When even a Republican can see it....
Martha Adams
Planet' and 'The Marching Morons.' When a social issue
becomes so large and immediate that even a Republican
can see it, that's too late. Examples come to mind.
Global climate change: we had a window to do something
about that after the signals came out -- ten to twenty years
ago. Too late now.
What we're getting now in time to respond to some effect,
is *population*. It won't happen that resources enough
exist in this world, and technological answers will (almost
magically) appear in time, that our country's population
sees anything but falling standards of living. Indeed, we
can see it now in the severely diminished quality of
medical care today, in that inflation that "isn't" going on,
in the lines at our Postal (euphemistically) Service
windows, prices of gas, oil, and food (with contamination
issues) and etc.
What a great time to be a science fiction writer! By the
way, I'm reading a truly great book by Bruce Sterling:
"Tomorrow Now".
Cheers -- Martha Adams [rasff 2007 Apr 25]
Keith F. Lynch
> Global climate change: we had a window to do something about that
> after the signals came out -- ten to twenty years ago. Too late now.
Too late? Does that mean it's okay to ignore it? What do you suggest
should have been done ten to twenty years ago? Why shouldn't whatever
that is be done today?
> What we're getting now in time to respond to some effect, is
> *population*.
Yes, it is worrisome that it looks like population will peak not much
higher than it is today, and then drop at an ever-increasing rate.
How are we ever supposed to colonize space, or even get decent
economies of scale, without a large population base? What do you
suggest be done about it?
> Indeed, we can see it now in the severely diminished quality of
> medical care today,
Aren't life expectancies in the US higher than ever before? The
problem isn't with the quality of medical care (unless you expect
it to provide immortality), but with its affordability.
--
Keith F. Lynch - http://keithlynch.net/
Please see http://keithlynch.net/email.html before emailing me.
Karl Johanson
> Yes, it is worrisome that it looks like population *will* (emphasis
> added) peak not much
> higher than it is today, and then drop at an ever-increasing rate.
Time machine? Can you get stock tips as well?
Karl Johanson
David Friedman
"Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
On the evidence, it's at least as plausible a prediction as the one in
the other direction. And he did say "looks like."
As countries became developed, birth rates fell. Currently European
birth rates are mostly below replacement. I think U.S. is about at
replacement, but that partly reflects a lot of fairly recent immigrants
who haven't yet fully adapted to their new environment. So why do you
find Keith's prediction implausible?
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
Karl Johanson
> In article <UjSXh.127752$DE1.30178@pd7urf2no>,
> "Karl Johanson" <karljo...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote
>>
>> > Yes, it is worrisome that it looks like population *will* (emphasis
>> > added) peak not much
>> > higher than it is today, and then drop at an ever-increasing rate.
>>
>> Time machine? Can you get stock tips as well?
>
> On the evidence, it's at least as plausible a prediction as the one in
> the other direction. And he did say "looks like."
>
> As countries became developed, birth rates fell. Currently European
> birth rates are mostly below replacement. I think U.S. is about at
> replacement, but that partly reflects a lot of fairly recent
> immigrants
> who haven't yet fully adapted to their new environment. So why do you
> find Keith's prediction implausible?
I found it undemonstrated, not implausable.
Karl Johanson
David T. Bilek
>
>Today's world reminds me of background of Pohl's 'Gravy
>Planet' and 'The Marching Morons.' When a social issue
>becomes so large and immediate that even a Republican
>can see it, that's too late. Examples come to mind.
>
>Global climate change: we had a window to do something
>about that after the signals came out -- ten to twenty years
>ago. Too late now.
Ten years ago, maybe. Twenty years ago there's no way there was
enough good data on global warming to warrant a huge response.
>
>What we're getting now in time to respond to some effect,
>is *population*. It won't happen that resources enough
>exist in this world, and technological answers will (almost
>magically) appear in time, that our country's population
>sees anything but falling standards of living. Indeed, we
>can see it now in the severely diminished quality of
>medical care today, in that inflation that "isn't" going on,
>in the lines at our Postal (euphemistically) Service
>windows, prices of gas, oil, and food (with contamination
>issues) and etc.
>
Are you worried about population increasing or decreasing? Falling
birthrates are much more of a problem than the reverse in most of the
industrialized world, and overall world population should start
decreasing real soon now. But it kind of reads like you're afraid of
overpopulation.
