hell you want. The relevant point
is that no CLAIM has arisen, let alone a claim for
which it's worth becoming a thug to enforce.
> Have you ever
> seen a very elderly person?
Yes.
> > > I approve of some forms of welfare and redistribution
> > > and disapprove of others. I can't answer
> > > a question phrased in terms of a non-specific
> > > "taking care".
>
> > Uh huh. So on what basis do you distinguish the
> > two classes? If it feels like it's "leaving people to
> > die," then it's okay...is that it?
>
> Who said anything about feeling?
You. Until you can start offering some principles
and/or facts to distinguish all these classes you
bring up, then I presume there's nothing behind
what you say, except some mushy feelings that
you undoubtedly learned all your life.
> > Did it ever occur to you that sucking the productive
> > ability from individuals in pursuit of that ever-ethereal
> > "common good" and "benefit to all" and all that other
> > claptrap, actually CAUSES people to die?
>
> Did it occur to you to look at the evidence?
Hell, man, I'm nearly begging you for the evidence!
> THe US has poorer longevity figures than the
> kinds of society I am advocating.
But that only matters to someone who's making
the argument that number-of-days-lived per
capita is THE supreme moral principle. That's
the argument you're making, I suppose, so I
can see why this number is so important to you.
I think it's one of the most absurd supreme moral
principles I've ever run across.
Do you really, honestly believe that BTW? If we
could figure out a way to put everyone in safe
cages so they lived to 150, would you be in
favor of that? According to your avowed supreme
moral principle, you think that would be a good
thing. Do I have that right? WHY OR WHY NOT?
> > Well, it should because that's exactly what happens.
>
> Evidence, please?
How many stories would I have to tell? What does
it matter anyway? Maybe you forgot...I offered that
taking from others is wrong. You are busy arguing
that it's not really wrong, that there are so many
moral principles that give rise to so many claims,
that, "It's wrong to take from others" can't even be
viewed as a solid moral principle.
For the moment, I only assume that you're full of
shit. If you ever get around to freely offering these
principles and claims--in verbiage other than
referentless cliches--then we can see whether
or not you really are!
> > There are always people at the edge, and any amount
> > of coercive taking will always cause some people to
> > not be able to fulfill their needs any longer. So they die.
>
> a) you shouldn't be proposing a theoretical argument above
> empirical evidence
> b) it's a stupid argument. "Any amount"? SInce when
> did taking $10 form amillionaire lead to his death?
Comprehension problems, again? Is a millionaire
in the referent set of "people at the edge"?
> 3. Law of diminishing marginal utility: Consuming more of a
> product within a given period will at some
> point result in diminishing marginal utility.
> a. Disutility results when total satisfaction decreases
> with the consumption of an additional unit.
> b. A person can eat only so many hot dogs before they
> get sick.
Sorry, I have no idea what you're trying to say here,
though I acknowledge a similarity between this and
being sick from too many hot dogs.
> > How come you don't care about THEM?
>
> The situation does not arise.
Off the ropes and down, I guess.
> > > > Maybe the US will still
> > > > be available in case another Hitler rolls around.
>
> > > Oh good grief...
>
> > Oh, I'm sorry. History isn't my specialty...did I
> > get that wrong? It didn't happen?
>
> "Anther Hitler" didn't happen??
I don't mind dealing with your philosophical
bullshit, but if you can't even understand
simple statements, then forget it.
Spit it out...are you saying that you have no
idea what I was saying?
> Lemmesee...there's the various the fascist dicators
> in South America that the US used to support...
> .
> There's Saddam, who the US supported and then
> deposed....
>
> There's Pol Pot , whom the US supported
>
> http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Global_Secrets_Lies/Friends_PolPot....
>
> etc. etc, etc
>
> > > I never have. It is your schtick that taxation
> > > is an absolute evil. I have argued that it
> > > is not.
>
> > IOW it's sometimes good, right?
>
> Right.
>
> >So when it's good,
> > is it not "taking something from other people and
> > distributing in some way that you find justified..."?
>
> It is exactly that, and it really is justified.
I see the words, and I'm looking forward to when
you start offering some facts and principles to
defend this assertion. Till then, it's just you
spitting out "really is justified" while you speak
of unsupported supreme moral principles (not
just unsupported, but even mostly unannounced)
and pretend that you're using some sort of
objective measure. What a joke.
> > If not, how not? If it is, then that's what I thought.
>
> > > > Oh, and I'm saying one more thing. Count me out.
>
> > > Of taxation? Where are you going to move
> > > to, then?
>
> > I was speaking to you, not 5 million bureaucrats
> > and armed officers.
>
> Evasion. Tell me the country that is tax-free,
> and which a sane person would want to live in.
> DOn't tell me how you intend to
> get there.
Just tell me what part of what I wrote that you
don't understand, and I'll try to clarify.
> > > > Oh, that's nice. So what is the ultimate moral good
> > > > to you,
>
> > > Preserving life.
>
> > Period? Should we take everyone's earnings to keep some
> > sick dog alive? Why not?
>
> We should not take their earnings to the point
> that it endagers their lives.
Hmm...balanced thuggery. Interesting.
So the one sick guy has a claim on everyone
else...until what? Until they get as sick as him?
"Endangers" their lives? Did Tomm have it right...
are you calling for the outlawing of cars?
If not, why not? Lots of lives get endangered
with every trip. Why doesn't that count?
> > What PRINCIPLE do you use to determine when the extorted
> > loot is the right amount for the right purpose? Vote? Feeling?
>
> Yeah, democracy. What principle do use to determine
> that you would rather spend money on yourself than
> save someone's life?
I use MY JUDGMENT...in my case, that means my
rational judgment, taking things as they are.
Besides, as I've already noted, IT DOESN'T MATTER.
YOU are arguing that some claim has arisen, but
somehow you can't point it out. Is this your new
argument, that a vote can actually, literally create
objectively identifiable by some upon others?
If that's what you really believe, then do tell. If it's
something else, then say that. Does voting
actually CREATE claims IYO?
> > > > and roughly where does "helping others" fall?
>
> > > I could volunteer to mow my neighbour's lawn, but then he
> > > could do it for himself. There is no life issue there.
>
> > There are lots of people who could die from mowing their
> > own lawn...some do, in fact.
>
> *I* could die mowing his lawn.
>
> > So now, all you've got to do is explain how to distinguish
> > that event from the events that you say justify taking
> > that which belongs to others.
>
> Some discernible degree of likelihood!
Way to argue the principles. If you've actually
got something to say, please make it soon.
jk
Fred Weiss
Nicely put, Tomm Catt.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
1Z
> So you know what you are trying to do is wrong. You are just trying to
> evade culpability through unanimity.
No, no and no
Ryurgin
>
> The free-market means AS THE PRODUCT OR COMMODITY RUNS OUT, �the price
> goes up and alternatives either come into existence or existing
> alternatives become more feasible. �The fact that the price of oil.
> accounting for inflation, is still like the price it was in the early
> 1980's means WE ARE NOT RUNNING OUT OF OIL within the range of those
> who are competent to judge the market WHEN THEY CAN SEE LITTLE NEW
> GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN PRODUCING SUPPLY.
>
> The international socialist push for energy alternatives has only one
> purpose: to destroy the U.S. economy by replacing effective, efficient
> and cheap energy with ineffective, inefficient and expensive energy.
You're wrong about the price of oil adjusting for inflation bit; as
usual, government subsidies have artificially reduced the price of oil
to where it should not be. This could be offset by the government
intervention in where we're allowed to drill. Either way, there's no
point in worrying about the matter, as just letting people be free
will make a solution to energy available.
Charles Bell
.
>
> You're wrong about the price of oil adjusting for inflation bit
I am right about the price of oil adjusting for inflation.
1984: $59.71
2009: $43.56
1998: $15.77
1946: $17.73
http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Inflation_Adj_Oil_Prices_Chart.htm
> as
> usual, government subsidies have artificially reduced the price of oil
> to where it should not be.
Government interferences (including wholesale nationalizations and
OPEC) have kept the price of oil from falling or at least remaining in
a $15-25 range. The current debasing of the dollar guarantees future
price increases.
