How could changover to AC could occur? (we only got one Earth)

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
1. You still haven't explained how the environment will be cared for. Nobody owns "the" environment. Nor could they in any conceivable fassion. Until you provide a concrete explination as to how the environment will be protected under AC, I consider the status quo to be far better than the alternative.


[/ QUOTE ]
Here's a diagram:

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
IT DOESNT MATTER!!!!!!!!! THEY ARE HERE

Im not arguing ideology im arguing practicallity for the actual conversion of todays planet to AC.

[/ QUOTE ]
Um, get together a bunch of like-minded people to voluntarily finance getting rid of them?

This reminds me of a comic strip CardCounter posted

Republican: *breaks vase*
Democrat: Hey what are you doing, you just broke that
Republican: Yeah, well how are you going to fix it huh?
Democrat: Well maybe not break the vase in the first place?
Republican: See, you have no ideas of your own you just blame us.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
Christians, jews, previous day america because of what we've done to tick them off, George W's ranch, Jewish settlements in today's Israel, pretty sure i could think of more if your require them.

[/ QUOTE ]

All of these things you list are things that have used government to achieve there ends. Suprised?

[iron81]

1. For Riddick's first poll, I voted that governments were more likely to destroy the world than private enterprise, but that private enterprise was more likely to damage the environment. I voted for the govt. to the first question because govt currently has more power. If govt was eliminated, the private sector is perfectly capable of destroying lots of [censored]. Its really obvious that the private sector pollutes much more than the government. Government doesn't own factories and owns very few cars compared to the private sector.

2. The main flaw in the AC environmental argument is that air is not segregatable. As fanciful as the idea in an earlier thread was of fences holding fish in the ocean, that pales in comparison to the idea that each property owner can keep his own air clean and therby all the air will be clean. The only way this will ever happen is if each property owner voluntarily does not emit pollution (fat chance) or cleans his own air. The atmosphere is not analogous to a non-smoking restaurant because outdoors, there is no way to contain pollutants. ACists would be better off saying,"[censored] the environment". The whole "AC can be good for the environment" is easily the most preposterous claim I've seen an ACist make. I'd much sooner start believing the 9-11 conspiracy theories.

3. If Riddick thinks his family his family will have no interest in clear cutting the forest that he owns, he isn't much of a logger. Logging companies routinely level whole State's worth of trees to feed the paper mills. The whole idea of replanting forests was completely alien to them until the govt. started requiring it.

The only other alternative that I have heard from the AC camp for environmental protection is lawsuits. I can tell you that it is a hugh task to sort out who did what pollution for simple cases like groundwater. It is completely impossible for New York Joe to sue Chicago Phil and say, "Your car polluted my home, you owe me 3 cents".

PVN section

4. An intelligent person looks at the evidence, looks at history and tries to learn from it. Civilization has advanced steadily over the last 1000 years. And the reason your bread crust analogy fails is that I own much more than bread crusts. I and people like me own cars, computers, homes and all sorts of neat stuff that Statist societies have provided.

5. The main virtue of inefficiency is that it forces decision makers to be deliberative. If a concensus must be reached before action is taken and time for reflection is built in, then it is likely that that decision will be approximately correct.

6. 1. I am not proposing we hand absolute power to an entity: the private sector has a vital role. And if we are going to hand power to anyone, it is much better that it be an accountable entity like a Democratic govt. rather than the king of AC land.

7. No, I don't think AC citizens will roll over when their new oppressor takes power, but people who are brutally oppressed don't usually roll over either. Dictatorships throughout history have successrfully oppressed people. It was only through the rise of the modern democratic state that an alternative to dictatorship finally arose.

8. A. You completely missed my point B. If there are enough natural barriers to entry, monopolies form which eventually become states. C. There are plenty of barriers to entry for alternative governments within States. How's that workin out for you?

Back to Riddick & ShakeZula

9. The reason why groups like Al-Qaeda target governments is that Governments have power, so they are the natural target. But if you want an example of terrorizing private citizens, go back to Colombia, where the rebels and the paramilitaries wage a war largely divorced from government. Both sides there are responsible for numerous atrocities and the Colombian government's main role is as peacemaker.

10. Al-Qaeda provides utility to Muslims who believe the West is destroying their culture. Governments did in fact do things that provoked Al-Qaeda, but so did the private sector. Both by paying the repressive Arab states billions for their oil and by selling Western music and other culture, the private sector has done its part.

11. Once again, the question of who created nukes irrelevant from a practical standpoint.

12. Firms wage wars all the time. Start with the diamond mines in Africa. Tens of thousands of people died there fighting over control of the diamonds. The diamond firms paid rebel groups big bucks for their diamonds, and the rebel groups turned around and killed other rebel groups. Another example is violently breaking strikes.