-David
David Friedman
David T. Bilek <dtb...@ca.rr.com> wrote:
> Are you worried about population increasing or decreasing? Falling
> birthrates are much more of a problem than the reverse in most of the
> industrialized world, and overall world population should start
> decreasing real soon now. But it kind of reads like you're afraid of
> overpopulation.
>
At a slight tangent, I find it striking how fast we go from confident
proclamations that "the problem with the world is that poor people are
hungry" to equally confident proclamations that the problem is that they
are fat, or from worries about underpopulation (c. 1930's) to worries
about overpopulation to renewed worries about underpopulation.
Then there's global cooling vs global warming.
Which doesn't tell us which of the worries are about real problems, but
does suggest a pattern of exaggerated confidence in the worriers.
Paul F. Dietz
> Then there's global cooling vs global warming.
One a meme propagated at the time mostly by Newsweek and some
popsci writers, the other a consensus of most of the professional
climatology community with extensive primary literature
and perhaps the most intensely reviewed periodic reports
ever in science.
Yeah, they're entirely comparable.
Paul
Old Toby
> At a slight tangent, I find it striking how fast we go from confident
> proclamations that "the problem with the world is that poor people are
> hungry" to equally confident proclamations that the problem is that they
> are fat, or from worries about underpopulation (c. 1930's) to worries
> about overpopulation to renewed worries about underpopulation.
You mean, from "there won't be enough white people" to "there will be
too many non-white people" back to "there won't be enough white people?"
Two sides of the same coin, I think. We've already seen it start to
shift toward "non-white people are getting too rich."
Which is not to say that underpopulation won't be a problem for
certain countries, or that the rapid growth in China's consumption
won't provide environmental and resource challenges, but the doom
and gloom types often have disturbing racial subtexts to their
message.
Old Toby
Least Known Dog on the Net
James Nicoll
>
>What we're getting now in time to respond to some effect,
>is *population*. It won't happen that resources enough
>exist in this world, and technological answers will (almost
>magically) appear in time, that our country's population
>sees anything but falling standards of living. Indeed, we
>can see it now in the severely diminished quality of
>medical care today
That has nothing to do with the resources that are
available but more to do with the fact that Americans are
remarkably inept for a 1st world nation at using the medical
resources that they do have. Unfortunately, nothing can be
done about this by individual Americans save emigration
(If only because for a sufficiently large part of the US
population, the inequities and inefficiencies are the whole
point).
--
http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/immigrate/
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Karl Johanson
>>
>>Today's world reminds me of background of Pohl's 'Gravy
>>Planet' and 'The Marching Morons.' When a social issue
>>becomes so large and immediate that even a Republican
>>can see it, that's too late. Examples come to mind.
>>
>>Global climate change: we had a window to do something
>>about that after the signals came out -- ten to twenty years
>>ago. Too late now.
> Ten years ago, maybe. Twenty years ago there's no way there was
> enough good data on global warming to warrant a huge response.
20 years ago we had good data that nuclear was a better option than
coal, regardless of any infrared reflecting, or absorbing properties of
Carbon dioxide.
Karl Johanson
Karl Johanson
> Then there's global cooling vs global warming.
Global cooling was discussed and analysed as a possibility in the 70's;
although Jerry Pournelle at Worldcon 06 repeated the meme that there was
a 'scientific consensus' in the 70's that were were headed into an ice
age. I asked what he meant by 'scientific consensus' in that case, and
was it like the current scientific consensus on global warming, as (i.e.
the peer reviewed science journal articles pretty much in agreement). He
said all the panels at the science conferences he went to discussed what
we'd do if there was an ice age. Even if it were true about that many
panels, discussing a possibility is different than having thousands of
peer reviewed science journal articles in agreement on something.
(I note that the methods of science in general & peer review in specific
aren't perfect. They are different than panel discussions on
possibilities though. I talked on a science panel last year about the
possibility of a large asteroid hitting the Earth. A valid topic for
discussion, but I wouldn't expect the discussion (or even dozens of
them) to be mistaken for any kind of scientific consensus that a large
asteroid is about to hit us.)
Karl Johanson
Keith F. Lynch
> 20 years ago we had good data that nuclear was a better option than
> coal, regardless of any infrared reflecting, or absorbing properties
> of Carbon dioxide.
Oddly enough, the people who are most against global warming are also
the ones who are most against nuclear power.
Karl Johanson
>> 20 years ago we had good data that nuclear was a better option than
>> coal, regardless of any infrared reflecting, or absorbing properties
>> of Carbon dioxide.
>
> Oddly enough, the people who are most against global warming are also
> the ones who are most against nuclear power.
