Author Topic: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2  (Read 125065 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline emindead

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11053
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #70 on: May 26, 2009, 08:42:05 AM »
What if we simly went back to backing the money we do have with gold, and other commodities? Not just gold, but a variety of them (like China is doing and like China proposed).
What other commodities.

And I don't care for the CollegeHumor, I did find it funny.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #71 on: May 26, 2009, 02:26:06 PM »
What if we simly went back to backing the money we do have with gold, and other commodities? Not just gold, but a variety of them (like China is doing and like China proposed).
What other commodities.

And I don't care for the CollegeHumor, I did find it funny.

Beyond the valuables people have (say, silver/diamonds) but also essentials for our economy; copper (electrical wiring), silicon (computers), etc.

Offline bosk1

  • Bow down to Boskaryus
  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4297
  • Shopping Cart Apologist
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #72 on: May 26, 2009, 02:38:27 PM »
New forum theme has been installed that lets you choose between a few different color schemes.  I'm using the grey scheme that looks a lot like DTF light, but there are other options.  Overall, this theme has a lot of really cool options that I like.  Try it out if you haven't.
"The Supreme Court of the United States has descended from the disciplined legal reasoning of John Marshall and Joseph Story to the mystical aphorisms of the fortune cookie."

Offline emindead

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11053
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #73 on: May 26, 2009, 02:58:35 PM »
What if we simly went back to backing the money we do have with gold, and other commodities? Not just gold, but a variety of them (like China is doing and like China proposed).
What other commodities.

And I don't care for the CollegeHumor, I did find it funny.

Beyond the valuables people have (say, silver/diamonds) but also essentials for our economy; copper (electrical wiring), silicon (computers), etc.
As for silver/diamonds, I wouldn't object. Silver was also sound money before '71.
Copper and silicon, this may work for now, just like oil does, but I know that in the future we won't need any of those. Copper... wifi energy will replace the need of it. Silicon... same as copper, will be replaced in a sec once they figure out a way to attach chips without glue.

Offline Jobe

  • Market Connoisseur
  • Posts: 1453
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #74 on: May 26, 2009, 03:24:17 PM »
What if we simly went back to backing the money we do have with gold, and other commodities? Not just gold, but a variety of them (like China is doing and like China proposed).
What other commodities.

And I don't care for the CollegeHumor, I did find it funny.

Beyond the valuables people have (say, silver/diamonds) but also essentials for our economy; copper (electrical wiring), silicon (computers), etc.
As for silver/diamonds, I wouldn't object. Silver was also sound money before '71.
Copper and silicon, this may work for now, just like oil does, but I know that in the future we won't need any of those. Copper... wifi energy will replace the need of it. Silicon... same as copper, will be replaced in a sec once they figure out a way to attach chips without glue.

Metallurgy and microchip fabrication are not your fields. Diamonds aren't fungible or divisible without a major loss in value, they would make a very back backing for a currency.  Silver, gold copper, etc, are good, silver being the best.  Chips are made of silicon, not attached with silicon glue.  :facepalm:


Reap, your forgetting a little thing in your analysis of the economy called

The Federal Reserve!

Hot damn, when will people realize that the excesses of wall street debt were made possible by the vast money creation of the fed?
No fed = no bubble
Also,

No implicit government bailouts plus no GSE's = no "too big to fail" bullshit, although it's even false now.

Utterly wrong. No Federal Reserve doesn't change the fact that people on Wall Street are more about satisfying their own greed than creating value.

Greed alone is not the problem.   The federal reserve provided the rope upon which Wall Street hung themselves.

Greed is a problem, however any disaster would be limited in nature.  The Fed makes the problem of greed and excess systemic. With increases in the money supply, any relative increase in one area of the economy diverts resources away from others now only in the current time but also future, and rightfully so.  A bubble is limited in size and scope.  Inflation induces the massive bubbles and swings.

Like I've said, a greedy gambler can only lose his own money in a casino.  The fed is like the gamblers buddy that provides him with more money every time he loses, but allows him to keep all the profits from winning, and to boot, the money he gives the gambler is the American people's money. 