Puppet_Sock
> World wide oil discoveries have been less than annual production since
> 1980.[6] According to several sources, worldwide production is past or
> near its maximum.[5][6][7][8] World population has grown faster than
> oil production. Because of this, oil production per capita peaked in
> 1979 (preceded by a plateau during the period of 1973-1979).[24]
Except that according to [12], [13], and [15], total reserves
now are larger than they were in 1980. And this is true both
in absolute number of barrels of oil, and in terms of the number
of years of production that they will support. (Hey, this inventing
a number and putting it in [] to pretend it's a reference is a
useful dodge. I'll have to remember that.)
And except that, in my case, I can go dig up the reference.
It's to sources like the people who actually go out in the field
and check on what oil companies tell their stock holders.
Discovery rates have increased. Reserves have increased.
Peak oil is nowhere in sight.
Plus, it does not take into account such things as oil sands
and shale oil. Alberta has more oil potentially available from
oil sands production than has been pulled out of the ground
in the history of mankind. They have 100's of cubic km of
the stuff. Trillions of barrels. It will be a bit harder to get at
when the top 100 meters or so is used up. But hey, it's
good for my industry. Eventually they'll put a nuke in the
oil patch and see how much better it is to use nukes to
steam the oil out of the sands instead of burning methane.
Then, every barrel of oil they pull out of the ground in Ab
will count as a carbon credit. And everybody in Canada
will sing the Ren&Stimpy "happy happy joy joy" song.
And the US has shale oil deposits that are quite likley
much bigger than the Alberta oil sands deposits.
More expensive to get out of the ground, say about $200
per barrel. But it puts a back-stop on oil production.
It just isn't going to stop this year, or this decade, or
this century, not at the rate we've been using it.
Socks
Ryurgin
> On Nov 13, 7:31�am, Ryurgin <ryur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> .
>
>
>
> > You're wrong about the price of oil adjusting for inflation bit
>
> I am right about the price of oil adjusting for inflation.
>
> 1984: $59.71
is because we can't know what the price of oil *should* be at today
because of the government's interventions. The government has obscured
the true price of oil by its actions so much, for its own end which is
unknown, we can't really compare what the price should be at adjusting
for inflation, merely guess.
For what it's worth, I'd place bets that if the government simply left
Oil alone, it'd be pretty cheap right now.
> 2009: $43.56
> 1998: $15.77
> 1946: $17.73
>
> http://inflationdata.com/inflation/images/charts/Oil/Inflation_Adj_Oi...
chazwin
> On Nov 13, 7:05�pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> On Nov 13, 7:31�am, Ryurgin <ryur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > .
>
> > > You're wrong about the price of oil adjusting for inflation bit
>
> > I am right about the price of oil adjusting for inflation.
>
> > 1984: $59.71
>
> Like I said, the only reason that you'd necessarily have to be wrong
> is because we can't know what the price of oil *should* be at today
> because of the government's interventions. The government has obscured
> the true price of oil by its actions so much, for its own end which is
> unknown, we can't really compare what the price should be at adjusting
> for inflation, merely guess.
Why are all you people so stupid?
There is no ~should be~ for the price of oil. The US government has
little or no power to adjust the price of oil. If you think that is so
just tell us all how they do it.
The price of oil is set by a small group of families in the Middle
East.
If they want more per barrel they reduce supply, if they want to price
to drop they increase the supply. If their piggy -pags are looking a
bit empty then they makes suitable adjustments as necessary. If they
are a bit scared that the oil might run out too soon they can alwasy
slow down production. ANyone who thinks the power to change oil price
exists anywhere outside the ME is naive.
Charles Bell
> On Nov 14, 3:37�pm, Ryurgin <ryur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Nov 13, 7:05�pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> On Nov 13, 7:31�am, Ryurgin <ryur...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > .
>
> > > > You're wrong about the price of oil adjusting for inflation bit
>
> > > I am right about the price of oil adjusting for inflation.
>
> > > 1984: $59.71
>
> > Like I said, the only reason that you'd necessarily have to be wrong
> > is because we can't know what the price of oil *should* be at today
> > because of the government's interventions. The government has obscured
> > the true price of oil by its actions so much, for its own end which is
> > unknown, we can't really compare what the price should be at adjusting
> > for inflation, merely guess.
>
> Why are all you people so stupid?
The issue is over whether we are running out of oil. If we were
running out oil, the price -- whoever controls the price, a free
market or a tight cartel, of which we have neither -- would steadily
rise in the time from 1946 to now, and it has not. The lowest price in
that period was, in fact, in 1998 and spikes along the way have clear
political, not at all economic, origins. Ryurgin's claim is that
there might be a "real" price of oil in a completely free market which
we cannot see, and to some extent I agree, and that hypothetical price
would probably be lower than what we have been seeing, but that still
does not negate the claim that there is no economic calculus for our
running out of oil.
Matt Barrow
"Ryurgin" <ryu...@gmail.com> wrote in message ...
>>
>
> You're wrong about the price of oil adjusting for inflation bit; as
> usual, government subsidies have artificially reduced the price of oil
> to where it should not be.
What subsidies are these?
Matt Barrow
Larkspur, CO
Ryurgin
You're an idiot.
Our government physically bans us from producing more oil here in
America.
Less supply = more demand = higher prices, not to mention the
transport costs involved in shipping oil from anywhere else in the
world to here.
Don't believe me? Look it up yourself. Right now the United States is
the third largest oil producing country in the entire world, according
to the CIA: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2173rank.html
Plus, our government pays oil companies subsidies to defray the costs
of exploration, production, and refinement.
Please, learn something about how an economy works before you spout
crap like this off. Or just even a few facts. Thanks.
Matt Barrow
> the third largest oil producing country in the entire world, according
> to the CIA:
>
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2173ra
nk.html
>
> Plus, our government pays oil companies subsidies to defray the costs
> of exploration, production, and refinement.
Once again, could you elaborate on those subsidies and how the differ from
normal tax deductions and credits any other business receives?
Matt Barrow
Larkspur, CO
Les Cargill
> On Nov 14, 3:37 pm, Ryurgin <ryur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 13, 7:05 pm, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> On Nov
>> 13, 7:31 am, Ryurgin <ryur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> .
>>>> You're wrong about the price of oil adjusting for inflation bit
>>> I am right about the price of oil adjusting for inflation.
>>> 1984: $59.71
>> Like I said, the only reason that you'd necessarily have to be wrong
>> is because we can't know what the price of oil *should* be at today
>> because of the government's interventions. The government has obscured
>> the true price of oil by its actions so much, for its own end which is
>> unknown, we can't really compare what the price should be at adjusting
>> for inflation, merely guess.
>
>
> Why are all you people so stupid?
> There is no ~should be~ for the price of oil. The US government has
> little or no power to adjust the price of oil. If you think that is so
> just tell us all how they do it.
> The price of oil is set by a small group of families in the Middle
> East.
Exactly.
Principally, our government has input into price
because we are the "defense go-to guys" for
the Saudi Royal Family. The House of Saud cannot
keep a standing army for religious reasons.
> If they want more per barrel they reduce supply, if they want to price
> to drop they increase the supply. If their piggy -pags are looking a
> bit empty then they makes suitable adjustments as necessary. If they
> are a bit scared that the oil might run out too soon they can alwasy
> slow down production. ANyone who thinks the power to change oil price
> exists anywhere outside the ME is naive.
At least early in the recession, the metrics which
are used to measure demand for oil in the US *declined*,
I think for the first time ever.
Since oil futures were where much of the capital
that fled housing went, it contributed to the meltdown.
--
Les Cargill
chazwin
No, you are the idiot.
>
> Our government physically bans us from producing more oil here in
> America.
This has no effect on world oil prices - none.
>
> Less supply = more demand = higher prices, not to mention the
> transport costs involved in shipping oil from anywhere else in the
> world to here.
Nope!
The world oil price has always been controlled by the biggest supplier
- the Middle East.
> Don't believe me? Look it up yourself. Right now the United States is
> the third largest oil producing country in the entire world, according
> to the CIA:https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder...
America has always followed the vicissitudes of world oil prices as
set by OPEC.
Any idiot can look up the CIA world fact book. I show that to the 8
year old children I teach.
>
> Plus, our government pays oil companies subsidies to defray the costs
> of exploration, production, and refinement.
