[wtfsvi]

[ QUOTE ]
Prove to me that any state sponsored action to "combat" global warming is actually doing anything that has an iota of impact i.e. that if followed by all people, nations, whatever, will stop flooding Bangladesh. Better yet prove to me that Bangladesh will be flooded due to global warming. I'm not an ACist but I have to take issue with your befief that it's a given more or less that government needs to/has to do anything. Furthermore I take issue with the your assumption that government actually knows what is effective and what is not in "combatting" global warming.

[/ QUOTE ] It seems to me that if I ask a statist what should be done about global warming, he'll have an acceptable answer ready. If I ask an ACist he will attack the statist's answer and the premise of the question, but he will not propose a solution of his own. I'm sure you see how that is worrying to me if I were to consider becoming an anarchist.

especially this question is what I want answered: If individuals in Y are not fine with giving up personal comfort to stop bad thing X, does that mean the citizens of Z will just have to deal with the negative consequences of that, and you don't think there's anything that could or should be done? Global warming is just an example of this kind of scenario. If you don't think it's likely enough that Bangladesh would be flooded, use another example like the citizens in ACland building nuclear power plants with weak safety.