Doesn't seem odd. Nuclear could eliminate the need for fossil fuels for
electricity generation. Doesn't seem odd that those who make terrabucks
on fossil fuels don't want that.
Karl Johanson
Karl Johanson
Woop. I think I mis-interpreted your 'against'. I interpreted it as
'being against the notion that global warming is happening', as apposed
to 'not wanting global warming'.
Karl Johanson
dwight...@gmail.com
> "Karl Johanson" <karljohan...@shaw.ca> wrote
>
> > "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote
> >>> 20 years ago we had good data that nuclear was a better option than
> >>> coal, regardless of any infrared reflecting, or absorbing properties
> >>> of Carbon dioxide.
>
> >> Oddly enough, the people who are most against global warming are also
> >> the ones who are most against nuclear power.
>
> > Doesn't seem odd. Nuclear could eliminate the need for fossil fuels
> > for electricity generation. Doesn't seem odd that those who make
> > terrabucks on fossil fuels don't want that.
>
> Woop. I think I mis-interpreted your 'against'. I interpreted it as
> 'being against the notion that global warming is happening', as apposed
> to 'not wanting global warming'.
>
> Karl Johanson
I wonder what metric he is using to determine who is 'most against'
global warrming. Probably the knee-jerk metric.
mark...@earthlink.net
Whatever metric that allows Lynch to pretend he know the innermost
thoughts of other people.
"Oddly enough, the people who are most against global warming are also
the ones who are most against nuclear power." is a strawman argument.
Keith F. Lynch
> "dwight.thi...@gmail.com" <dwight.thi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> I wonder what metric he is using to determine who is 'most against'
>> global warrming. Probably the knee-jerk metric.
> Whatever metric that allows Lynch to pretend he know the innermost
> thoughts of other people.
I know the outermost thoughts of other people, i.e. those thoughts
that they loudly proclaim in public.
The people speaking loudly in public that something must be done about
global warming are the environmentalists.
The people speaking loudly in public that nuclear power plants should
be banned are the environmentalists.
Karl Johanson
> <mark...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> "dwight.thi...@gmail.com" <dwight.thi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I wonder what metric he is using to determine who is 'most against'
>>> global warrming. Probably the knee-jerk metric.
>
>> Whatever metric that allows Lynch to pretend he know the innermost
>> thoughts of other people.
>
> I know the outermost thoughts of other people, i.e. those thoughts
> that they loudly proclaim in public.
>
> The people speaking loudly in public that something must be done about
> global warming are the environmentalists.
>
> The people speaking loudly in public that nuclear power plants should
> be banned are the environmentalists.
Quite a few of us environmentalists are for nuclear energy.
Karl Johanson
dwight...@gmail.com
> <markr1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > "dwight.thi...@gmail.com" <dwight.thi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I wonder what metric he is using to determine who is 'most against'
> >> global warrming. Probably the knee-jerk metric.
> > Whatever metric that allows Lynch to pretend he know the innermost
> > thoughts of other people.
>
> I know the outermost thoughts of other people, i.e. those thoughts
> that they loudly proclaim in public.
>
> The people speaking loudly in public that something must be done about
> global warming are the environmentalists.
>
> The people speaking loudly in public that nuclear power plants should
> be banned are the environmentalists.
You do realize that what you just said has absolutely nothing to do
with what you asserted in your earlier post, right?
mark...@earthlink.net
> <markr1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > "dwight.thi...@gmail.com" <dwight.thi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I wonder what metric he is using to determine who is 'most against'
> >> global warrming. Probably the knee-jerk metric.
> > Whatever metric that allows Lynch to pretend he know the innermost
> > thoughts of other people.
>
> I know the outermost thoughts of other people, i.e. those thoughts
> that they loudly proclaim in public.
What people? Care to actually quote any specific people?
> The people speaking loudly in public that something must be done about
> global warming are the environmentalists.
>
> The people speaking loudly in public that nuclear power plants should
> be banned are the environmentalists.
Again with the political labels about very large groups of people you
don't know. Quote specific people.
mike weber
wrote:
>The people speaking loudly in public that something must be done about
>global warming are the environmentalists.
>
>The people speaking loudly in public that nuclear power plants should
>be banned are the environmentalists.
I remember remarking at one time that some of the more rabid
anti-whaling people were also folk-song collectors (and singers) who
loved songs like "Greenland Whale Fisheries" and other whaling songs.