Greed is not even a necessary or sufficient condition.  Fed induced bubbles can happen without anyone being greedy, they distort information.
<br />While I agree in general, there are a couple of big differences.  Targeted marketing is a far cry from the suspension of Habeas Corpus.   Private companies don\'t generally toss people into unmarked Gulfstreams and send them off to Jackfuckistan to be \"questioned.\" 

Offline emindead

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11053
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #75 on: May 26, 2009, 03:44:36 PM »
What if we simly went back to backing the money we do have with gold, and other commodities? Not just gold, but a variety of them (like China is doing and like China proposed).
What other commodities.

And I don't care for the CollegeHumor, I did find it funny.

Beyond the valuables people have (say, silver/diamonds) but also essentials for our economy; copper (electrical wiring), silicon (computers), etc.
As for silver/diamonds, I wouldn't object. Silver was also sound money before '71.
Copper and silicon, this may work for now, just like oil does, but I know that in the future we won't need any of those. Copper... wifi energy will replace the need of it. Silicon... same as copper, will be replaced in a sec once they figure out a way to attach chips without glue.

Metallurgy and microchip fabrication are not your fields. Diamonds aren't fungible or divisible without a major loss in value, they would make a very back backing for a currency.  Silver, gold copper, etc, are good, silver being the best.  Chips are made of silicon, not attached with silicon glue.  :facepalm:
And this emindead making look like an ass.
:neverusethis:
Anyway, sure, the diamonds are not easily divisible but that won't let people know "it's relative value" against other things?
« Last Edit: May 26, 2009, 03:51:52 PM by emindead »

Offline Jobe

  • Market Connoisseur
  • Posts: 1453
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #76 on: May 27, 2009, 12:22:07 AM »
It doesn't take being the backing of a currency to know somethings value....

Any diamond can be denominated in X grams of gold, but a gold bar cannot be denominated in X diamonds.  You need to know what specific diamonds, where they are from, how clear they are, what's the cut, etc etc etc.
<br />While I agree in general, there are a couple of big differences.  Targeted marketing is a far cry from the suspension of Habeas Corpus.   Private companies don\'t generally toss people into unmarked Gulfstreams and send them off to Jackfuckistan to be \"questioned.\" 

Offline Sigz

  • BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13530
  • Gender: Male
  • THRONES FOR THE THRONE SKULL
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #77 on: May 27, 2009, 02:53:39 PM »
Copper... wifi energy will replace the need of it.

Wifi energy?
Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #78 on: May 27, 2009, 03:29:18 PM »
Copper... wifi energy will replace the need of it.

Wifi energy?

Technically, anything WiFi transmits energy; just it's on a very small scale, and some people have high hopes for it becoming large scale. Every time you use a radio, you're receiving transmitted energy (all waves move energy about).

Offline Sigz

  • BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13530
  • Gender: Male
  • THRONES FOR THE THRONE SKULL
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #79 on: May 27, 2009, 03:35:49 PM »
Copper... wifi energy will replace the need of it.

Wifi energy?

Technically, anything WiFi transmits energy; just it's on a very small scale, and some people have high hopes for it becoming large scale. Every time you use a radio, you're receiving transmitted energy (all waves move energy about).

Well yeah but there's a massive difference between sending signals wirelessly and transporting energy. Just ask this guy:

Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #80 on: May 27, 2009, 03:40:06 PM »
Copper... wifi energy will replace the need of it.

Wifi energy?

Technically, anything WiFi transmits energy; just it's on a very small scale, and some people have high hopes for it becoming large scale. Every time you use a radio, you're receiving transmitted energy (all waves move energy about).

Well yeah but there's a massive difference between sending signals wirelessly and transporting energy. Just ask this guy:



Yes, but if I recall correctly, Tesla also thought it was feasible - even near the end of his life. And on some level, sending signals wirelessly IS transporting energy... just a much smaller amount. Difference of degree, not of type.