So what?
>
> Please, learn something about how an economy works before you spout
> crap like this off. Or just even a few facts. Thanks.
You are an ignorant savage. Oil prices are controlled by OPEC and have
been since the oil crisis of 1974.
But then I doubt if you were a sperm then.
chazwin
You seem to be missing some key facts.
It might be the world's 3 largest producer, but that is just the
measure of how dependant it is. The US is the world's largest consumer
of oil and has to import nearly 70% of its consumption.
I'll repeat that because you seem to have a screw loose. It's actually
69.07%.
(import/consumption 13.47/19.5 = 0.6907)
even if you were to ban exports of oil and compare production with
consumption, you would still have a net import of shortfall of
(8.514/19.5 =) 43%
The only way a country can have any effect on world oil prices is if
its production out strips its consumption, such is the case with Saudi
Arabia, Russia and Iran.
These are the countries that set oil prices because they have large
surplus stocks.
Consider - if the government decide to raise oil prices consumers
would simply buy more abroad and local supplies would remain unbought.
If they were to lower local oil prices then prices at the pumps would
simply adjust to world levels because the market sells at what the
buyer can bear.
Oil - production:
8.514 million bbl/day (2008 est.)
country comparison to the world: 3
Oil - consumption:
19.5 million bbl/day (2008 est.)
country comparison to the world: 1
Oil - exports:
1.433 million bbl/day (2008 est.)
country comparison to the world: 17
Oil - imports:
13.47 million bbl/day (2008 est.)
country comparison to the world: 1
>
> You're an idiot.
>
> Our government physically bans us from producing more oil here in
> America.
>
> Less supply = more demand = higher prices,
WRONG. demand is constant in this equation. Less supply only means
more imports.
Prices are set by the world market supply not by a penny-ante local
industry.
not to mention the
> transport costs involved in shipping oil from anywhere else in the
> world to here.
Not relevant. Only represents a small percentage. Oil production costs
are much lower in foreign countries because American workers demand
huge salaries, whilst Saudi workers are paid little in comparison.
This more than offsets the costs of transportation from Saudi-Arabia
to the USA.
You are not very informed on this are you?
> Don't believe me? Look it up yourself. Right now the United States is
> the third largest oil producing country in the entire world, according
> to the
CIA:https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder...
1Z
> On Nov 11, 5:32 pm, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > I advocate plenty of things, just not taking from others.
>
> > Even if it would save lives?
>
> Depends. �When you step up to the plate and
> offer us a principle to distinguish whose lives
> and how much taking, then we can take a look.
Democracy
> I can't imagine to what you're referring here. �Maybe
> if you could give an example or two (of other
> western style democracies having constitutional
> provisions even close to our 9th and 10th
> Amendments), your point will be clear.
The individual may do anything not fobidden
in any of the world's democracies.
> > Do you actually want to see change. or what?
>
> Your turn...as opposed to what?
Maintaining the status quo. What is change ever contrasted with?
> Not on this point, it isn't. �"Acting within the law," means
> not doing anything against the law. �The referent set is
> hugely different between a freedom-protecting society
> that allows all non-harmful action, versus a society
> that regulates nearly every step you take, from the
> goddammed toilet you use to take your morning shit
> to the endless regs (and costs and taxes) of the
> restaurant where you have your dinner.
> Do you not understand? �Would you like me to clarify?
All I see is a diffrence of degree.
> > Errr... could you tell me when the
> > Golden Age was, exactly?
>
> Already answered.
The Wild West?
> What in the world do you fancy that I need from you?
You'll be old and ill one day.
> > What "pushing" have I been advocating
>
> Either put the record up-
You made the accusation, you back it up.
> > They do have �a claim on others.
>
> Wow, cool. �So how's this work---you just string
> those words together and shazzam...claims are
> created?
I'm arguing my ethcial case with words, and you're arguing
your ethical case with words. Don't pretend that you have
some way of bypassing the process of supporting a theory that I don't.
> Here's what I mean. �Either shut the fuck up, else
> show the claim and how it came to exist.
The claim exists because life is valuable.
The one follows directly from the other.
> > You keep writing as ig your freedom-is-paramount
> > claim is a fact. It isn't. This debate is a debate
> > about freedom-is-paramount vs. life-is-paramount.
>
> I doubt that, since I don't have any quibble with
> "life-is-paramount" really.
> To me, the two are nearly synonymous in an
> important, epistemological, way. �It's like
> debating whether cats have four legs or
> cats have tails.
Cats can't have both four legs and five legs.
That's the logic of legs.
ANd you can't have two paramounts.
That's the logic of paramounts.
> > > I have never insisted any such thing.
> > > For various
> > > reasons, me and mine happen to need far more
> > > help than the average guy. �Doesn't matter---it
> > > still doesn't create some claim of mine on others.
>
> > I wonder if you will pursue that through to the
> > point of starvation. Not many would.
>
> IT DOESN'T MATTER. �Even as you yap about
> "objective measures," you fail to recognize
> that things like "claims" don't arise just
> because we imagine them. �They either exist
> or they don't.
Really? Where are they? What is their mass and charge.
> To the point, it matters not one whit whether I
> would act like I have a claim on others or not,
> as to whether such a claim really exists.
>
> I say no such claim exists, irrespective of
> whether or not I (or anyone else) would act
> as if it did. �You say such a claim does exist,
> but you refuse to pin down how and why it
> does. �WHERE IS IT already, and how did it
> come to be?
It is an outcome of respecting life
as a value. You seem to think of
a claim as somehting like an explicit
contract: but contracts only exist inasmuch
as people believe in them. And people believe
in them because they respect honesty as a value.
In short, you alternatie isn;t the least
bit more phsycial or concrete than mine,
and there is no reason either of them
should be.
> > > It's not right to take from others.
>
> > It's not right to let others die of neglect.
>
> Neglect? �What does that mean?
Do you have a dictionary?
> �Does that
> mean that if someone's sick and has nobody
> that cares, that some claim has arisen upon
> me, to care?
It means if they are left to die, that is neglect.
What you do is up to you. If you value life, you
are therefore obliged to do something. If you don't
you are not. But it is irrational to say you value
life but are under no obligation to do anyhting about
it.
> You spout these cliches and are so convinced
> of their truth, that you hardly even look at what
> they say.
>
> > >This is a simple
> > > moral principle
>
> > The key word is "a".
>
> > You have not demonstrated it is *the* supreme principle.
>
> There is no supreme moral principle
There were two a while back...
>except that I
> ought to live the happiest life I can. �
You can call that a moral
principle. Few would agree.
Who'se trying to magic things into
existence with words now?
>And same for
> you, and same for anyone else.
>
> IOW, live...as a human. �And let live.
And let die. You're laissexz-faire approach
is contradictory to the idea of life as a supreme
value, because it leads to others dying of
neglect. Maybe you don't agree with
liefe as a value, maybe you do. You
haven't been clear.
> > > derived from other simple moral
> > > principles. �Yet still, you think you've trumped it
> > > by finding a bunch of words to invalidate it.
>
> > All arguments use words.
>
> Yeahbut some arguments refer to existential
> facts, and some don't. �Guess which yours do!
Oh, please. You're ability to type the WORDS
"existential facts" proves nothing. Where is your
freedom-ometer, your rights-ometer?
> > > Do you have kids? �If you did, would you teach them
> > > that it's not right to take from others, but there are
> > > various exceptions? �Then what...the dribble about
> > > "helping others" or "not leaving people to die."
>
> > Yes, sure. Life is more important than possessions and
> > money. Let's say you had a choice between:
>
> > a) stealing a car in order to rush a seriously ill person to hospital
>
> > and
>
> > b) letting them die
>
> > what would you do?
>
> Me, personally? �I'm very big on life--virtually all
> life--so I'd be inclined to do almost anything I
> could to save a life.
>
> What I would NOT do, is force SOMEONE ELSE to
> hold my hierarchy and act as I would.
YOu have evaded the point, Mr Concrete Existents.
If you choose option a) you are forcibly stealing someone's property.
If you choose (b) you don't value life.
Now: don't talk in generalities, choose either a) or b).
> You don't have that much courtesy though, do you?
My courtesy wouldn't stop me taking the car. Would yours?
