Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Oil is at a 12-year low

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post

    Pari - if you think that's socialism, go ahead and call it that. It's not what it is in my book, but everybody has an opinion, I suppose.
    You misunderstand. If Barack Obama is calling himself a civil libertarian, then what he means is international socialist, because that's what he is. He's simply going through another re-branding as the old brand name has become tainted.
    In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

    Leibniz

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
      Everything I've discussed in this thread in regards to environment, pollution, and so on, has to do with negative externalities.

      Negative externalities created by you affect me, and you don't have a right to infringe and trample over on my health, life, access to clean air, clean water, and so on.

      If you create negative externalities that infringes on the lives and health of others, you should pay costs to mitigate them.
      But should I pay them in advance or if I do actually do something bad?

      This is not inconsistent with libertarianism. I'm also a civil libertarian, but libertarian generally in outlook as well.
      Taxing the shit out of me so you can plan and tell me where to live is inconsistent. Government has no say to what I do, as long as I do not harm anyone.

      Creators of negative externalities have to pay for them. The basic premise is, it's your responsibility, be accountable for your actions, don't pass the buck on me, don't pour motor oil in my drinking water, or paint thinner that ends up in my iced tea. Quite simple.
      Exactly, so why tax me for something I don't do and if I do actually do harm to you the courts should settle the score, not the government.

      Negative externalities can have diffuse origins from the actions of thousands/millions/billions of people. I can't sue an entire metro area's population of 3 million people if I get cancer from something 3 million people did that gave me cancer. They can also be caused by a corporation, or a single individual. In this case you can sue, but you might be dead and your family bankrupt before they settle.
      Move elsewhere. Oh, wait, you'll get taxed for that, too. You can't fine or change 3.000.000 people. But wait, you want them to pay for your damages that might occure and that will be determined by some bureaucrats. So very libertarian.

      Not getting cancer because of something you did, or dying of thirst because of something you did, or suffering from heat stroke because of something you did, and in general not dying because of something you did, is a civil right.

      That's where regulation and taxation enters the picture in a libertarian model. To protect the rights of others against infringement by people each acting in large ways, or small ways on a macro-scale, that in turn harms others in ways that cannot be held to be the responsibility of any definite party, but is of indefinite origin from the mass actions of many people.
      And yet again, why should I pay taxes, so that you play Simcity? How is your general idea of what is good and beneficial the right one? Leave the people be responsible for their actions and do not intrude in their lives. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

      The answer here was so obvious, and so common-sense, I can't believe that somebody had to ask.
      Here we go again.
      No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

      To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

      Comment


      • Parihaka,

        Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
        You misunderstand. If Barack Obama is calling himself a civil libertarian, then what he means is international socialist, because that's what he is. He's simply going through another re-branding as the old brand name has become tainted.
        I get the impression you either don’t know or don’t care what the words you use actually mean. When you say President Obama is an “international socialist,” the two most obvious interpretations are (a) a member of the International Socialist Organization, or (b) a member of Socialism International.

        It’s plain he isn’t with ISO, since they are opposed to US actions in Syria. They also happen to be Marxist socialists, which Mr Obama is most clearly not. And, if you mean the Socialist International, well that’s an organization of social democratic and socialist parties and since Mr Obama is a member of the Democratic Party, well, … no.
        Trust me?
        I'm an economist!

        Comment


        • Doktor - if you cause harm to others, you help pay for it.

          It's as simple as that.
          "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

          Comment


          • Originally posted by DOR View Post
            Parihaka,



            I get the impression you either don’t know or don’t care what the words you use actually mean. When you say President Obama is an “international socialist,” the two most obvious interpretations are (a) a member of the International Socialist Organization, or (b) a member of Socialism International.