Offline Jobe

  • Market Connoisseur
  • Posts: 1453
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #81 on: May 27, 2009, 05:14:43 PM »
More like magnitudes of difference.

EDIT: And besides, maybe turning the surface of the planet into a giant microwave oven is a bad thing... there's already research pointed towards harmful effects of always being in the presence of these fields in the strengths they are now. 
<br />While I agree in general, there are a couple of big differences.  Targeted marketing is a far cry from the suspension of Habeas Corpus.   Private companies don\'t generally toss people into unmarked Gulfstreams and send them off to Jackfuckistan to be \"questioned.\" 

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #82 on: May 27, 2009, 05:18:30 PM »
Jobe:

Quote
Mankind has every right to do whatever they please up to the point where the infringe upon others rights.  This is a very clear line, and religionlessly provides a very clear framework from which you can definitively say murder and theft are wrong and properly punishable by the state, homosexuality and every other victimless "crimes" such as drug abuse, are in no way to be criminalized by the state.  
Non-aggression principle.


Why don't you extend this to corporations and businesses? Or is the problem that you don't see how and where companies infringe upon the rights of others?

Offline Jobe

  • Market Connoisseur
  • Posts: 1453
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #83 on: May 27, 2009, 05:41:57 PM »
Jobe:

Quote
Mankind has every right to do whatever they please up to the point where the infringe upon others rights.  This is a very clear line, and religionlessly provides a very clear framework from which you can definitively say murder and theft are wrong and properly punishable by the state, homosexuality and every other victimless "crimes" such as drug abuse, are in no way to be criminalized by the state.  
Non-aggression principle.


Why don't you extend this to corporations and businesses? Or is the problem that you don't see how and where companies infringe upon the rights of others?

Companies infringe on other people's rights all the time... when their pollution harms other people's property... (the EPA doesn't allow landowners to fight back)  This is wrong, and these companies should be sued to stop and even criminal penalties brought against the transgresses if they are truly violating people's rights.  What those rights are we probably disagree on.  So I appreciate the question, and answer it that I do extend this to corporations and businesses.
<br />While I agree in general, there are a couple of big differences.  Targeted marketing is a far cry from the suspension of Habeas Corpus.   Private companies don\'t generally toss people into unmarked Gulfstreams and send them off to Jackfuckistan to be \"questioned.\" 

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #84 on: May 27, 2009, 06:18:29 PM »
Well why do you oppose regulation so much? I view it on equal grounds as making murder illegal. The utmost expression of freedom - in any field - is or can be undesirable due to the consequences.

It's the extremes again.

Offline Jobe

  • Market Connoisseur
  • Posts: 1453
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #85 on: May 27, 2009, 07:12:31 PM »
Well why do you oppose regulation so much? I view it on equal grounds as making murder illegal. The utmost expression of freedom - in any field - is or can be undesirable due to the consequences.

It's the extremes again.

When allowed to, key word, allowed, markets truly do "self regulate."  Dishonest companies can only "cook the books" for so long, in a free market eventually all ponzi schemes must come to an end.  So many of the governments interventions, for example, the Federal Reserve, disrupt this natural process.  The Federal Reserve was hailed as the solution to "break the wall-street banking trust," when in fact the legislation was covertly authored by representatives of the big banks. (if this sounds like a conspiracy, it is.  It is a conspiracy backed up by a plethora of sources and cross-references, including the representative's autobiographies) Why would people like J.P. Morgan desire such "regulation?" Because it is a government enforced cartel that protects banks from bank runs and by providing them with non-market powers, and allows banks to make monopolistic profits and prevent competition. 

Other forms of regulations are actively lobbied for by huge companies that know they can afford to comply with them, but small start ups cannot, like sarbanes-oxley.  The cost of complying prevents many companies from expanding, a.k.a. prevent competition. 

It's not the government's job to make sure we are making good investments or whatever. The SEC has shown to be virtually criminally incompetent anyway. 

Most government intrusion into the market either crowd out a potential private alternative that would be much more efficient, create unavoidable moral hazard, and rely of non-market powers that are often used to benefit one party at the expense of another.

