Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
sdduuuude
Participant[quote=justme]Again, that’s called Democracy. Deal with it.[/quote]
Is this argument any better than “It’s called a ‘market.’ Deal with it.”
Or “It’s called ‘other people’s rights.’ Deal with it.”
I’m thinking “no.”
If you want to believe that rights can be voted on, then you do not believe they are inalienable, which is my original point. You want to make other people behave how you want them to behave. It’s that simple. No different than a Republican voting that you can’t smoke pot or engage in odd sexual behaviors because they think there should be more morality in the world.
Participant[quote=justme]Again, that’s called Democracy. Deal with it.[/quote]
Is this argument any better than “It’s called a ‘market.’ Deal with it.”
Or “It’s called ‘other people’s rights.’ Deal with it.”
I’m thinking “no.”
If you want to believe that rights can be voted on, then you do not believe they are inalienable, which is my original point. You want to make other people behave how you want them to behave. It’s that simple. No different than a Republican voting that you can’t smoke pot or engage in odd sexual behaviors because they think there should be more morality in the world.
Participant[quote=justme]Again, that’s called Democracy. Deal with it.[/quote]
Is this argument any better than “It’s called a ‘market.’ Deal with it.”
Or “It’s called ‘other people’s rights.’ Deal with it.”
I’m thinking “no.”
If you want to believe that rights can be voted on, then you do not believe they are inalienable, which is my original point. You want to make other people behave how you want them to behave. It’s that simple. No different than a Republican voting that you can’t smoke pot or engage in odd sexual behaviors because they think there should be more morality in the world.
Participant[quote=davelj]My solution to the world’s pollution and energy problems (for the billionth time): Stop procreating. Stop having kids.
Population shrinks while technology improves and – voila – both pollution and energy use decline.
It’s so simple. But too few are willing to make the sacrifice. (Personally I don’t consider it a sacrifice, but most do, so…)
I’ll let folks legislate what kind of car I can drive as soon as the same folks legislate away all procreation for the next century.
Pollution and energy constraints are a result of increasing population. Legislating increased mpg is only addressing a symptom of the problem rather than the problem itself. Why don’t we address the root of the problem instead? Oh, I forgot… because THAT would be too inconvenient.[/quote]
Speaking objectively (with no judgment regarding the merits of the idea): This idea will never get off the ground. People with this inclination will be bred out of existence by natural selection.
Participant[quote=davelj]My solution to the world’s pollution and energy problems (for the billionth time): Stop procreating. Stop having kids.
Population shrinks while technology improves and – voila – both pollution and energy use decline.
It’s so simple. But too few are willing to make the sacrifice. (Personally I don’t consider it a sacrifice, but most do, so…)
I’ll let folks legislate what kind of car I can drive as soon as the same folks legislate away all procreation for the next century.
Pollution and energy constraints are a result of increasing population. Legislating increased mpg is only addressing a symptom of the problem rather than the problem itself. Why don’t we address the root of the problem instead? Oh, I forgot… because THAT would be too inconvenient.[/quote]
Speaking objectively (with no judgment regarding the merits of the idea): This idea will never get off the ground. People with this inclination will be bred out of existence by natural selection.
Participant[quote=davelj]My solution to the world’s pollution and energy problems (for the billionth time): Stop procreating. Stop having kids.
Population shrinks while technology improves and – voila – both pollution and energy use decline.
It’s so simple. But too few are willing to make the sacrifice. (Personally I don’t consider it a sacrifice, but most do, so…)
I’ll let folks legislate what kind of car I can drive as soon as the same folks legislate away all procreation for the next century.
Pollution and energy constraints are a result of increasing population. Legislating increased mpg is only addressing a symptom of the problem rather than the problem itself. Why don’t we address the root of the problem instead? Oh, I forgot… because THAT would be too inconvenient.[/quote]
Speaking objectively (with no judgment regarding the merits of the idea): This idea will never get off the ground. People with this inclination will be bred out of existence by natural selection.
Participant[quote=davelj]My solution to the world’s pollution and energy problems (for the billionth time): Stop procreating. Stop having kids.
Population shrinks while technology improves and – voila – both pollution and energy use decline.
It’s so simple. But too few are willing to make the sacrifice. (Personally I don’t consider it a sacrifice, but most do, so…)
I’ll let folks legislate what kind of car I can drive as soon as the same folks legislate away all procreation for the next century.
Pollution and energy constraints are a result of increasing population. Legislating increased mpg is only addressing a symptom of the problem rather than the problem itself. Why don’t we address the root of the problem instead? Oh, I forgot… because THAT would be too inconvenient.[/quote]
Speaking objectively (with no judgment regarding the merits of the idea): This idea will never get off the ground. People with this inclination will be bred out of existence by natural selection.
Participant[quote=davelj]My solution to the world’s pollution and energy problems (for the billionth time): Stop procreating. Stop having kids.
Population shrinks while technology improves and – voila – both pollution and energy use decline.
It’s so simple. But too few are willing to make the sacrifice. (Personally I don’t consider it a sacrifice, but most do, so…)
I’ll let folks legislate what kind of car I can drive as soon as the same folks legislate away all procreation for the next century.
Pollution and energy constraints are a result of increasing population. Legislating increased mpg is only addressing a symptom of the problem rather than the problem itself. Why don’t we address the root of the problem instead? Oh, I forgot… because THAT would be too inconvenient.[/quote]
Speaking objectively (with no judgment regarding the merits of the idea): This idea will never get off the ground. People with this inclination will be bred out of existence by natural selection.