Are you going to be courteous and actually answer the question?
> > > Will you teach them that with enough Govco control,
> > > and enough people claiming other people's lives, that
> > > people will no longer die?
>
> > No, that;'s another silly exageration.
>
> Then what the hell are you saying? �Are you just
> saying that your supreme moral principle is one
> that's not achievable?
The supreme moral principle is to value
life as much as possible--not as much as impossible.
> > Am I still supposed to get out of your way when
> > you lose your legs or your mind?
>
> Do whatever the hell you want. �The relevant point
> is that no CLAIM has arisen, let alone a claim for
> which it's worth becoming a thug to enforce.
You say that none has. You give no reason. I have
given a reason why one does.
> > > > I approve of some forms of welfare and redistribution
> > > > and disapprove of others. I can't answer
> > > > a question phrased in terms of a non-specific
> > > > "taking care".
>
> > > Uh huh. �So on what basis do you distinguish the
> > > two classes? �If it feels like it's "leaving people to
> > > die," then it's okay...is that it?
>
> > Who said anything about feeling?
>
> You.
Quote me.
>�Until you can start offering some principles
> and/or facts to distinguish all these classes you
> bring up, then I presume
If it's you presuming, it's not me saying.
> there's nothing behind
> what you say, except some mushy feelings that
> you undoubtedly learned all your life.
>
> > > Did it ever occur to you that sucking the productive
> > > ability from individuals in pursuit of that ever-ethereal
> > > "common good" and "benefit to all" and all that other
> > > claptrap, actually CAUSES people to die?
>
> > Did it occur to you to look at the evidence?
>
> Hell, man, I'm nearly begging you for the evidence!
I'm begging you for the evidence. If what you say is true,
then Western Eurpean democracies would be hellholes.
But they're not. But you're not interested in concrete examples.
YOu have a *theory* that altrusim destroys societies, and you
don't care to spoil it with facts.
> > THe US has poorer longevity figures than the
> > kinds of society I am advocating.
>
> But that only matters to someone who's making
> the argument that number-of-days-lived per
> capita is THE supreme moral principle. �
>That's
> the argument you're making, I suppose, so I
> can see why this number is so important to you.
>
> I think it's one of the most absurd supreme moral
> principles I've ever run across.
Thanks for the opinion. Now: are you eve
going to *argue* a point?
> Do you really, honestly believe that BTW? �If we
> could figure out a way to put everyone in safe
> cages so they lived to 150, would you be in
> favor of that? �According to your avowed supreme
> moral principle, you think that would be a good
> thing. �Do I have that right? �WHY OR WHY NOT?
I am quite happy to balance quality of life
and quantity of life. I am not happy to sacrifice
the entirety of someone else's life so I can have
lower taxes.
> > > Well, it should because that's exactly what happens.
>
> > Evidence, please?
>
> How many stories would I have to tell? �What does
> it matter anyway? �Maybe you forgot...I offered that
> taking from others is wrong.
I offered that letting people die is wronger. How
about answeringthe car-stealing question?
>�You are busy arguing
> that it's not really wrong, that there are so many
> moral principles that give rise to so many claims,
> that, "It's wrong to take from others" can't even be
> viewed as a solid moral principle.
THat's an inaccurate paraphrase. I think it is a
genuine principle, but can be overriden by the "paramount"
principle. DO you really think stealing is unconditionally
wrong? How about answering the car question
> For the moment, I only assume that you're full of
> shit. �
These insults are only underlining the fact that
you don't know how to argue a point like a
grown-up persons.
>If you ever get around to freely offering these
> principles and claims--in verbiage other than
> referentless cliches--then we can see whether
> or not you really are!
I have done so repeatedly.
> > > There are always people at the edge, and any amount
> > > of coercive taking will always cause some people to
> > > not be able to fulfill their needs any longer. �So they die.
>
> > a) you shouldn't be proposing a theoretical argument above
> > empirical evidence
> > b) it's a stupid argument. "Any amount"? SInce when
> > did taking $10 form �amillionaire lead to his death?
>
> Comprehension problems, again? �Is a millionaire
> in the referent set of "people at the edge"?
So you are arguing against a poorly designed tax system that
takes from poor people what they need to survive. I don;t know
of any system that works that way. Most systems are progressive.
The poor are untaxed or on welfare. So there is no concrete
example of what you are saying. It has nothing to do
with my theory eihter. If I am starting with the value of
life as a premise OBVIOUSLY I am not going to tax
people to death. Why can't you see that?
> Spit it out...are you saying that you have no
> idea what I was saying?
I had no idea what you were saying. FYI, the little
curly gizmo at the end of a sentence inidicates a question.
> > Lemmesee...there's the various the fascist dicators
> > in South America that the US used to support...
> > .
> > There's Saddam, who the US supported and then
> > deposed....
>
> > There's Pol Pot , whom the US supported
>
> >http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Global_Secrets_Lies/Friends_PolPot....
>
> > etc. etc, etc
Any comment?
> > >So when it's good,
> > > is it not "taking something from other people and
> > > distributing in some way that you find justified..."?
>
> > It is exactly that, and it really is justified.
>
> I see the words, and I'm looking forward to when
> you start offering some facts and principles to
> defend this assertion. �Till then, it's just you
> spitting out "really is justified" while you speak
> of unsupported supreme moral principles (not
> just unsupported, but even mostly unannounced)
> and pretend that you're using some sort of
> objective measure. �What a joke.
It's justified by the value of life as I have stated
repeatedly.
> > > If not, how not? �If it is, then that's what I thought.
>
> > > > > Oh, and I'm saying one more thing. �Count me out.
>
> > > > Of taxation? Where are you going to move
> > > > to, then?
>
> > > I was speaking to you, not 5 million bureaucrats
> > > and armed officers.
>
> > Evasion. Tell me the country that is tax-free,
> > and which a sane person would want to live in.
> > DOn't tell me how you intend to
> > get there.
>
> Just tell me what part of what I wrote that you
> don't understand, and I'll try to clarify.
"Count me out"
> > > > > Oh, that's nice. �So what is the ultimate moral good
> > > > > to you,
>
> > > > Preserving life.
>
> > > Period? �Should we take everyone's earnings to keep some
> > > sick dog alive? �Why not?
>
> > We should not take their earnings to the point
> > that it endagers their lives.
>
> Hmm...balanced thuggery. �Interesting.
>
> So the one sick guy has a claim on everyone
> else...until what? �Until they get as sick as him?
No, until he gets well. I can;'t imagine why
you have so much difficulty undestanding that
what I am advocating is just the way the world's more
successful societies generaly work -- I am not
advocating Rand's straw-man vesion of "altruism".
Nobody has ever believed *that*
> "Endangers" their lives? �Did Tomm have it right...
> are you calling for the outlawing of cars?
>
> If not, why not? �Lots of lives get endangered
> with every trip. �Why doesn't that count?
I does, that is why there is a great deal
of legislation surrounding car safety
> > > What PRINCIPLE do you use to determine when the extorted
> > > loot is the right amount for the right purpose? �Vote? �Feeling?
>
> > Yeah, democracy. What principle do use to determine
> > that you would rather spend money on yourself than
> > save someone's life?
>
> I use MY JUDGMENT...in my case, that means my
> rational judgment, taking things as they are.
Whatever. Just don';t tell me you value life
when "judge" in favour of your bank balance
> Besides, as I've already noted, IT DOESN'T MATTER.
> YOU are arguing that some claim has arisen, but
> somehow you can't point it out. �Is this your new
> argument, that a vote can actually, literally create
> objectively identifiable by some upon others?
No. I have never volunteered the term "claim".
That is your way of misunderstanding what I am saying.
> If that's what you really believe, then do tell. �If it's
> something else, then say that. �Does voting
> actually CREATE claims IYO?
Voting decides what is concretely done about
valuing life.
> > > So now, all you've got to do is explain how to distinguish
> > > that event from the events that you say justify taking
> > > that which belongs to others.
>
> > Some discernible degree of likelihood!
>
> Way to argue the principles. �If you've actually
> got something to say, please make it soon.
I don't need "principles" to settle evey damn issue
because I am not setting myself up as a philosopher-king.
I am a democrat, and that means that in my view
everybody should be in the driving seat.