Additionally, I am in favor of prosecuting corporate criminals.  When companies infringe on others rights, they should be held accountable.  That's on par with prosecuting murder, not setting emission standards for cars. 

I don't advocate the "rule of nature."  You have the right to do whatsoever you please until you infringe on someone else's rights.  No one has the "freedom" to initiate force against others.  It's called the non-aggression principle.  If tobacco companies were taking people off the street and putting them in smoke-filled rooms, they'd be cause for government intervention.
<br />While I agree in general, there are a couple of big differences.  Targeted marketing is a far cry from the suspension of Habeas Corpus.   Private companies don\'t generally toss people into unmarked Gulfstreams and send them off to Jackfuckistan to be \"questioned.\" 

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #86 on: May 27, 2009, 07:36:43 PM »
I can make the same arguments about murder. Society will also "self-regulate" against murder; anyone who goes around killing people will eventually find himself dead, with or without laws. Or theft, or any other such crime that even you believe a government has the authority and propriety to punish.

Offline Jobe

  • Market Connoisseur
  • Posts: 1453
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #87 on: May 27, 2009, 08:13:22 PM »
The difference is murders are infringing on people's rights, while many things corporations do that you believe call for regulation do not. (Unless they do, of course, in which case government intervention is it's job.)
<br />While I agree in general, there are a couple of big differences.  Targeted marketing is a far cry from the suspension of Habeas Corpus.   Private companies don\'t generally toss people into unmarked Gulfstreams and send them off to Jackfuckistan to be \"questioned.\" 

Offline Jobe

  • Market Connoisseur
  • Posts: 1453
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #88 on: May 27, 2009, 08:24:04 PM »
I want to refine what I said a bit ago about economic laws having the same force as laws of nature. 

Government laws exist so long as there is government to enforce them.  Economic laws exist before and outside of government, ever more so than my concept of rights, for while you can dispute the existence or origin of rights and deny they exist, economic laws exist in a total, (i.e. market,) anarchy, and within government rule.  Man is powerless to change or overcome economic laws through political maneuvering, rules or regulations. 
<br />While I agree in general, there are a couple of big differences.  Targeted marketing is a far cry from the suspension of Habeas Corpus.   Private companies don\'t generally toss people into unmarked Gulfstreams and send them off to Jackfuckistan to be \"questioned.\" 

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #89 on: May 28, 2009, 03:10:49 PM »
The difference is murders are infringing on people's rights, while many things corporations do that you believe call for regulation do not. (Unless they do, of course, in which case government intervention is it's job.)

I would say that most of the time it's done "invisibly," and to the extent that you don't know always know its happening. Like if a company across the state is pouring chemicals into the water, or spewing chemicals into the air.

Offline Jobe

  • Market Connoisseur
  • Posts: 1453
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #90 on: May 28, 2009, 08:49:29 PM »
The difference is murders are infringing on people's rights, while many things corporations do that you believe call for regulation do not. (Unless they do, of course, in which case government intervention is it's job.)

I would say that most of the time it's done "invisibly," and to the extent that you don't know always know its happening. Like if a company across the state is pouring chemicals into the water, or spewing chemicals into the air.

Those companies should be sued by the affected property owners and damages awarded and paid.  If the damages result in bankruptcy, so be it.
<br />While I agree in general, there are a couple of big differences.  Targeted marketing is a far cry from the suspension of Habeas Corpus.   Private companies don\'t generally toss people into unmarked Gulfstreams and send them off to Jackfuckistan to be \"questioned.\" 

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #91 on: May 28, 2009, 11:52:31 PM »
The difference is murders are infringing on people's rights, while many things corporations do that you believe call for regulation do not. (Unless they do, of course, in which case government intervention is it's job.)

I would say that most of the time it's done "invisibly," and to the extent that you don't know always know its happening. Like if a company across the state is pouring chemicals into the water, or spewing chemicals into the air.

Those companies should be sued by the affected property owners and damages awarded and paid.  If the damages result in bankruptcy, so be it.