Also, once a firm has achieved a monopoly, it no longer has to provide the best product. If you're the only grocery store for 100 miles, you can charge whatever you want. And if you threaten not to sell to anyone who works for your competitor, your competitor isn't going to stay in business for long.

13. I can't think of any examples of ignored arbitrations leading to ostracism, largely because arbitration in America is enforced by government courts.

14. I've provided examples here of violence being profitable, from Colombia to Africa. I'll throw in the Mafia for good measure.

15.
[ QUOTE ]
Who would al-queda use nukes against if there were no governments?

[/ QUOTE ]
The various threats to fundamentalist Islamic culture: western music, TV and money.

16. Who is more likely to shoot you in the head?



17. Shake, soot particles don't care where the property line is.

18. While governments are the ones respobsible for creating nukes and it is unlikely that they will get rid of them, it is much more likely that governments will get rid of them than ACists. At least with states, there are a fixed number of parties to negotiate with, and states have successfully negotiated and implemented arms reduction treaties.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
IT DOESNT MATTER!!!!!!!!! THEY ARE HERE

Im not arguing ideology im arguing practicallity for the actual conversion of todays planet to AC.

[/ QUOTE ]
Um, get together a bunch of like-minded people to voluntarily finance getting rid of them?

This reminds me of a comic strip CardCounter posted

Republican: *breaks vase*
Democrat: Hey what are you doing, you just broke that
Republican: Yeah, well how are you going to fix it huh?
Democrat: Well maybe not break the vase in the first place?
Republican: See, you have no ideas of your own you just blame us.

[/ QUOTE ]
That's pretty damn funny. Kudos to Cardcounter!

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
16. Who is more likely to shoot you in the head?

[/ QUOTE ]
The one who came to power because of a government created black market. Capone is probably not a good choice as an argument against anarchy.

[iron81]

As I've discussed in other threads, gangsters do not need black markets to generate income. Another source is protection or extortion rackets. Its just that I couldn't think of another gangster that people would recognize.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
As I've discussed in other threads, gangsters do not need black markets to generate income. Another source is protection or extortion rackets.

[/ QUOTE ]
And of course the countries these gangsters have no monopoly on force, right? I know you've mentioned Africa (not very notable for their capitalist tendencies). Shitholes where few people respect property rights will be shitholes with or without a government. Africa (at least right now) is not a good candidate for AC and no one is arguing they are.

[gostros]

I would answer the very small amount of substance in your posts, pvn, but I'm sick of wading through the plethora of BS and major distortions of what I have been saying:

[ QUOTE ]
A few posts back, you argued that everyone would be wealthier (as if that were a bad thing), now you're arguing that they will be poorer. Which is it?

[/ QUOTE ]
Classic dodge. I never argued either one of those claims. You completely distorted both, and didn't answer them.

[ QUOTE ]
You may need to look up the definition of the word "proof".

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
You think? Oh. Well.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Micromanagement is counterproductive (and immoral).

[/ QUOTE ]
With no elaboration on this brazen claim.

[ QUOTE ]
The burden of proof generally falls upon the party *making* the claim.

[/ QUOTE ]
Who's making the claim, genius? If things aren't to your liking, prover to me that your way is better. You can't, so you're just full of it.

And that's just from one post. Anybody with a free thinking brain (which is what these jokers ironically preach about) can see clear through this smoke and mirrors trick. None of you could even begin to prove how such a radical alternative to the status quo would "obviously be better."

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
If govt was eliminated, the private sector is perfectly capable of destroying lots of [censored].

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure. But why would they?

Also, note that while "the private sector" could destroy lots of [censored], no one actor in the private sector can really destroy that much.

[ QUOTE ]
Its really obvious that the private sector pollutes much more than the government. Government doesn't own factories and owns very few cars compared to the private sector.

[/ QUOTE ]

Government immunizes those private actors from liability for pollution and in many cases encourages it.

[ QUOTE ]
2. The main flaw in the AC environmental argument is that air is not segregatable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Pollution that is spewed into it is.

[ QUOTE ]
3. If Riddick thinks his family his family will have no interest in clear cutting the forest that he owns, he isn't much of a logger. Logging companies routinely level whole State's worth of trees to feed the paper mills. The whole idea of replanting forests was completely alien to them until the govt. started requiring it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why was it alien? Because property taxes made long-term ownership of the land unprofitable.

BTW, note that the New Deal Lumber Code also included price floors for lumber.

Incidentally, what business is it of yours if I decide to cut my trees down?