1Z
> The issue is over whether we are running out of oil. �If we were
> running out oil, the price -- whoever controls the price, a free
> market or a tight cartel, of which we have neither -- would steadily
> rise in the time from 1946 to now, and it has not.
That's nonsense. If the price is set artifically then it doesn't
follow S&D and there is nothing you can infer about supply
from the price.
chazwin
I think Charles BELLend, gets his information from the back of a
cornflake box.
Demand has steadily increased, supply has been managed artificially to
control the price. This can only be done by countries whose production
exceeds their consumption. This is Saudi-Arabia, Russia and Iran. The
US has little or no effect on world oil prices as it uses twice what
it can produce.
Ryurgin
You need to take an econ class. Total oil supply (x) - total oil
demand (y) = price of oil (z)
There are factors such as subsidies that affect the equation, by
either manipulating the demand or the supply. By subsidizing the sale
of hybrids, or wind farms, or oil refineries, you artificially alter
the price of oil.
I want all governments out of business, and just there to enforce the
contracts between individuals, but, you can't say that you know the
real price of oil at this level of government intrusion.
Were *all* governments out of the business of regulating when/where/
why individuals can do business, oil would probably be far cheaper
today than it was in the 70's. If/when we run out (which won't happen,
because eventually other forms of energy will be cheaper), someone
will necessarily find another way to produce energy.
Charles Bell
>
> > On 14 Nov, 16:57, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > The issue is over whether we are running out of oil. �If we were
> > > running out oil, the price -- whoever controls the price, a free
> > > market or a tight cartel, of which we have neither -- would steadily
> > > rise in the time from 1946 to now, and it has not.
> Demand has steadily increased,
This all the more information to come to the conclusion that we are
not running out of oil in that even though demand has increased
dramatically since 1946, the price has remained roughly the same,
meaning that the supplies of the product has kept up, even amazingly
so in that all sorts of interventionist artifices have been erected to
keep the supplies down. By 1975, nationalization of oil in the middle
east became complete and in 2007 (started in 2005) the nationalization
of Venezuela's foreign-controlled oil combined with the election of
anti-market Democrats in the U.S. Congress caused a bubble -- burst
when President Bush lifted executive order against offshore drilling
(July 2008).
nominal inflation-adjusted
1955 $2.93 $23.56
1965 $3.01 $20.59
1975 $12.21 $48.91
1985 $26.92 $53.98
1995 $16.75 $23.71
2005 $50.04 $55.21
2006 $58.30 $62.36
2007 $64.20 $66.66
2008 $91.48 $91.35
2009 $43.11 $43.56
average, 1955-2005 $37.61 inflation-adjusted
May-08 $117.40 $115.12
Jun-08 $126.33 $122.64
Jul-08 $126.16 $121.84
Aug-08 $108.46 $105.16
Sep-08 $96.13 $93.34
Oct-08 $68.50 $67.19
Nov-08 $49.29 $49.29
Dec-08 $32.94 $32.94
1Z
> ll. Either way, there's no
> point in worrying about the matter, as just letting people be free
> will make a solution to energy available.
eg. all the private research into fusion that ISN'T HAPPENING....
Les Cargill
It must be. What is the replacement value of a barrel of oil?
<insert "The Water Engine" here>
--
Les Cargill
Les Cargill
Hell, just build reactors from existing technologies....
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
--
Les Cargill
Arnold Broese
news:8fea888c-3f1a-4465...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
>
> The supreme moral principle is to value
> life as much as possible--not as much as impossible.
So, how much value does 'society' put on the life of a murderer on death
row. How much value on the freedom of a thief locked up in jail? Contrary to
what you base your morality on, life is not an intrinsic value. It has no
value other than what the holder puts on it. Some people get so little joy
from life, and put so little value on it, that they kill themselves.
Understand this point: all values can only exist through a valuer. Yet, you
set yourself up as the supreme valuer, and override the choices of others.
Those who deny people the right to the services of a Dr. Kevorkian are
guilty of the same arrogance. It is not for you to decide the values of
others on the grounds that life has an intrinsic value that supersedes
individual freedoms. It doesn't. Those who value life must also value the
freedoms that give it it's value.
Life is only a value to those who value it. I don't value all life;
certainly not the lives of those who set out to do me harm. You seem to make
no differentiation here, which reflects the absolutism of the religious, who
blindly follow commandments given by a higher authority. Some of us
recognize no higher authority over our lives and values, than ourselves.
That way, we leave others in peace to pursue their own values. Why are you
not prepared to do that as well?
--
Arnold
Tomm Carr
The cost /will/ follow S&D. At best, a government or cartel or whatever
may be able to artificially set /price/, but cost will always be
determined by S&D.
Hold price artificially high and there will be a surplus. Surpluses are
a cost to suppliers and manufacturers in several ways. A surplus must be
stored. A surplus represents unsold product which means loss of revenue.
Hold price artificially low and there will be a shortage. Shortages are
a cost to suppliers and manufacturers in several ways. A shortage means
there is product sold at a lower price that could have been sold at a
higher price. A shortage gives incentives for potential competitors to
become actual competitors, resulting in a loss of market share for
original suppliers. A shortage shifts some demand to alternatives, also
resulting in a loss of market share.
It is detrimental to buyers /and/ sellers to artificially set the price
either higher or lower than the clearing price (the price at the point
where the supply and demand curves intersect). That is also the profit
maximizing point. It is also the only point at which both the sellers
and the buyers are completely satisfied.
That is one reason you really only find government agencies trying to
set prices. They have motives other than profit or meeting demand. They
are not trying to help the buyers or the sellers. They are trying only
to help themselves.
--
Tomm Catt
http://www.examiner.com/x-26551-Phoenix-Freethought-Examiner
In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In
practice, there is.
1Z
wrote:
On 15 Nov, 23:20, Arnold Broese <arnold_broeseREM...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> "1Z" <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:8fea888c-3f1a-4465...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > The supreme moral principle is to value
> > life as much as possible--not as much as impossible.
>
> So, how much value does 'society' put on the life of a murderer on death
> row.
I am not asserting that every actual society fully recognises the
value
of life.
> How much value on the freedom of a thief locked up in jail? Contrary to
> what you base your morality on, life is not an intrinsic value. It has no
> value other than what the holder puts on it.
>Some people get so little joy
> from life, and put so little value on it, that they kill themselves.
Other people see that as mistaken and try to prevent suicides
> Understand this point: all values can only exist through a valuer.
A valuer must be alive.
>Yet, you
> set yourself up as the supreme valuer,
Nope. Can't anyone come up with a new straw man?
>and override the choices of others.
> Those who deny people the right to the services of a Dr. Kevorkian are
> guilty of the same arrogance. It is not for you to decide the values of
> others on the grounds that life has an intrinsic value that supersedes
> individual freedoms. It doesn't. Those who value life must also value the
> freedoms that give it it's value.
>
> Life is only a value to those who value it.
Objectivism is not a philosophy where values are subjective, arbitrary
or non-existent. It is a philosophy that puts holds personal liberty
as the
ultimate value, and claims that as an objective fact. By your current
line of reasoning, any anti-objectivist philosopher can just say
"well I don't value freedom" and you have no come-back.
Charles Bell
> On 15 Nov, 23:20, Arnold Broese <arnold_broeseREM...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >and override the choices of others.
> > Those who deny people the right to the services of a Dr. Kevorkian are
> > guilty of the same arrogance. It is not for you to decide the values of
> > others on the grounds that life has an intrinsic value that supersedes
> > individual freedoms. It doesn't. Those who value life must also value the
> > freedoms that give it it's value.
>
> > Life is only a value to those who value it.
>
> Objectivism is not a philosophy where values are subjective, arbitrary
> or non-existent. It is a philosophy that puts holds personal liberty
> as the
> ultimate value,
Objectivism holds individual freedom as existing above and beyond any
political society in which he voluntarily keeps himself. Society
itself does not exist as an entity not composed of individuals acting
individually. An individual does not, in fact, have the option of
renouncing his freedom any more than he can renounce the gravity that
holds him to the earth, though he can work against political liberty
in a society in which he voluntarily keeps himself and in so doing he
does not value the freedom that is his.