--
mike weber (fairp...@gmail.com)
============================
My Website: http://electronictiger.com
===================================
No use looking for the answers when the questions are in doubt - Fred leBlanc, "The Love of My Life"
David Dyer-Bennet
> On 27 Apr 2007 21:33:19 -0400, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net>
> wrote:
>
>> The people speaking loudly in public that something must be done about
>> global warming are the environmentalists.
>>
>> The people speaking loudly in public that nuclear power plants should
>> be banned are the environmentalists.
>
> I remember remarking at one time that some of the more rabid
> anti-whaling people were also folk-song collectors (and singers) who
> loved songs like "Greenland Whale Fisheries" and other whaling songs.
This is not inconsistent; one can love a song without approving of the
continuation of the historic practice it documents.
mike weber
wrote:
>mike weber wrote:
>> I remember remarking at one time that some of the more rabid
>> anti-whaling people were also folk-song collectors (and singers) who
>> loved songs like "Greenland Whale Fisheries" and other whaling songs.
>
>This is not inconsistent; one can love a song without approving of the
>continuation of the historic practice it documents.
Oh, i dunno - when you're earnestly writing songs condemning whaling
and such things, it's at least a bit amusing.
I mean, the fact that Strom Thurmond had a mixed-race daughter is
amusing...
Kip Williams
> mike weber wrote:
>> I remember remarking at one time that some of the more rabid
>> anti-whaling people were also folk-song collectors (and singers) who
>> loved songs like "Greenland Whale Fisheries" and other whaling songs.
>
> This is not inconsistent; one can love a song without approving of the
> continuation of the historic practice it documents.
Heh. When I read that, I thought it was because they wanted people to be
able to see what "whales" were. As if they didn't want people having to
ask what they were all the time.
Kip W
David Loewe, Jr.
But, you don't speak loudly in public about it...
--
"I aim to misbehave."
Malcolm Reynolds
Paul Ciszek
In article <f0u88v$9nl$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>
>The people speaking loudly in public that something must be done about
>global warming are the environmentalists.
>
>The people speaking loudly in public that nuclear power plants should
>be banned are the environmentalists.
The people saying they want to make government small enough to drown in
a bathtub are libertarians.
The people aproving of every damn thing Bush does to expand the power
of the government are libertarians.
See how that works?
--
Please reply to: | "One of the hardest parts of my job is to
pciszek at panix dot com | connect Iraq to the War on Terror."
Autoreply is disabled | -- G. W. Bush, 9/7/2006
Paul Ciszek
In article <4632e912$0$966$8046...@newsreader.iphouse.net>,
Indeed, fans of comic books used to have make the same argument re crime,
murder, tentacled monsters abducting Earth's fairest daughters, etc.
Paul Ciszek
In article <bf86339d5krggsq7k...@4ax.com>,
mike weber <fairp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Apr 2007 01:26:33 -0500, David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net>
>wrote:
>
>>mike weber wrote:
>
>>> I remember remarking at one time that some of the more rabid
>>> anti-whaling people were also folk-song collectors (and singers) who
>>> loved songs like "Greenland Whale Fisheries" and other whaling songs.
>>
>>This is not inconsistent; one can love a song without approving of the
>>continuation of the historic practice it documents.
>
>Oh, i dunno - when you're earnestly writing songs condemning whaling
>and such things, it's at least a bit amusing.
I know of at least one save-the-whales song written in the musical style
of the old whaling songs, "Nantucket Sleighrides" by Robyn Hilliard.
Keith F. Lynch
> The people saying they want to make government small enough to drown
> in a bathtub are libertarians.
> The people aproving of every damn thing Bush does to expand the
> power of the government are libertarians.
> See how that works?
No. You followed a true statement with an obviously false statement.
The people aproving of every damn thing Bush does to expand the power
of the government are Republicans. Bush was the Republican candidate
in 2000 and 2004. He has never been the Libertarian candidate.
Keith F. Lynch
Al Gore is against nuclear power. See
http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/
And of course he's the best-known advocate of the idea that something
must be done about global warming. I trust I don't need to dig up
evidence that he holds that position?
dwight...@gmail.com
> <markr1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >> The people speaking loudly in public that something must be done
> >> about global warming are the environmentalists.
> >> The people speaking loudly in public that nuclear power plants
> >> should be banned are the environmentalists.
> > Again with the political labels about very large groups of people
> > you don't know. Quote specific people.
>
>
> And of course he's the best-known advocate of the idea that something
> must be done about global warming. I trust I don't need to dig up
> evidence that he holds that position?
