For my Libertarian friends

JJLehto wrote: I'll be the first liberal to say f*ck recycling.

 

Long as its on youtube.
But honestly...will they say anything I havnt herd before? I think in this thread we've beaten taxes to death, or so you wish

JJLehto wrote: manofmystery wrote: JJLehto wrote: Whew...I was scared there for a second that Rob was turning to Socialism! Though speaking of the environment....anyone know that recycling isn't really the great thing it is? Overall uses up a lot of resources and money, (and it takes more energy to recycle a plastic bottle than make a new one), recycling is expensive but covered up with subsidies..... Aluminum cans are good for recycling, but its cheaper to make the same products from scratch than from recycled plastic, and recycling paper means less trees are grown, and the process leaves behind some nasty side products. So is recycling worth all the money when it really may not be that good? I have no idea how much is spent on it....and honestly landfills have a bad rep, but they are really not so.     Yes and: keep watching Penn & Teller.  You'll figure out many of your other preconceived notions are bullsh*t too, eventually. Sad part is I kinda knew all that. A friend of mine told me about it, and his dad used to be a lawyer for the EPA or something. Penn & Teller just elaborated and were able to give more info then he could. And I like that show, its actually less political than I thought, they do speak the truth. The immigration, video game, and bible episodes were also epic. I'll be the first liberal to say f*ck recycling.

 

Whew...I was scared there for a second that Rob was turning to Socialism!



Though speaking of the environment....anyone know that recycling isn't really the great thing it is?
Overall uses up a lot of resources and money, (and it takes more energy to recycle a plastic bottle than make a new one), recycling is expensive but covered up with subsidies.....
Aluminum cans are good for recycling, but its cheaper to make the same products from scratch than from recycled plastic, and recycling paper means less trees are grown, and the process leaves behind some nasty side products.

So is recycling worth all the money when it really may not be that good? I have no idea how much is spent on it....and honestly landfills have a bad rep, but they are really not so.


Edited by JJLehto - July 28 2010 at 14:18

Equality 7-2521 wrote: Epignosis wrote:   The protection of negative rights necessitates some positive rights.  You have no problem with a government-funded military to protect our lives.  Is this not a positive right?  The soldiers don't train and protect us for free.  And if the government did not have citizens willing to become soldiers, then the government does what it did not fifty years ago.  On top of this, for our military to be feasible, we must fund research, vehicles, aircraft, weapons, and various other crucial aspects of our defense.  Thus, it is clear that by establishing such a negative right, a positive right comes into play.  Or, since you oppose the death penalty, for the government to protect us against murderers, we must collectively fund places to house and feed these convicted felons (which, by the way, is the government restricting a person's right to liberty, which comes right after the right to life). As for "food insurance," I'm not sure what you mean by that.  If I take you to mean what I think you mean, I would say no, except that I think localized soup kitchens could be a reasonable thing- again, funded by a consumption tax that replaces the income tax.  Even better, with all the perfectly good food that goes to waste from some restaurants and grocery stores, such a thing might not even require much funding.  All that said, this is assuming that there were no charitable organizations out there, and there are, and they do a great job (from my experience working with them, anyway).  But all this talk about rights means very little if you have nothing to eat. Well first off I don't support a tax funded military, so I'm no so sure that critique really applies to me. However, we institute a government to protect our rights.  We have a right to not be aggressed upon, thus the government has a military to ensure that either it does not happen or that appropriate response is possible. So the institution of military arises to fulfill this natural right.  With healthcare however, there's no right being protected. We don't have a right to not get cancer, nor do we have a right to an MRI.  Our right to life requires nothing of anybody else. Military actions are enacted in retaliation for when that right is violated, which is the justification for it. For government to step in and act, it would have to be in retaliation to some right violation, but none exist in the medical realm. In the case of prisons, I again don't support the idea that they should be funded by taxes. Prisoners relinquish a claim to their rights (proportionally) when they violate those of others. If you pay for treatment and do not receive it, it is proper that the one you payed be forced to treat you or return your money. It is not proper for you to initiate force and require that one to treat you without pay. I bring up food insurance because you're saying people have a right to minimum medical care as a derivative of their right to life. By the same reasoning people deserve a right to minimum food. So you would support a local government food insurance program which takes tax money and uses it to feed those in need.  Question: If charitable organizations are sufficient for providing food, why not for providing medical care?

I have not espoused a right to medical care (if you recall, I was the one who used the very analogy about grocery stores being required to give away free food to the hungry as an argument against national health care).  I was interested in seeing how others here interpret "right to life."

To continue this dialogue, let me ask this:  Suppose a contagious disease breaks out.  Does the government then have a role to stopping its spread?  You said no one has a right to not get cancer (I agree, but then again the wording is kind of silly), yet suppose cancer were contagious?  Would the government have a role in preventing the spread of a contagious cancer or treating those who get it?

Also, how do you propose to fund the military and prisons?

As for your question about medical care and food provided by charity, well, feeding people isn't exactly a specialized skill that takes about a decade of costly schooling, requires extremely expensive insurance, and is a higher risk field.

Epignosis wrote:   The protection of negative rights necessitates some positive rights.  You have no problem with a government-funded military to protect our lives.  Is this not a positive right?  The soldiers don't train and protect us for free.  And if the government did not have citizens willing to become soldiers, then the government does what it did not fifty years ago.  On top of this, for our military to be feasible, we must fund research, vehicles, aircraft, weapons, and various other crucial aspects of our defense.  Thus, it is clear that by establishing such a negative right, a positive right comes into play.  Or, since you oppose the death penalty, for the government to protect us against murderers, we must collectively fund places to house and feed these convicted felons (which, by the way, is the government restricting a person's right to liberty, which comes right after the right to life). As for "food insurance," I'm not sure what you mean by that.  If I take you to mean what I think you mean, I would say no, except that I think localized soup kitchens could be a reasonable thing- again, funded by a consumption tax that replaces the income tax.  Even better, with all the perfectly good food that goes to waste from some restaurants and grocery stores, such a thing might not even require much funding.  All that said, this is assuming that there were no charitable organizations out there, and there are, and they do a great job (from my experience working with them, anyway).  But all this talk about rights means very little if you have nothing to eat.

Epignosis wrote: Equality 7-2521 wrote: If Rob is prepared to admit medical care as a right; I believe he's required to admit several other things as rights which he would not be willing to do. Surely you don't consider me a "wolf" given the principles I espouse.    I merely thought I'd engage in debate with those I largely agree with to test some waters, and I thought I'd do that by seeing how you and llama interpret "right to life." You guys interpret that as merely: Equality 7-2521 wrote: One has a right not to have their right to life violated. I don't see on what basis you are arriving at that specific definition.  It seems just as arbitrary as those who say the right to bear arms just means we can serve in the military. Does this mean that if you have a seizure, and I call 911, that the tax-payer funded fire department shouldn't come to your aid (as they are often the first to arrive)? Out of curiosity, if one has an inalienable "right to life," and given your interpretation of that, are you therefore opposed to the death penalty? Finally, one key thing to remember is that the "right to life" is not a Constitutional phrase, but is a phrase found in the Declaration of Independence- how binding is that document on how the government operates? All things to think about my friend...no reason to consider me a wolf...I'm more of a tortoise.

Principles eh, who'd have 'em?