> and claims that as an objective fact. By your current
> line of reasoning, any anti-objectivist philosopher can just say
> "well I don't value freedom" and you have no come-back.
The come-back would be: "Well, just because you do not value your own
freedom does not cause me to not value my own." . . . which is what
Broese said in the first paragraph quoted above.
1Z
> The come-back would be: "Well, just because you do not value your own
> freedom does not cause me to not value my own." . . . which is what
> Broese said in the first paragraph quoted above.
Whatever. He can make an arbitrary decision about freedom, but
if it *is* arbitrary it doesn't mean I am wrong about anything.
If values are properly subjective, it's a free-for-all. If they are
not
he is wrong to imply they are.
Arnold Broese
>
> Objectivism is not a philosophy where values are subjective, arbitrary
> or non-existent. It is a philosophy that puts holds personal liberty
> as the
> ultimate value, and claims that as an objective fact. By your current
> line of reasoning, any anti-objectivist philosopher can just say
> "well I don't value freedom" and you have no come-back.
You skirt around my points, so I won't bother repeating them all. As far as
this paragraph of yours is concerned, it says nothing. If you don't value
freedom then by all means sell yourself into slavery. My values are
different, and as long as you don't try to impose your (lack of) values on
me, what is the problem?
I will repeat my main previous point. You regard life as an intrinsic value.
My question is, by what standard of measure? Who is the valuer, and what is
his yardstick? You think it is a straw man to claim that you regard your
values as that yardstick for all others. Then tell me who, if not the
individual concerned, is the determiner of the value of his life? You base
your morality on the value of life, so once again --who determines this
value???! WHO??
--
Arnold
Arnold Broese
Who said values are subjective? Just because I deny that they are intrinsic,
does not imply a lack of objectivity. It is you who is divorcing value form
valuer, not I. You claim that something has a value, yet fail to consider
that there are no values without a valuer. You certainly won't own up to the
fact that it YOUR values you are imposing. You deny this? Then please
connect the value to the valuer you wish me to consider. Who determines the
values of and in his life? The Fatherland or the individual?
--
Arnold
1Z
wrote:
> "1Z" <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:53a2f1af-5513-47df...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Objectivism is not a philosophy where values are subjective, arbitrary
> > or non-existent. It is a philosophy that puts holds personal liberty
> > as the
> > ultimate value, and claims that as an objective fact. By your current
> > line of reasoning, any anti-objectivist philosopher can just say
> > "well I don't value freedom" and you have no come-back.
>
> You skirt around my points, so I won't bother repeating them all. As far as
> this paragraph of yours is concerned, it says nothing. If you don't value
> freedom then by all means sell yourself into slavery. My values are
> different, and as long as you don't try to impose your (lack of) values on
> me, what is the problem?
What is the problem if I do? That's only wrong according to *your*
values. YOu still don't get it: subjectivise value, and you get a free-
for-all.
> I will repeat my main previous point. You regard life as an intrinsic value.
> My question is, by what standard of measure? Who is the valuer, and what is
> his yardstick?
I regard life's being the supreme value as the outcome of a process
of reasoning. It doesn;t matter who is doing the reasoning. Reasoning
is like that.
>You think it is a straw man to claim that you regard your
> values as that yardstick for all others.
I claim it is a straw man that I am forcing it on others. Why would I
need to when they can see it for themselves?
>Then tell me who, if not the
> individual concerned, is the determiner of the value of his life?
Who is the determiner of 2+2=4?
>You base
> your morality on the value of life, so once again --who determines this
> value???! WHO??
You keep repeating the same basic error. You assert, correctly,
that evaluative beliefs can only be held by iondividuals, and
conclude,
wrongly, that the the such beliefs are arbitrary individual choices.
Individuals *hold* beliefs, but, if the beliefs are objective, they
don't "determine" them.
Charles Bell
> On 16 Nov, 09:55, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > The come-back would be: "Well, just because you do not value your own
> > freedom does not cause me to not value my own." �. �. . which is what
> > Broese said in the first paragraph quoted above.
>
> Whatever. He can make an arbitrary decision about freedom,
He *can* make an abitrary decision about freedom (that is afterall in
the very nature of freedom), but that will not *change* his freedom,
only what he *feels* about his freedom -- which is to say that he may
de-value freedom -- the point being made.
> but
> if it *is* arbitrary it doesn't mean I am wrong about anything.
Yes, you are. One can make an abitrary decision about gravity (that
it does not exist, for example), but that does not make the
metaphysical thing, gravity, go away, and it certainly makes no
difference as to the effects of gravity on anyone else or in anyone
else's evaluation of gravity.
> If values are properly subjective, it's a free-for-all.
. . . Only if one subscribes to some form of subjectivism -- which
still would neither make gravity or freedom go away even for the
subjectivist individual fantasizing about a universe without freedom.
1Z
> > but
> > if it *is* arbitrary it doesn't mean I am wrong about anything.
>
> Yes, you are.
About what?
>One can make an abitrary decision about gravity (that
> it does not exist, for example), but that does not make the
> metaphysical thing, gravity, go away, and it certainly makes no
> difference as to the effects of gravity on anyone else or in anyone
> else's evaluation of gravity.
>
> > If values are properly subjective, it's a free-for-all.
>
> . . . Only if one subscribes to some form of subjectivism --
Which is exactly what "if values are properly subjective" means.
> which
> still would neither make gravity or freedom go away even for the
> subjectivist individual fantasizing about a universe without freedom.
Quite. So if life is objectively a value, his subjective decision
not to value it doesn't change anyhting. Since it doesn't change
anything, I'm not wrong about anything --as I said.
Charles Bell
> On 16 Nov, 12:02, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > �but
> > > if it *is* arbitrary it doesn't mean I am wrong about anything.
>
> > Yes, you are.
>
> About what?
>
1Z> but
1Z > if it *is* arbitrary it doesn't mean I am wrong about anything
> >One can make an abitrary decision about gravity (that
> > it does not exist, for example), but that does not make the
> > metaphysical thing, gravity, go away, and it certainly makes no
> > difference as to the effects of gravity on anyone else or in anyone
> > else's evaluation of gravity.
>
> > > If values are properly subjective, it's a free-for-all.
>
> > . . . Only if one subscribes to some form of subjectivism --
>
> Which is exactly what "if values are properly subjective" means.
Subjectivism is not proper in any sense -- even in the the form of the
statement: "values are properly subjective." You have been told the
distinction to be made between "subjective" and "personal".
>
> > which
> > still would neither make gravity or freedom go away even for the
> > subjectivist individual fantasizing about a universe without freedom.
>
> Quite. So if life is objectively a value,
To be objective and to value one's life, one holds freedom, as any
real referent, as a value. This is not the same as "life is
objectively a value."
> his subjective decision
. . . may be *anything*. This may come as news to you, but
"subjective" is not the same as "objective".
> not to value it doesn't change anyhting.
It will for him in the practical way that he chooses (or chooses by
not choosing) to do without political liberty. What Broese and I are
saying that one individual's choice for a political system lacking in
rights for individual liberty ought not to be imposed on those who do
not choose to forsake political liberty.
> Since it doesn't change
> anything, I'm not wrong about anything --as I said.
Who said it "does not change anything"? What I said above is that
freedom (*not* political liberty) does not go away because of
subjective decisions of those who refuse to recognize freedom. One
can choose to do without gravity and jump off a cliff, but should he
impose a system whereby everyone else is do without gravity (by
coercion, as there is no other way) everyone will be forced off the
cliff with him. The imposition of socialism likewise is coercion for
all to do without political liberty because of people who do not
recognize that freedom of/by/for individuals exists.
[BTW: "liberty" mean politically recognized rights for individual
freedom, and "freedom" is a metaphysical concept related to the
scientific concept of "inertia" intertwined with the metaphysical
concept of "consciousness" to form "freewill". Hence, the analogy of
freedom to gravity is pertinent.]
1Z
> Subjectivism is not proper in any sense -- even in the the form of the
> statement: "values are properly subjective."
Really? So I can't subjectively decide tutti frutti is my favourite
ice cream flavour?
What a paradise of freedom Libertopia must be!
> > Quite. So if life is objectively a value,
>
> To be objective and to value one's life, one holds freedom, as any
> real referent, as a value.