Participant[quote=afx114][quote=sdduuuude]My message, as always, is to regulate behaviors that are nasty.[/quote]
“Nasty” is conveniently subjective. To some, the pollution spewed by low-mpg vehicles and the blood & treasure spent to fuel them is “nasty.” To others, 2 Live Crew is “nasty” but they just wanna be As Nasty As They Wanna Be.[/quote]
I used the term to avoid a dissertation, not to be vague. By nasty, I mean “direct infringement of rights” where rights are defined clearly in such a way that there are no ambiguities or conflicting rights.
Believe me, I could go into exruciating detail to spell out a set of objectively mutually exclusive rights definitions based on a single axiomatic expression. If you want to see it, PM me.
Pollution of any type falls under the “nasty” category, whether it comes from low or high-MPG vehicles.
Driving a low-MPG, low-pollution vehicle is not nasty at all. Maybe stupid. But not nasty.
Participant[quote=afx114][quote=sdduuuude]My message, as always, is to regulate behaviors that are nasty.[/quote]
“Nasty” is conveniently subjective. To some, the pollution spewed by low-mpg vehicles and the blood & treasure spent to fuel them is “nasty.” To others, 2 Live Crew is “nasty” but they just wanna be As Nasty As They Wanna Be.[/quote]
I used the term to avoid a dissertation, not to be vague. By nasty, I mean “direct infringement of rights” where rights are defined clearly in such a way that there are no ambiguities or conflicting rights.
Believe me, I could go into exruciating detail to spell out a set of objectively mutually exclusive rights definitions based on a single axiomatic expression. If you want to see it, PM me.
Pollution of any type falls under the “nasty” category, whether it comes from low or high-MPG vehicles.
Driving a low-MPG, low-pollution vehicle is not nasty at all. Maybe stupid. But not nasty.
Participant[quote=afx114][quote=sdduuuude]My message, as always, is to regulate behaviors that are nasty.[/quote]
“Nasty” is conveniently subjective. To some, the pollution spewed by low-mpg vehicles and the blood & treasure spent to fuel them is “nasty.” To others, 2 Live Crew is “nasty” but they just wanna be As Nasty As They Wanna Be.[/quote]
I used the term to avoid a dissertation, not to be vague. By nasty, I mean “direct infringement of rights” where rights are defined clearly in such a way that there are no ambiguities or conflicting rights.
Believe me, I could go into exruciating detail to spell out a set of objectively mutually exclusive rights definitions based on a single axiomatic expression. If you want to see it, PM me.
Pollution of any type falls under the “nasty” category, whether it comes from low or high-MPG vehicles.
Driving a low-MPG, low-pollution vehicle is not nasty at all. Maybe stupid. But not nasty.
Participant[quote=afx114][quote=sdduuuude]My message, as always, is to regulate behaviors that are nasty.[/quote]
“Nasty” is conveniently subjective. To some, the pollution spewed by low-mpg vehicles and the blood & treasure spent to fuel them is “nasty.” To others, 2 Live Crew is “nasty” but they just wanna be As Nasty As They Wanna Be.[/quote]
I used the term to avoid a dissertation, not to be vague. By nasty, I mean “direct infringement of rights” where rights are defined clearly in such a way that there are no ambiguities or conflicting rights.
Believe me, I could go into exruciating detail to spell out a set of objectively mutually exclusive rights definitions based on a single axiomatic expression. If you want to see it, PM me.
Pollution of any type falls under the “nasty” category, whether it comes from low or high-MPG vehicles.
Driving a low-MPG, low-pollution vehicle is not nasty at all. Maybe stupid. But not nasty.
Participant[quote=afx114][quote=sdduuuude]My message, as always, is to regulate behaviors that are nasty.[/quote]
“Nasty” is conveniently subjective. To some, the pollution spewed by low-mpg vehicles and the blood & treasure spent to fuel them is “nasty.” To others, 2 Live Crew is “nasty” but they just wanna be As Nasty As They Wanna Be.[/quote]
I used the term to avoid a dissertation, not to be vague. By nasty, I mean “direct infringement of rights” where rights are defined clearly in such a way that there are no ambiguities or conflicting rights.
Believe me, I could go into exruciating detail to spell out a set of objectively mutually exclusive rights definitions based on a single axiomatic expression. If you want to see it, PM me.
Pollution of any type falls under the “nasty” category, whether it comes from low or high-MPG vehicles.
Driving a low-MPG, low-pollution vehicle is not nasty at all. Maybe stupid. But not nasty.
Participantequalizer …
I guess, from the outside, totalitarianism appears to work well when you have a population of people who don’t understand the alternative; who don’t understand the wealth of choices available to them. Would you really want to be a a subject under it, though, or is it just a nice place to visit and get the heck out after a week or two so you can go back to a place with more choices?
My message, as always, is to regulate behaviors that are nasty, and not to regulate nit-picky little details to induce a result. I agree that completely “free” markets without rules don’t work. Over-regulated markets are always disasterous. However, properly regulated markets (those that regulate fraud, theft, violent crime, breach of contract and the like) do work just fine, though they don’t always produce a result that everyone likes.
—
My favorite form of government is the “benevolent dictatorship.” It’s rare to find such a government, but I’m sure it would be awesome. I suppose this Piggington site is a benevolent dictatorship. All Hail Rich.
-
AuthorPosts