How do you measure who is the affected property owner? Especially when it's spewed into the air, how do you determine that? Or in the water, how do you determine who exactly is the affected property owner, or person? And what about potentially not knowing for years, if it was in your body? How about CO2, when the affected persons can be considered everyone on the planet? Or any other such chemical?

I would also point out that your solution required governmental intervention to settle the case and carry out it's decision. Why is the company necessarily going to follow such orders, especially in the decentralized, quasi-anarchism you dream of? In any case, you will still end up with things companies can do with are illegal when taken to court, which amounts to the exact same thing as regulation.



Offline emindead

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11053
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #92 on: May 29, 2009, 08:10:34 AM »
The difference is murders are infringing on people's rights, while many things corporations do that you believe call for regulation do not. (Unless they do, of course, in which case government intervention is it's job.)

I would say that most of the time it's done "invisibly," and to the extent that you don't know always know its happening. Like if a company across the state is pouring chemicals into the water, or spewing chemicals into the air.

Those companies should be sued by the affected property owners and damages awarded and paid.  If the damages result in bankruptcy, so be it.

How do you measure who is the affected property owner? Especially when it's spewed into the air, how do you determine that? Or in the water, how do you determine who exactly is the affected property owner, or person? And what about potentially not knowing for years, if it was in your body? How about CO2, when the affected persons can be considered everyone on the planet? Or any other such chemical?

I would also point out that your solution required governmental intervention to settle the case and carry out it's decision. Why is the company necessarily going to follow such orders, especially in the decentralized, quasi-anarchism you dream of? In any case, you will still end up with things companies can do with are illegal when taken to court, which amounts to the exact same thing as regulation.
What? The solution is that if you own a land, you own both the soil and the air above it (or so it must be). If toxic gases come into your property it's dead easy today to find out what company is emanating them. You could allege of the future problems this may have to those who live in your property and the devastating consequences. I don't think everybody will sue if cows farts CO2 come into your property. But to other industrial chemicals, today is really easy to determine which one did it.

In today's system, sure, you have to go to court which is supervised by the government. However, from a Libertarian position, courts will no longer be object of the State. There will be private trials. It's the privatization of that system. The purpose of the justice system will change from today's enforcement of the government laws to the Free-Market Justice of restoring individuals' damaged rights.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #93 on: May 29, 2009, 02:10:55 PM »
You missed the point of my post. It isn't so simle as "are these chemicals on my land," becuase you may not notice the side ffects from it for years, or it may be extremely easy to miss for years. Also, you bypassed the issue of water. If a company is pouring chemicals into the water, that affects pretty much everyone in the globe. If I live in New Orleans and there's a company way up in Montana dumping chemicals in the Missouri river, which I then drink and get affected by, do you imagine it's going to be easy for me to konw this? Or even possible for me to know this? We know this from DDT - it doesn't just stay in one area, it spreads around the globe. You can't view the world as a series of isolated ecosystems, they're all connected in major ways and what you do in one ecosystem invariably moves to other ecosystems. You make it sound as if the problems caused by pollution is isolated and isn't devstating long-term. How does someone forty years from now sue a company that may be out of business now because of the damage done to his property or his person? CO2 emissions aren't isolated either, they mess with the balance way up in the atmosphere - are you going to tell me the average farmer is going to be aware of that co2? How?

Sorry, but private trials would be a farce. A complete farce. You can't just make a court decision and expect it to be carried through, you need power behind that decision for people to actually follow through with it. There needs to be authority where there is to be justice.