*a* value, fine. The quesiton is what heads the hierarchy.
> This is not the same as "life is
> objectively a value."
That is noy any kind of disproof of "life is
objectively a value."
> > his subjective decision
>
> . . . may be *anything*. This may come as news to you, but
> "subjective" is not the same as "objective".
That does not come as news to me.
> > not to value it doesn't change anyhting.
>
> It will for him in the practical way that he chooses (or chooses by
> not choosing) to do without political liberty.
I don't care about that. He thinks he can refute
me by making an arbitrary subjective choice, and he can't.
>What Broese and I are
> saying that one individual's choice for a political system lacking in
> rights for individual liberty ought not to be imposed on those who do
> not choose to forsake political liberty.
And what I am saying is that that needs, among other things,
an objective system
of values, not the subjective kind Broese is proposing.
You may disagree with him about ethical subjectivism.
If so, kindly disagree with *him* about it.
> > Since it doesn't change
> > anything, I'm not wrong about anything --as I said.
>
> Who said it "does not change anything"?
"One can make an abitrary decision about gravity (that
it does not exist, for example), but that does not make the
metaphysical thing, gravity, go away, and it certainly makes no
difference as to the effects of gravity on anyone else or in anyone
else's evaluation of gravity".
>What I said above is that
> freedom (*not* political liberty) does not go away because of
> subjective decisions of those who refuse to recognize freedom.
Why are you telling *me* that? I am not the ethical subjectivist
here..
>One
> can choose to do without gravity and jump off a cliff, but should he
> impose a system whereby everyone else is do without gravity (by
> coercion, as there is no other way) everyone will be forced off the
> cliff with him. The imposition of socialism likewise is coercion for
> all to do without political liberty because of people who do not
> recognize that freedom of/by/for individuals exists.
And coercion is always wrong if freedom is the
ultimate value. But freedom does not get to be the ultimate
value by being subjectivly chosen, as Broese thinks.
Now: are you disagreeing with him about ethical subjectivism,
or with me about which value is objectively ultimate?
Reggie Perrin
> 1Z wrote:
>> On 13 Nov, 12:31, Ryurgin <ryur...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> ll. Either way, there's no
>>> point in worrying about the matter, as just letting people be free
>>> will make a solution to energy available.
>>
>> eg. all the private research into fusion that ISN'T HAPPENING....
Wrong as usual.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9721240-7.html
http://www.gizmag.com/general-fusion-nuclear-prototype/12420/
1Z
> Wrong as usual.
>
>
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9721240-7.htmlhttp://www.gizmag.com/genera
l-fusion-nuclear-prototype/12420/
Small change. ITER is funded at e10billion
Arnold Broese
> On 16 Nov, 11:41, Arnold Broese <arnold_broeseREM...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> I will repeat my main previous point. You regard life as an intrinsic
>> value.
>> My question is, by what standard of measure? Who is the valuer, and what
>> is
>> his yardstick?
>
> I regard life's being the supreme value as the outcome of a process
> of reasoning. It doesn;t matter who is doing the reasoning. Reasoning
> is like that.
Surely you can see that life can have no value for some people. All life
means to them is pain and misery. They wish to end it because they REASON
that no happiness is possible to them. They use their reason to seek a way
out. Yet you tell them they are wrong; that life IS a value to them. How do
you know that if you are not them?
>>You think it is a straw man to claim that you regard your
>> values as that yardstick for all others.
>
> I claim it is a straw man that I am forcing it on others. Why would I
> need to when they can see it for themselves?
They don't necessarily see it for themselves, and neither should they have
to. If you insist to someone who wishes to end his life, that he has the
wrong values, then force him to accept your value of life, you are not
allowing free choice. You cannot dodge this with the straw man card.
>>Then tell me who, if not the
>> individual concerned, is the determiner of the value of his life?
>
> Who is the determiner of 2+2=4?
This proves you place an intrinsic value on life. That means, that life has
a value independent of a valuer - just as 2+2=4 is independent of personal
wishes. But values are NOT independent of individuals as you admit below.
>>You base your morality on the value of life, so once again --who
>>determines this value???! WHO??
>
> You keep repeating the same basic error. You assert, correctly,
> that evaluative beliefs can only be held by iondividuals, and
> conclude, wrongly, that the the such beliefs are arbitrary individual
> choices.
> Individuals *hold* beliefs, but, if the beliefs are objective, they don't
> "determine" them.
No they are not arbitrary "beliefs." Values are objectively determined in
accord with who and what you are. If I prefer sport to ballet dancing, that
reflects my nature and interests. Yes these are personal but that doesn't
make them arbitrary because different personalities are a FACT of nature. A
sport ticket is objectively greater value than a ticket to the ballet, if
you don't like ballet.
Your position is that you can objectively place a value on these personal
preferences, which are independent of the individuals concerned. Personal
values are not necessarily unobjective or arbitrary.
You grant that values can only be held by individuals, then go on to claim
they exist independent of individuals, such as 2+2=4.
--
Arnold
Charles Bell
> On 16 Nov, 13:18, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > Subjectivism is not proper in any sense -- even in the the form of the
> > statement: "values are properly subjective."
>
> Really? So I can't subjectively decide tutti frutti is my favourite
> ice cream flavour?
> What a paradise of freedom Libertopia must be!
>
You have been told the difference between "subjective" and "personal"
> > This is not the same as "life is
> > objectively a value."
>
> That is noy any kind of disproof of "life is
> objectively a value."
>
"Life is objectively a value" actually has no grammar to it.
> > It will for him in the practical way that he chooses (or chooses by
> > not choosing) to do without political liberty.
>
> I don't care about that.
Of course, you don't.
> And what I am saying is that that needs, among other things,
> an objective system
> of values, not the subjective kind Broese is proposing.
"Objective system of values" has no application here. AFIK that phrase
is used by people about Objectivism rather than by Objectivists. It
reduces a complicated thinking process to a simplistic formula. If it
means: having values based in reality rather than not in reality then
that is fine as far as it goes, and Broese said nothing contrary to
that. Inasmuch as you cannot grasp the difference between having a
personal preference ("I like vanilla ice-cream") and living in
subjectivism ("Vanilla ice-cream can give me the power to fly to the
moon.") you are the one who cannot keep up in this discussion.
> And coercion is always wrong if freedom is the
> ultimate value.
That is an incorrect statement, to the extent it makes any sense at
all (who is the actor and who is the valuer?), endorsing anarchism,
perhaps.
1Z
> > And what I am saying is that that needs, among other things,
> > an objective system
> > of values, not the subjective kind Broese is proposing.
>
> "Objective system of values" has no application here. AFIK that phrase
> is used by people about Objectivism rather than by Objectivists
Whatever. Big-O Objectivism is not the only small-o theory of ethical
objectivism or ethical realism.
>. It
> reduces a complicated thinking process to a simplistic formula. If it
> means: having values based in reality rather than not in reality then
> that is fine as far as it goes, and Broese said nothing contrary to
> that. �
Yes he does. He thinks that because values are held by valuers
they are determined by valuers-- which means they are not determined
by anything more objective.
>Inasmuch as you cannot grasp the difference between having a
> personal preference ("I like vanilla ice-cream") and living in
> subjectivism ("Vanilla ice-cream can give me the power to fly to the
> moon.") �you are the one who cannot keep up in this discussion.
You are confused because you think there is 1 thing called
objectivism and another thing called subjectivism. Actually
one can be properly objective about some things and subjective about
others.
> > And coercion is always wrong if freedom is the
> > ultimate value.
>
> That is an incorrect statement, �to the extent it makes any sense at
> all (who is the actor and who is the valuer?),
If values are objective, they don't depend on the whim of a valuer.
That's what "objective" means.
>endorsing anarchism,
> perhaps.
Perhaps, but it's not my claim anyway. Note the "if"
1Z
wrote:
> "1Z" <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:3c914882-abab-45c6...@g23g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 16 Nov, 11:41, Arnold Broese <arnold_broeseREM...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> I will repeat my main previous point. You regard life as an intrinsic
> >> value.
> >> My question is, by what standard of measure? Who is the valuer, and what
> >> is
> >> his yardstick?
>
> > I regard life's being the supreme value as the outcome of a process
> > of reasoning. It doesn;t matter who is doing the reasoning. Reasoning
> > is like that.