            It’s plain he isn’t with ISO, since they are opposed to US actions in Syria. They also happen to be Marxist socialists, which Mr Obama is most clearly not. And, if you mean the Socialist International, well that’s an organization of social democratic and socialist parties and since Mr Obama is a member of the Democratic Party, well, … no.
            He's an internationalist, and a socialist, a globalist. Stepping outside Pol101, what's so difficult to understand?
            Last edited by Parihaka; 11 May 17,, 11:03. Reason: link added and typos
            In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

            Leibniz

            Comment


            • Originally posted by zraver View Post
              That is where lawsuits enter into the picture, not taxes. Reasonable regulation to prevent uncompensated downstream effects is way different than taxes designed t be hgh enough to pick winners and losers in a social engineering context.
              I don't know what you choose to believe.

              I suppose if you believe that pumping tons of carbon dioxide is great for the Earth, man-made climate change is a good thing, or on the other hand, climate change is not occurring, or half the species on the planet have gone extinct naturally, or the relatively rapid warming of the Earth is the result of solar oscillations and unconnected with CO2 - then you don't see greenhouse gases as an "uncompensated downstream effect". I do.

              Who do I sue if a grandparent were to die of heat stroke in a heat wave caused by a global warming related heat wave? Who do I sue if I have a well for my home that goes dry because the water table was depleted by, for the sake of argument, almond orchards? Who do I sue if I were to have a child, that plays in a pond, poisoned by heavy metals because someone dumped a hundred car batteries into it, and whodunnit can never be established? Who do I sue if I get lung cancer from a source of pollution that is too diffuse to point a finger at?

              Perhaps we should quintuple the number of lawyers in society and hire private pollution detectives by the tens of millions.

              Or we could just make polluters pay upfront for the damage they do. Going after them, after the fact, allows polluters to evade almost all responsibility for all but the most heinous and obvious actions.
              "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                Doktor - if you cause harm to others, you help pay for it.

                It's as simple as that.
                Am not in argument about that, am in argument why there should be a tax for that.
                No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                  Am not in argument about that, am in argument why there should be a tax for that.
                  Because all of his arguments are potential events rather than actuals, hence a tax to mitigate against possible future harm to him.
                  In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                  Leibniz

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Doktor View Post
                    Am not in argument about that, am in argument why there should be a tax for that.
                    Because it deters and helps minimize these negative externalities. Polluters cause harm to individuals, they pay up front.
                    "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                      Because all of his arguments are potential events rather than actuals, hence a tax to mitigate against possible future harm to him.
                      There is harm that occurs to people every day as a result of pollution, heavy metals, exposure to toxins, etc. It isn't a "potential" thing that could occur, it is happening, to virtually everybody, everyday.
                      "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Parihaka View Post
                        He's an internationalist, and a socialist, a globalist. Stepping outside Pol101, what's so difficult to understand?
                        Anything in particular in that UN speech that you think was actually "internationalist, socialist and globalist," or was it just the fact that he spoke at the UN?
                        Trust me?
                        I'm an economist!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by DOR View Post
                          Anything in particular in that UN speech that you think was actually "internationalist, socialist and globalist," or was it just the fact that he spoke at the UN?
                          Obama is center-right by European and perhaps even NZ standards. He's not even remotely far left by American standards, merely center-left.

                          Obamacare, for example, is perhaps 10% as "socialist" as the healthcare schemes in virtually every developed country are.

                          New Zealand's health care system is 10x more socialist than Obamacare.
                          "Every man has his weakness. Mine was always just cigarettes."

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                            Doktor - if you cause harm to others, you help pay for it.

                            It's as simple as that.

                            But a Government raising oil prices 6x by taxation would not hurt anyone. OK.
                            Last edited by snapper; 11 May 17,, 19:07.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Ironduke View Post
                              There is harm that occurs to people every day as a result of pollution, heavy metals, exposure to toxins, etc. It isn't a "potential" thing that could occur, it is happening, to virtually everybody, everyday.
                              As is improved life expectancy. I'm not really seeing a need for a taxation on petroleum products when despite increased car usage, your people are in general living longer healthier lives. It would seem the system is correcting itself without you taxing the evil du jour.
                              In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                              Leibniz

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by DOR View Post
                                Anything in particular in that UN speech that you think was actually "internationalist, socialist and globalist," or was it just the fact that he spoke at the UN?
                                Read it and get back to me.
                                In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                                Leibniz

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X