Sigh. Let me reproduce the relevant text:
----begin----
Let's turn briefly to some proposed solutions. Nuclear power is
making a big resurgence now, rebranded as a solution to climate
change. What do you think?
I doubt nuclear power will play a much larger role than it does now.
Won't, or shouldn't?
Won't. There are serious problems that have to be solved, and they
are not limited to the long-term waste-storage issue and the
vulnerability-to-terrorist-attack issue. Let's assume for the sake of
argument that both of those problems can be solved.
We still have other issues. For eight years in the White House, every
weapons-proliferation problem we dealt with was connected to a
civilian reactor program. And if we ever got to the point where we
wanted to use nuclear reactors to back out a lot of coal -- which is
the real issue: coal -- then we'd have to put them in so many places
we'd run that proliferation risk right off the reasonability scale.
And we'd run short of uranium, unless they went to a breeder cycle or
something like it, which would increase the risk of weapons-grade
material being available.
When energy prices go up, the difficulty of projecting demand also
goes up -- uncertainty goes up. So utility executives naturally want
to place their bets for future generating capacity on smaller
increments that are available more quickly, to give themselves
flexibility. Nuclear reactors are the biggest increments, that cost
the most money, and take the most time to build.
In any case, if they can design a new generation [of reactors] that's
manifestly safer, more flexible, etc., it may play some role, but I
don't think it will play a big role.
----end----
I think it's pretty obvious that he didn't say he was against nuclear
power. If anything, he says that utility executives are against it.
This wasn't hard to decipher, Keith.
Karl Johanson
news:f12lgo$hdn$1...@panix1.panix.com...
> <mark...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>>> The people speaking loudly in public that something must be done
>>> about global warming are the environmentalists.
>
>>> The people speaking loudly in public that nuclear power plants
>>> should be banned are the environmentalists.
>
>> Again with the political labels about very large groups of people
>> you don't know. Quote specific people.
>
> Al Gore is against nuclear power. See
> http://www.grist.org/news/maindish/2006/05/09/roberts/
Your example has him claiming it won't be playing a much larger role
than it is now, not that it shouldn't.
(*Start Quoted article*)
David Roberts : Let's turn briefly to some proposed solutions. Nuclear
power is making a big resurgence now, rebranded as a solution to climate
change. What do you think?
Al Gore: I doubt nuclear power will play a much larger role than it does
now.
David Roberts : Won't, or shouldn't?
Al Gore: Won't. There are serious problems that have to be solved, and
they are not limited to the long-term waste-storage issue and the
vulnerability-to-terrorist-attack issue. Let's assume for the sake of
argument that both of those problems can be solved.
We still have other issues. For eight years in the White House, every
weapons-proliferation problem we dealt with was connected to a civilian
reactor program. And if we ever got to the point where we wanted to use
nuclear reactors to back out a lot of coal -- which is the real issue:
coal -- then we'd have to put them in so many places we'd run that
proliferation risk right off the reasonability scale. And we'd run short
of uranium, unless they went to a breeder cycle or something like it,
which would increase the risk of weapons-grade material being available.
When energy prices go up, the difficulty of projecting demand also goes
up -- uncertainty goes up. So utility executives naturally want to place
their bets for future generating capacity on smaller increments that are
available more quickly, to give themselves flexibility. Nuclear reactors
are the biggest increments, that cost the most money, and take the most
time to build.
In any case, if they can design a new generation [of reactors] that's
manifestly safer, more flexible, etc., it may play some role, but I
don't think it will play a big role.
(*end quoted article*)
Gore is for it's use, but doesn't think its the best option, for the
reasons he listed. I disagree with most of his reasoning on the
concerns. When Al Gore was VP, his party did nothing to shut down any
nuclear reactors in the US. They were in power during upgrades &
efficiency boosts to US reactors, which added to more electricity than
was generated by every windmill in the world combined. He did nothing to
try to stop it.
Gore's wrong about Uranium supplies though, there's plenty for tens of
thousands of years, even without breeder reactors, and there's about 4
times as much Thorium. Countries make nuclear weapons when they decide
to make nuclear weapons. The two routes are: 'enrich natural Uranium to
weapons grade' (using electricity from any source, nuclear, fossil fuel,
wind, solar, etc.), or breed weapons grade Plutonium in a reactor
designed to produce weapons grade Plutonium. Power plant grade Plutonium
can, in theory, be enriched to weapons grade, or you can change power
plant fuel rods very often, to inefficiently produce weapons grade
Plutonium. In either case, you probably could get far more weapons grade
material from running the reactor as a power plant & using the Power (or
power from windmills) to Enrich Uranium. Uranium bombs tend to be easer
to make as well.