>
> Surely you can see that life can have no value for some people.
They can believe that, but I can regard the belief as mistaken. Note
that we tend to discourage suicides: we tend to regard their
despair as mistaken.
> All life
> means to them is pain and misery. They wish to end it because they REASON
> that no happiness is possible to them. They use their reason to seek a way
> out. Yet you tell them they are wrong; that life IS a value to them. How do
> you know that if you are not them?
People with suicidal depresssion can recover and see that for
themselves.
> >>You think it is a straw man to claim that you regard your
> >> values as that yardstick for all others.
>
> > I claim it is a straw man that I am forcing it on others. Why would I
> > need to when they can see it for themselves?
>
> They don't necessarily see it for themselves, and neither should they have
> to. If you insist to someone who wishes to end his life, that he has the
> wrong values, then force him to accept your value of life, you are not
> allowing free choice.
Correct. I am valuing life above freedom. That is my claim.
>You cannot dodge this with the straw man card.
Dodge what? That I am making the claim I am making?
What someone needs to do is refute the claim. It's no
good just saying "But your claiming X!" *as if* X is obviously
wrong. You are all sounding like people with no ability to think
outside your own dogmatic box.
> >>Then tell me who, if not the
> >> individual concerned, is the determiner of the value of his life?
>
> > Who is the determiner of 2+2=4?
>
> This proves you place an intrinsic value on life.
>That means, that life has
> a value independent of a valuer - just as 2+2=4 is independent of personal
> wishes. But values are NOT independent of individuals as you admit below.
That is a confused statement. There are two kinds of (in)dependence
here.
Valuer need to be held by valuers, but that does not mean they
are determined by valuers.
> >>You base your morality on the value of life, so once again --who
> >>determines this value???! WHO??
>
> > You keep repeating the same basic error. You assert, correctly,
> > that evaluative beliefs can only be held by iondividuals, and
> > conclude, wrongly, that the the such beliefs are arbitrary individual
> > choices.
> > Individuals *hold* beliefs, but, if the beliefs are objective, they don't
> > "determine" them.
>
> No they are not arbitrary "beliefs." Values are objectively determined in
> accord with who and what you are.
Then the "who" question is irrelevant, as it is for 2+2=4
>If I prefer sport to ballet dancing, that
> reflects my nature and interests. Yes these are personal but that doesn't
> make them arbitrary because different personalities are a FACT of nature.
By that reasoning,nothing is arbitrary except a miracle. That
reasoning is therefore clearly wrong.
>A
> sport ticket is objectively greater value than a ticket to the ballet, if
> you don't like ballet.
Sigh...it's rationally of greater value to you. But that logic has a
"you" or "me" in it
so it is not objective.
> Your position is that you can objectively place a value on these personal
> preferences, which are independent of the individuals concerned.
No, my position is that the value of life is *not* a personal
preference.
>Personal
> values are not necessarily unobjective or arbitrary.
> You grant that values can only be held by individuals, then go on to claim
> they exist independent of individuals, such as 2+2=4.
I don't claim the latter. 2+2=4 doesn't *exist* separately of
individuals,
but individuals don't determine its truth. You keep conflating the
metaphysical issue and the epistemological issue.
Charles Bell
> On 16 Nov, 23:25, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > And what I am saying is that that needs, among other things,
> > > an objective system
> > > of values, not the subjective kind Broese is proposing.
>
> > "Objective system of values" has no application here. AFIK that phrase
> > is used by people about Objectivism rather than by Objectivists
>
> Whatever. Big-O Objectivism is not the only small-o theory of ethical
> objectivism or ethical realism.
>
Then you are engaging in bait-and-switch. "Oh, you think I have been
talking about the Queen of England? Not *that* queen, of course."
> >. It
> > reduces a complicated thinking process to a simplistic formula. If it
> > means: having values based in reality rather than not in reality then
> > that is fine as far as it goes, and Broese said nothing contrary to
> > that. �
>
> Yes he does. He thinks that because values are held by valuers
> they are determined by valuers--
No, he does not. You are the one who might be claiming that things
like "freedom" and "gravity" are merely things which, because they can
be valued, are therefore arbitrary objects of valuation, but that is a
difflicult thing to determine inasmuch as you have such a problem with
English grammar and grasping the difference between the subjective and
the personal.
> which means they are not determined
> by anything more objective.
More objective that what? How is something "more objective"?
>
> >Inasmuch as you cannot grasp the difference between having a
> > personal preference ("I like vanilla ice-cream") and living in
> > subjectivism ("Vanilla ice-cream can give me the power to fly to the
> > moon.") �you are the one who cannot keep up in this discussion.
>
> You are confused because you think
. . . You cannot tell the difference between "personal" and
"subjective".
> > > And coercion is always wrong if freedom is the
> > > ultimate value.
>
> > That is an incorrect statement, �to the extent it makes any sense at
> > all (who is the actor and who is the valuer?),
>
> If values are objective, they don't depend on the whim of �a valuer.
> That's what "objective" means.
>
. . . Which cannot possibly have anything to do with what you said
above. Let me write this out for you again: "And coercion is always
wrong if freedom is the ulitmate value." Where is the "whim"; who is
the "valuer"; what is an "ultimate value"; who or what is doing the
coercing and why?
> >endorsing anarchism,
> > perhaps.
>
> Perhaps, but it's not my claim anyway. Note the "if"
It has been nobody's claim in this discussion.
1Z
> On Nov 17, 4:35 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On 16 Nov, 23:25, Charles Bell <cbel...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > Yes he does. He thinks that because values are held by valuers
> > they are determined by valuers--
>
> No, he does not.
Yes he does, eg.
"Life is only a value to those who value it"
>You are the one who might be claiming that things
> like "freedom" and "gravity" are merely things which, because they can
> be valued, are therefore arbitrary objects of valuation,
No I am not.
> but that is a
> difflicult thing to determine inasmuch as you have such a problem with
> English grammar and grasping the difference between the subjective and
> the personal.
>
> > which means they are not determined
> > by anything more objective.
>
> More objective that what?
Than the deteminations of valuers.
>How is something "more objective"?
eg. that something subjective. My sentence made sense
before you split it up.
"He thinks that because values are held by valuers they are determined
by valuers--which means they are not determined by anything more
objective."
> > > > And coercion is always wrong if freedom is the
> > > > ultimate value.
>
> > > That is an incorrect statement, to the extent it makes any sense at
> > > all (who is the actor and who is the valuer?),
>
> > If values are objective, they don't depend on the whim of a valuer.
> > That's what "objective" means.
>
> . . . Which cannot possibly have anything to do with what you said
> above.
it has to do with what you said: "who is the actor and who is the
valuer?".
Broese has also posed the "who" question. It is irrelevant
if values are objective.
Charles Bell
> On 16 Nov, 23:24, Arnold Broese <arnold_broeseREM...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > > I claim it is a straw man that I am forcing it on others. Why would I
> > > need to when they can see it for themselves?
>
> > They don't necessarily see it for themselves, and neither should they have
> > to. If you insist to someone who wishes to end his life, that he has the
> > wrong values, then force him to accept your value of life, you are not
> > allowing free choice.
>
> Correct. I am valuing life above freedom. That is my claim.
>
This is like saying you value the river above the water in the river
or a forest above any tree in the forest. There is in reality no life
without freedom associated with that life just as there is no river
without water. You can believe and assert otherwise, of course, so
long as you do not make those choices for others because the others
will fight back (by the very nature of human freedom) and take away
the life you say you value. In the process of choosing "life over
freedom" as socialists value the state (forest) over the individuals
(the trees) which comprise the state, the value of any one individual
is forgotten over the lives of many: rid Germany of those pesky Jews
and rid Russia of those pesky bourgeois merchants and bankers. And
why? Science tells us so. Rid the world of a dynamic, ever-growing
economy like the U.S. and a global free market in which the U.S. can
operate and replace it with a stagnant, but predictably controllable,
international socialist governance. And why? Because science tells us
so. Never mind that Global Warming science is as bogus as the Marxist
economic science it replaced as the Progressive eugenics science it
replaced as the Divine Right of Kings it replaced. There is no true
science that can deny individual human freewill.