Offline Jobe

  • Market Connoisseur
  • Posts: 1453
  • Gender: Male
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #94 on: May 29, 2009, 04:49:33 PM »
You missed the point of my post. It isn't so simle as "are these chemicals on my land," becuase you may not notice the side ffects from it for years, or it may be extremely easy to miss for years. Also, you bypassed the issue of water. If a company is pouring chemicals into the water, that affects pretty much everyone in the globe. If I live in New Orleans and there's a company way up in Montana dumping chemicals in the Missouri river, which I then drink and get affected by, do you imagine it's going to be easy for me to konw this? Or even possible for me to know this? We know this from DDT - it doesn't just stay in one area, it spreads around the globe. You can't view the world as a series of isolated ecosystems, they're all connected in major ways and what you do in one ecosystem invariably moves to other ecosystems. You make it sound as if the problems caused by pollution is isolated and isn't devstating long-term. How does someone forty years from now sue a company that may be out of business now because of the damage done to his property or his person? CO2 emissions aren't isolated either, they mess with the balance way up in the atmosphere - are you going to tell me the average farmer is going to be aware of that co2? How?

Sorry, but private trials would be a farce. A complete farce. You can't just make a court decision and expect it to be carried through, you need power behind that decision for people to actually follow through with it. There needs to be authority where there is to be justice.

You should look into the privatization of rivers and streams. Started in Rumborak's turf, actually. The Ruhrverband

http://www.ruhrverband.de/ruhrverband_en/html/frame_rv.html

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhrverband&ei=AmYgSuv5DcWGtgeFvaywBg&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=2&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Druhrverband%2Bwiki%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26hs%3D7Xq%26sa%3DG

<br />While I agree in general, there are a couple of big differences.  Targeted marketing is a far cry from the suspension of Habeas Corpus.   Private companies don\'t generally toss people into unmarked Gulfstreams and send them off to Jackfuckistan to be \"questioned.\" 

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #95 on: May 29, 2009, 05:08:00 PM »
You missed the point of my post. It isn't so simle as "are these chemicals on my land," becuase you may not notice the side ffects from it for years, or it may be extremely easy to miss for years. Also, you bypassed the issue of water. If a company is pouring chemicals into the water, that affects pretty much everyone in the globe. If I live in New Orleans and there's a company way up in Montana dumping chemicals in the Missouri river, which I then drink and get affected by, do you imagine it's going to be easy for me to konw this? Or even possible for me to know this? We know this from DDT - it doesn't just stay in one area, it spreads around the globe. You can't view the world as a series of isolated ecosystems, they're all connected in major ways and what you do in one ecosystem invariably moves to other ecosystems. You make it sound as if the problems caused by pollution is isolated and isn't devstating long-term. How does someone forty years from now sue a company that may be out of business now because of the damage done to his property or his person? CO2 emissions aren't isolated either, they mess with the balance way up in the atmosphere - are you going to tell me the average farmer is going to be aware of that co2? How?

Sorry, but private trials would be a farce. A complete farce. You can't just make a court decision and expect it to be carried through, you need power behind that decision for people to actually follow through with it. There needs to be authority where there is to be justice.

You should look into the privatization of rivers and streams. Started in Rumborak's turf, actually. The Ruhrverband

http://www.ruhrverband.de/ruhrverband_en/html/frame_rv.html

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhrverband&ei=AmYgSuv5DcWGtgeFvaywBg&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=2&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Druhrverband%2Bwiki%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26hs%3D7Xq%26sa%3DG



We would have to privatize the ecosystem for your idea to plausibly work. How do you privatize the oceans? Which, I would say, is pragmatically done with the government. Major parts of the ecosystem shouldn't and can't be "owned" by any one person; reality isn't so isolated. If we adopted the measures you suggest, there might be more done in some area's, but it also leaves gigantic holes under the name of a solution.

Offline emindead

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11053
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #96 on: May 29, 2009, 05:15:13 PM »
You missed the point of my post. It isn't so simle as "are these chemicals on my land," becuase you may not notice the side ffects from it for years, or it may be extremely easy to miss for years. Also, you bypassed the issue of water. If a company is pouring chemicals into the water, that affects pretty much everyone in the globe. If I live in New Orleans and there's a company way up in Montana dumping chemicals in the Missouri river, which I then drink and get affected by, do you imagine it's going to be easy for me to konw this? Or even possible for me to know this? We know this from DDT - it doesn't just stay in one area, it spreads around the globe. You can't view the world as a series of isolated ecosystems, they're all connected in major ways and what you do in one ecosystem invariably moves to other ecosystems. You make it sound as if the problems caused by pollution is isolated and isn't devstating long-term. How does someone forty years from now sue a company that may be out of business now because of the damage done to his property or his person? CO2 emissions aren't isolated either, they mess with the balance way up in the atmosphere - are you going to tell me the average farmer is going to be aware of that co2? How?