Banning nuclear power plants won't stop the development of nuclear
weapons, any more than banning Lead tire weights will stop the
development of bullets.
As for Gore's comment on 'new generation reactors, we already have them.
The Integral Fast Reactor was a breeder reactor, designed to account for
proliferation concerns. Alas, Ronald Reagan pulled the plug on it. The
Candu 6 & 9 and the ARC (Advanced Candu Reactor) are pretty skookumchuck
designs, with advanced materials and even more passive safety systems
than earlier models. (Candus in Korea have managed over 100% capacity
factors, as the available cooling water turned out to be colder than
expected.) Pebble Bed Moderated Reactors, are extremely efficient, with
impressive design features. The new Westinghouse designs are similarly
impressive. Even the Russian RBMK reactors are better with the safety
upgrades they got after Chernobyl, but I'd suggest the above designs for
new reactors instead.
Karl Johanson
David Friedman
nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> In article <f0u88v$9nl$1...@panix3.panix.com>,
> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >
> >The people speaking loudly in public that something must be done about
> >global warming are the environmentalists.
> >
> >The people speaking loudly in public that nuclear power plants should
> >be banned are the environmentalists.
>
> The people saying they want to make government small enough to drown in
> a bathtub are libertarians.
>
> The people aproving of every damn thing Bush does to expand the power
> of the government are libertarians.
>
> See how that works?
Except that your second claim isn't true, whereas Keith's is, save that
he should have omitted "the," since there are some environmentalists who
are pro-nuclear, although not many.
I suspect I have more contact with libertarians than you do. In my
experience, most of them are critical of Bush and none of them "approve
of every damn thing ... ."
--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
David Friedman
nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> In article <4632e912$0$966$8046...@newsreader.iphouse.net>,
> David Dyer-Bennet <dd...@dd-b.net> wrote:
> >mike weber wrote:
> >> On 27 Apr 2007 21:33:19 -0400, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> The people speaking loudly in public that something must be done about
> >>> global warming are the environmentalists.
> >>>
> >>> The people speaking loudly in public that nuclear power plants should
> >>> be banned are the environmentalists.
> >>
> >> I remember remarking at one time that some of the more rabid
> >> anti-whaling people were also folk-song collectors (and singers) who
> >> loved songs like "Greenland Whale Fisheries" and other whaling songs.
> >
> >This is not inconsistent; one can love a song without approving of the
> >continuation of the historic practice it documents.
>
> Indeed, fans of comic books used to have make the same argument re crime,
> murder, tentacled monsters abducting Earth's fairest daughters, etc.
You mean they were not in favor of tentacled monsters abducting Earth's
fairest daughters? What sort of monsters did they think should abduct
them?
mike weber
Ciszek) wrote:
>The people aproving of every damn thing Bush does to expand the power
>of the government are libertarians.
>
>See how that works?
When the Libertarian Party held its convention here in Atlanta,
local/nationally syndicated talk radio host Neal Boortz was scheduled
to be a featured speaker.
However, Neal was an early supporter of Bush's War on Sanity in Iraq,
and there was an apparently fairly large movement within the party to
have him disinvited because of that.
Paul Ciszek
In article <f12gvc$odc$1...@panix1.panix.com>,
Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
>> The people saying they want to make government small enough to drown
>> in a bathtub are libertarians.
>
>> The people aproving of every damn thing Bush does to expand the
>> power of the government are libertarians.
>
>> See how that works?
>
>No. You followed a true statement with an obviously false statement.
>The people aproving of every damn thing Bush does to expand the power
>of the government are Republicans. Bush was the Republican candidate
>in 2000 and 2004. He has never been the Libertarian candidate.
According to the Cato institute, most libertarians voted for Bush in
2000 *and* 2004. He might as well have been their candidate.
David Friedman
nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> In article <f12gvc$odc$1...@panix1.panix.com>,
> Keith F. Lynch <k...@KeithLynch.net> wrote:
> >Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> The people saying they want to make government small enough to drown
> >> in a bathtub are libertarians.
> >
> >> The people aproving of every damn thing Bush does to expand the
> >> power of the government are libertarians.
> >
> >> See how that works?
> >
> >No. You followed a true statement with an obviously false statement.
> >The people aproving of every damn thing Bush does to expand the power
> >of the government are Republicans. Bush was the Republican candidate
> >in 2000 and 2004. He has never been the Libertarian candidate.