[ QUOTE ]
The only other alternative that I have heard from the AC camp for environmental protection is lawsuits. I can tell you that it is a hugh task to sort out who did what pollution for simple cases like groundwater. It is completely impossible for New York Joe to sue Chicago Phil and say, "Your car polluted my home, you owe me 3 cents".

[/ QUOTE ]

Under the mechanism the state provides, such actions are cumbersome.

[ QUOTE ]
PVN section

4. An intelligent person looks at the evidence, looks at history and tries to learn from it. Civilization has advanced steadily over the last 1000 years. And the reason your bread crust analogy fails is that I own much more than bread crusts. I and people like me own cars, computers, homes and all sorts of neat stuff that Statist societies have provided.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you said the Soviet system was (at least partially) good because it provided food. Directly. No statist system directly provided you with a car, computer, and home. Bait and switch 101.

[ QUOTE ]
5. The main virtue of inefficiency is that it forces decision makers to be deliberative. If a concensus must be reached before action is taken and time for reflection is built in, then it is likely that that decision will be approximately correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is begging the question. You're arguing that an inefficient solution is more likely to be correct than an efficient one? How efficient is an incorrect solution?

[ QUOTE ]
6. 1. I am not proposing we hand absolute power to an entity: the private sector has a vital role.

[/ QUOTE ]

But you give government primacy over the private sector.

[ QUOTE ]
And if we are going to hand power to anyone, it is much better that it be an accountable entity like a Democratic govt. rather than the king of AC land.

[/ QUOTE ]

Accountable? Enron, Arthur Anderson, MCI, etc faced real accountability. Governments do not. You might replace a cog here or there, but as people are fond of saying about particular terrorists, if you knock one out, many more will spring up eager to take their places.

[ QUOTE ]
7. No, I don't think AC citizens will roll over when their new oppressor takes power, but people who are brutally oppressed don't usually roll over either. Dictatorships throughout history have successrfully oppressed people. It was only through the rise of the modern democratic state that an alternative to dictatorship finally arose.

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what your point is here.

[ QUOTE ]
8. A. You completely missed my point B. If there are enough natural barriers to entry, monopolies form which eventually become states.

[/ QUOTE ]

What monopoly? There's nothing stopping anyone else from competing. All one has to do is provide more value.

Monopoly occurs when governemnt uses *force* to prevent competitors from entering a market, even if they may be able to provide more value. Artificial barriers to entry.

[ QUOTE ]
C. There are plenty of barriers to entry for alternative governments within States. How's that workin out for you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Natural or artificial?

[ QUOTE ]
Back to Riddick & ShakeZula

9. The reason why groups like Al-Qaeda target governments is that Governments have power, so they are the natural target. But if you want an example of terrorizing private citizens, go back to Colombia, where the rebels and the paramilitaries wage a war largely divorced from government. Both sides there are responsible for numerous atrocities and the Colombian government's main role is as peacemaker.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who are the rebels rebelling against? The FARC is a communist group. The AUC is a fascist group. They all are fighting for state power. The existence of murderous statists is evidence for what, exactly? BTW, why hasn't the government been able to stop these groups, since government is the cure for all ills?

[ QUOTE ]
Another example is violently breaking strikes.

[/ QUOTE ]

An activity pioneered by states.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, once a firm has achieved a monopoly, it no longer has to provide the best product.

[/ QUOTE ]

If it wants to maintain that monopoly it does.

[ QUOTE ]
If you're the only grocery store for 100 miles, you can charge whatever you want. And if you threaten not to sell to anyone who works for your competitor, your competitor isn't going to stay in business for long.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or you've just created huge incentives for someone to come in and compete with you.

[ QUOTE ]
14. I've provided examples here of violence being profitable, from Colombia to Africa. I'll throw in the Mafia for good measure.

[/ QUOTE ]

And what do those all have in common? Government intervention.

BTW, of course violence *can* be profitable. It's just *less profitable* than nonviolence (absent market distortions caused by government intervention). How many bank robbers are on the Forbes 400?

[ QUOTE ]
15.
[ QUOTE ]
Who would al-queda use nukes against if there were no governments?

[/ QUOTE ]
The various threats to fundamentalist Islamic culture: western music, TV and money.

[/ QUOTE ]

How do you nuke "music" or "tv" or "money"???

[ QUOTE ]
16. Who is more likely to shoot you in the head?



[/ QUOTE ]

Haha. How many customers did capone shoot? Oh, and you forgot that Capone was a direct product of government prohibition. NH.

[ QUOTE ]
18. While governments are the ones respobsible for creating nukes and it is unlikely that they will get rid of them,

[/ QUOTE ]

Yet another "look at this horrible monster we created, now you have to keep paying us forever to contain it" argument. Hooray government!