Sorry, but private trials would be a farce. A complete farce. You can't just make a court decision and expect it to be carried through, you need power behind that decision for people to actually follow through with it. There needs to be authority where there is to be justice.

You should look into the privatization of rivers and streams. Started in Rumborak's turf, actually. The Ruhrverband

http://www.ruhrverband.de/ruhrverband_en/html/frame_rv.html

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=de&u=http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhrverband&ei=AmYgSuv5DcWGtgeFvaywBg&sa=X&oi=translate&resnum=2&ct=result&prev=/search%3Fq%3Druhrverband%2Bwiki%26hl%3Den%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26hs%3D7Xq%26sa%3DG



We would have to privatize the ecosystem for your idea to plausibly work. How do you privatize the oceans? Which, I would say, is pragmatically done with the government. Major parts of the ecosystem shouldn't and can't be "owned" by any one person; reality isn't so isolated. If we adopted the measures you suggest, there might be more done in some area's, but it also leaves gigantic holes under the name of a solution.
Nope? Privatization of the ecosystem = goodbye, Global Warming.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #97 on: May 30, 2009, 01:01:22 AM »
Astounding refutation; you completely bypassed any possible problem with the blanket statement: nope. It makes me think you're being sarcastic, but I can't tell since it's the internet.

So tell me, how exactly do you privatize the ecosystem?

Offline emindead

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11053
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #98 on: May 30, 2009, 08:19:47 AM »
So tell me, how exactly do you privatize the ecosystem?
You start buying it. Maybe a new private ministry creates that starts recognizing who wants land. Depending on the value of that land you buy it. Where the money goes? (This is me just throwing ideas, I'm sure better have been proposed but I'll give it a shot.) I will say 3/4 would go to the government and the other quarter to that special new ministry (they have to live with something). Once you pay for what the land costs you'll have your recognition by the State and the ministry.

Say someone wants to exploit your land. Well, since finally there's an owner who cares for his land, the "devastation" of it will be minimal. You'll have a contract with the company who wants to work in that land. Both of you win. A boat crosses your territorial sea land, you'll know. You'll charge him a fee for being in your property (if you want of course, better for you; more money to you). This way it'll be easier to know who contaminated your property, who's fishing in your territory etc. Contamination problem will reduce significantly (and by that I mean a lot) because people will finally be careful of what they throw to the water; they will finally respond to someone who really cares.

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #99 on: May 30, 2009, 01:11:11 PM »
So tell me, how exactly do you privatize the ecosystem?
You start buying it. Maybe a new private ministry creates that starts recognizing who wants land. Depending on the value of that land you buy it. Where the money goes? (This is me just throwing ideas, I'm sure better have been proposed but I'll give it a shot.) I will say 3/4 would go to the government and the other quarter to that special new ministry (they have to live with something). Once you pay for what the land costs you'll have your recognition by the State and the ministry.

Say someone wants to exploit your land. Well, since finally there's an owner who cares for his land, the "devastation" of it will be minimal. You'll have a contract with the company who wants to work in that land. Both of you win. A boat crosses your territorial sea land, you'll know. You'll charge him a fee for being in your property (if you want of course, better for you; more money to you). This way it'll be easier to know who contaminated your property, who's fishing in your territory etc. Contamination problem will reduce significantly (and by that I mean a lot) because people will finally be careful of what they throw to the water; they will finally respond to someone who really cares.

See there's the problem - you equated ecosystem with land. They are not the same, at all.