>
> According to the Cato institute, most libertarians voted for Bush in
> 2000 *and* 2004. He might as well have been their candidate.
I'm guessing that you are referring to a piece Cato published which used
a broad definition of libertarian--broad enough to cover about ten to
twenty percent of the voters, as best I recall. Assuming that's your
source, your statement is false. The article found a majority of
libertarians defined in that way voting for Bush, substantially fewer in
2004 than in 2000, and nothing close to "most" in the second election.
In any case, "voting for" doesn't imply "approving of every damn thing
Bush does to expand the power of government," which was your original
claim. Do you have any support for it?
Paul Ciszek
In article <ddfr-BF53A1.0...@news.isp.giganews.com>,
David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
>I'm guessing that you are referring to a piece Cato published which used
>a broad definition of libertarian--broad enough to cover about ten to
>twenty percent of the voters, as best I recall. Assuming that's your
>source, your statement is false. The article found a majority of
>libertarians defined in that way voting for Bush, substantially fewer in
>2004 than in 2000, and nothing close to "most" in the second election.
>
>In any case, "voting for" doesn't imply "approving of every damn thing
>Bush does to expand the power of government," which was your original
>claim. Do you have any support for it?
Only the redneck "libertarians" I encounter at geek social events.
(Ex-military and ex-aerospace guys.)
If you look back in the thread, I was countering Keith's inaccurate
generalization about environmentalists with a inaccurate generalization
about libertarians.
David Friedman
nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> In article <ddfr-BF53A1.0...@news.isp.giganews.com>,
> David Friedman <dd...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
> >
> >I'm guessing that you are referring to a piece Cato published which used
> >a broad definition of libertarian--broad enough to cover about ten to
> >twenty percent of the voters, as best I recall. Assuming that's your
> >source, your statement is false. The article found a majority of
> >libertarians defined in that way voting for Bush, substantially fewer in
> >2004 than in 2000, and nothing close to "most" in the second election.
> >
> >In any case, "voting for" doesn't imply "approving of every damn thing
> >Bush does to expand the power of government," which was your original
> >claim. Do you have any support for it?
>
> Only the redneck "libertarians" I encounter at geek social events.
> (Ex-military and ex-aerospace guys.)
Could be--since I wasn't present at those events I have no direct
evidence on what those people said.
> If you look back in the thread, I was countering Keith's inaccurate
> generalization about environmentalists with a inaccurate generalization
> about libertarians.
I don't think so, although perhaps I didn't follow your argument. Keith
wrote:
---
The people speaking loudly in public that something must be done about
global warming are the environmentalists.
The people speaking loudly in public that nuclear power plants should
be banned are the environmentalists.
----
As it happens, I don't think "the environmentalists" is quite correct,
since there are some environmentalists who are exceptions to both
patterns. But aside from that his statement seems correct, or at least
within the usual limits of precision--most people who speak loudly for
both causes are indeed environmentalists.
But your second statement was:
"The people aproving of every damn thing Bush does to expand the power
of the government are libertarians."
And in fact, most people approving of ... are not libertarians.
dwight...@gmail.com
wrote:
> In article <f1a4lr$ab...@reader2.panix.com>,
> nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article <ddfr-BF53A1.08171030042...@news.isp.giganews.com>,
> > David Friedman <d...@daviddfriedman.nopsam.com> wrote:
>
> > >I'm guessing that you are referring to a piece Cato published which used
> > >a broad definition of libertarian--broad enough to cover about ten to
> > >twenty percent of the voters, as best I recall. Assuming that's your
> > >source, your statement is false. The article found a majority of
> > >libertarians defined in that way voting for Bush, substantially fewer in
> > >2004 than in 2000, and nothing close to "most" in the second election.
>
> > >In any case, "voting for" doesn't imply "approving of every damn thing
> > >Bush does to expand the power of government," which was your original
> > >claim. Do you have any support for it?
>
> > Only the redneck "libertarians" I encounter at geek social events.
> > (Ex-military and ex-aerospace guys.)
>
> Could be--since I wasn't present at those events I have no direct
> evidence on what those people said.
>
> > If you look back in the thread, I was countering Keith's inaccurate
> > generalization about environmentalists with a inaccurate generalization
> > about libertarians.
>
> I don't think so, although perhaps I didn't follow your argument. Keith
> wrote:
Sigh. More mendacity from the guy that claims the Census Bureau is a
partisan organization. In actual fact - and this isn't hard to find,
David Loewe, Jr.
wrote:
>Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> The people saying they want to make government small enough to drown
>> in a bathtub are libertarians.