Offline emindead

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11053
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #100 on: May 30, 2009, 01:51:34 PM »
So tell me, how exactly do you privatize the ecosystem?
You start buying it. Maybe a new private ministry creates that starts recognizing who wants land. Depending on the value of that land you buy it. Where the money goes? (This is me just throwing ideas, I'm sure better have been proposed but I'll give it a shot.) I will say 3/4 would go to the government and the other quarter to that special new ministry (they have to live with something). Once you pay for what the land costs you'll have your recognition by the State and the ministry.

Say someone wants to exploit your land. Well, since finally there's an owner who cares for his land, the "devastation" of it will be minimal. You'll have a contract with the company who wants to work in that land. Both of you win. A boat crosses your territorial sea land, you'll know. You'll charge him a fee for being in your property (if you want of course, better for you; more money to you). This way it'll be easier to know who contaminated your property, who's fishing in your territory etc. Contamination problem will reduce significantly (and by that I mean a lot) because people will finally be careful of what they throw to the water; they will finally respond to someone who really cares.

See there's the problem - you equated ecosystem with land. They are not the same, at all.
How the hell do you expect to privatize an ecosystem? You privatize land. Animals can still use it. Their ecosystem is not necessarily going to be affected. Besides, I bet they'll be much safer when there's private property than they are now.
« Last Edit: May 30, 2009, 02:21:25 PM by emindead »

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #101 on: May 30, 2009, 02:08:12 PM »
So tell me, how exactly do you privatize the ecosystem?
You start buying it. Maybe a new private ministry creates that starts recognizing who wants land. Depending on the value of that land you buy it. Where the money goes? (This is me just throwing ideas, I'm sure better have been proposed but I'll give it a shot.) I will say 3/4 would go to the government and the other quarter to that special new ministry (they have to live with something). Once you pay for what the land costs you'll have your recognition by the State and the ministry.

Say someone wants to exploit your land. Well, since finally there's an owner who cares for his land, the "devastation" of it will be minimal. You'll have a contract with the company who wants to work in that land. Both of you win. A boat crosses your territorial sea land, you'll know. You'll charge him a fee for being in your property (if you want of course, better for you; more money to you). This way it'll be easier to know who contaminated your property, who's fishing in your territory etc. Contamination problem will reduce significantly (and by that I mean a lot) because people will finally be careful of what they throw to the water; they will finally respond to someone who really cares.

See there's the problem - you equated ecosystem with land. They are not the same, at all.
How the hell do you expect to privatize an ecosystem? You privatize land. Animals can still use it. Not necessarily their ecosystem are going to be affected. Besides, I bet they'll be much safer when there's private property than they are now.

My point exactly, and that's exactly what you require if you want to adaquately and justifiably have private ownership take care of it. The ecosystem, in toto, is what matters; not the pieces of land which are found on it but the ways the animals and the environment on that land interacts. The ecosystem requires cooperation. 

Offline Sigz

  • BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD
  • DTF.org Member
  • *
  • Posts: 13530
  • Gender: Male
  • THRONES FOR THE THRONE SKULL
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #102 on: May 30, 2009, 02:11:52 PM »
Their ecosystem is not necessarily going to be affected.

 :tup
Quote
The world is a stage, but the play is badly cast.

Offline emindead

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 11053
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #103 on: May 30, 2009, 02:21:38 PM »
:)

Offline Scheavo

  • Posts: 5444
Re: The P/R-side Chat Thread v.2
« Reply #104 on: May 30, 2009, 02:29:49 PM »
If our ecosystem is affected, so is "theirs." It's not as if each animal has it's own ecosystem, each animals fits into the ecosystem in different ways. It's also besides the point: Jobe said himself that people are free to do what they want insofar as they don't harm other people. He didn't say harm "what" people (the landowners or not), but people. Your system has too many holes which can't be filled, as in who exactly has the ability to protect their land. A company in Canada spewing out certain chemicals harms the ecosystem in a way which affects a tiny village fisher in Indonesia. DDT is to be found all over the world now, and not because it was USED all over the world. In what fantasy land is the Indonesian farmer going to be able to know he's being directly harmed by those chemicals, and then have the ability to SUE over it?