>
>> The people aproving of every damn thing Bush does to expand the
>> power of the government are libertarians.
>
>> See how that works?
>
>No. You followed a true statement with an obviously false statement.
>The people aproving of every damn thing Bush does to expand the power
>of the government are Republicans. Bush was the Republican candidate
>in 2000 and 2004. He has never been the Libertarian candidate.
I consider myself libertarian and I almost always vote Republican.
There is a difference between being a libertarian and being a member
of the Libertarian Party.
--
"To the last, I grapple with thee; From Hell's heart, I stab at thee;
For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee."
-Herman Melville, "Moby Dick"
David Friedman
"David Loewe, Jr." <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On 29 Apr 2007 12:26:20 -0400, "Keith F. Lynch" <k...@KeithLynch.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Paul Ciszek <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> The people saying they want to make government small enough to drown
> >> in a bathtub are libertarians.
> >
> >> The people aproving of every damn thing Bush does to expand the
> >> power of the government are libertarians.
> >
> >> See how that works?
> >
> >No. You followed a true statement with an obviously false statement.
> >The people aproving of every damn thing Bush does to expand the power
> >of the government are Republicans. Bush was the Republican candidate
> >in 2000 and 2004. He has never been the Libertarian candidate.
>
> I consider myself libertarian and I almost always vote Republican.
>
> There is a difference between being a libertarian and being a member
> of the Libertarian Party.
Agreed. I'm not an LP member, although I usually vote for their
candidates.
But, at least in my experience, although many libertarians vote
Republican, few if any approve "of every damn thing Bush does to expand
the power of the government."
Paul Ciszek
Thereby indicating that you condone domestic wiretapping, detention
without trial, the erosion of the balance of powers, unnecessary wars,
runaway national debt, and "overthrowing the myth of separation of
church and state".
But giving up all that stuff is worth it just to prevent Democrats
from rescinding the tax cuts, right?
"Libertarians" commitment to liberty has a very low price.
Karl Johanson
>
> In article <g4vj33972uufk3f86...@4ax.com>,
> David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>I consider myself libertarian and I almost always vote Republican.
>
> Thereby indicating that you condone domestic wiretapping, detention
> without trial, the erosion of the balance of powers, unnecessary wars,
> runaway national debt, and "overthrowing the myth of separation of
> church and state".
>
> But giving up all that stuff is worth it just to prevent Democrats
> from rescinding the tax cuts, right?
Hey, come one. There's more to it than that. Another Democrat president
getting a blow job from a consenting adult could *devastate* the United
States.
Karl Johanson
Keith F. Lynch
> There's more to it than that. Another Democrat president getting a
> blow job from a consenting adult could *devastate* the United States.
If Hillary were to nationalize medical care, and raise taxes on the
middle class to pay for it, that *could* devastate the United States.
Especially considering how many people are already paying well over
half their take-home pay on rent.
If Obama were to increase the number of federal employees, and their
rate of pay, considering they're already paid more than twice as much,
on average, as the average US taxpayer, that too could devastate the US.
If a Democratic president were to bring back the draft, that might not
devastate the US, but would lead to a whole lot of dead innocent young
people. Republicans may have more of a reputation as warmongers, but
is it deserved? The Vietnam-era draft was due to a Democrat. So was
the Korea-era draft, the WWII draft, and the WWI draft. You have to
go back to the Civil War to find a Republican draft.
If Al Gore were to dismantle industrial civilization, so as to save us
from the "horrors" of a climate that's a couple degrees warmer, that
could devastate, not just the United States, but the whole world.
I'm not allowed to vote, but if I were, I could not bring myself to
vote for either a Republican *or* a Democrat.
David Friedman
nos...@nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote:
> In article <g4vj33972uufk3f86...@4ax.com>,
> David Loewe, Jr. <dlo...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >I consider myself libertarian and I almost always vote Republican.
>
> Thereby indicating that you condone domestic wiretapping, detention
> without trial, the erosion of the balance of powers, unnecessary wars,
> runaway national debt, and "overthrowing the myth of separation of
> church and state".
Which of those things do you think the Democrats are consistently
against?
When I vote I usually vote libertarian. But some years back, I received
a mailing from the local Democratic candidate for congress describing
all the evil things the Republican candidate was in favor of. I was in
favor of all or almost all of them, so it seemed only appropriate to
vote for the Republican.