For my Libertarian friends

JJLehto wrote: Slartibartfast wrote: Epignosis wrote: Same thing with "organic" food (as opposed to what, food created in a lab by robots?)- you are not saving the world by eating that stuff.  Mess gives me the runs anyway.  Give me my preservatives, please. How far does such food travel to get to market? 1. Organic as opposed to genetically engineered, pesticide laden food.  Preservatives don't enter into it. 2. Ideally grown locally and consumed locally. Reminds me of the King of the Hill episode where Hank falls in with that hippie food co-op. Then he introduces them to profit and they sell out to the man But maybe incentives and tax breaks for such co-ops? Anything to help get local, natural food growers going.

 

Edited by manofmystery - July 28 2010 at 15:39

Or at least get it jump started Anton... I certainly dont want something like that to become a massive government thing.
Would kill the whole purpose of it.
And why should it get that jump start? Because Im not a libertarian

EDIT: ROB! I disagree! You hate beer


Edited by JJLehto - July 28 2010 at 15:40

And I KNOW you will disagree...but thats why a lot of people do view economics and personal life as different.
Unless you are truly a sheep no one wants the government to tell them how to live. A close friend of mine is a huge liberal, big gvmt-esque liberal I should say. But he loves smoking cigarettes, and NJ pretty much has a state wide inside smoking ban, and even outside place sometimes try to deter. He f*cking hates it.
Its human nature, we dont want to be told what to do.

And it goes back to how to you view government. Back in HS I used to see it as a good, (you think Im left now man...you dont even know how I used to be).
You guys see the government as an infrigement. I see it is a necessary evil. It should not be too big or bloated, and it shouldnt control everything...but I can tolerate some government intervention. While you guys see any amount as bad.
Why we have this difference I dont know. Not to be mean, but I think you guys are a bit idealistic. Not that all sides aren't...but it was equality who said my views on drugs were not based on rights but pragmatism. We all believe in rights but you guys are rigid in it, any infringement is bad and unacceptable. Seems philosophical/ideological rather than realistic.
And also depends on what we see as a right. No need to get into health again, but that is one where clearly you guys and I, (and T and Slarti?) disagree on if its a right or not.

You view taxes paying for healthcare as wrong since it is taking your money, and using it for someone else. Since I view it as a right, it can't be denied to anyone. I'll give you the BOTD...maybe its using force. But I guess its infringing a bit on the rights of some, for the rights of all. (Hope you dont think Im the evil one )
Thats why I like universal, I think its more fair, you pay you recieve. Or Robs more federalist idea isnt bad either, actually seems the most fair. I'm going to start writing letters to congress!


Edited by JJLehto - July 28 2010 at 17:08

but it ain't? Well thats not very definitive 
I think everyone has a right to health care. You don't. Thats cool, but just gunna say "its not" ?
And putting my emotions into it? Maybe, but its your health. What if you are laid off, and lose your health plan through your job. Someone in your family suffers a medical emergency. You have to get it dealt with obviously.
In 2007, 62% of bankruptcies were due to, or involved, medical costs. A family having to face bankruptcy due to something that needs to be done? Sorry. Guess I hate rights, if thats the case to be made than so be it.... I find that unacceptable. Especially in the wealthiest country on Earth

Its not like our system is the best anyway. Healthcare uses up more of our GDP than any other industrialized country, yet we use it less than the average for said countries. Talk about out of control bloated government, if it continues as is...not too long from now itll eat up 20% of GDP! Why keep something that is not working best? I know the whole forcing rights upon you thing, but it seems like a more realistic issue, than just ideological.
And Im confused, arent we paying for others anyway? Pleae correct me if Im wrong...but I thought you cant be denied service, at least for a medical emergency. So if someone can't pay, but walks in too get service than aren't we paying for them anyway?

Also: It doesn't have to be universal. I dont see a problem with a more locally financed health system. And tort reform Im fine with as well.

OH, and enjoy your vacation Anton


Edited by JJLehto - July 28 2010 at 19:34

I really dont think the military thing is unreasonable. I thought you guys were limited government....thus you have to allow some amount.
Even the most libertarian people/writers etc Ive heard usually grant there needs to be a government and SOME taxes to at least support a military, and courts, ya know the sheer essentials.

And coming from a pretty good lefty (especially socially) I actually used to support the death penalty. I went with, the only punishment sufficient for taking a life, is a life. I no longer support the death penalty, but not in theory actually. I dont like how inconsistent it is. A guy can murder 3 people in "X" with tons of witnesses and proof yet get, 40 years lets say. In "Y" someone can be convicted with less proof  and get death. Well these are examples but you get me. And I hate to bring up this whole thing, but the numbers show it is skweded towards minorities, as well as men.

So I dont oppose it in idea but application. This may be impossible but I wont support it until it can be more fair and uniform. Only because regardless, these are people's lives.

And the global warming thing kind of annoys me. Even if it turns out man made global warming = total BS. Its still important to do what we can to protect the environment. Like I said, its so politicized on both sides, Al Gore is an ass, and a lot of people probably just bandwagon. Which is sad, because the environment should be an issue that transcends all. Even if some things turned out to be wrong, the fact some people thank "ha liberals were wrong, well f*ck it" scares me. We should want to do what we can, regardless.

JJLehto wrote: And the fact it is a "liberal issue" upsets me. I know lots of conservatives that are pretty "green" We can debate on the man made thing if people want, but when it comes to actually protecting the environment I dont see why anyone would not want to?

Because there's a big line between having common sense and making drastic changes, creating economic policies, and passing far-reaching legislation under the spurious assumption that mankind controls nature.

You got it Rob. 

Logan, what is your novel about?

thellama73 wrote: Re: environmental change. I am not at all convinced about this man made global warming thing. It seems to me taht there is not all that much evidence for it and the fact that some people are so eager to stifle all opposing views strikes me as suspicious. "Debate's over! We win! Look over here, please, while we assume control of all aspects of industry." If the numbers that many experts have produced are correct, in order to make any significant difference we would essentially have to regress to pre-industrial revolution technology. I think we better be pretty damn sure before we take such a drastic step. It also doesn't help that people like Al Gore refuse to follow their own advice on conservation. Kind of puts a damper on their credibility.

Well, you should be convinced.  Denying global warming is a position on an intellectual level with denying evolution.  Scientists say "debate's over!" because, within the scientific community, the debate is over.  It is simple ignorance to say that there is not much evidence, as, despite what those who deny global warming will say, scientists do not just decide what to believe on a whim.  As explained by Thomas Kuhn in his incredibly important book The Structures of Scientific Revolutions, it is actually quite a long and involved process for a new paradigm to take hold in science, as global warming has done.

As a general rule, laypeople don't challenge the findings of scientists.  There's a very good reason for this: doing truly meaningful, innovative scientific research today requires an extremely high degree of specialization that can only be achieved by years of preparation (college, graduate school through to a PhD, and then a post-doctoral position).  The reason this level of specialized training is needed is that, in order to truly understand scientific findings deeply, in all their implications and support, you need very specific skill sets.  These skills are possessed by and large only by the specialists within each field.  They are almost entirely absent in the general population.  And yet we see two areas in which laypeople challenge the scientific validity of issues which are, let me say again, completely decided within the scientific community as being true (even if not all the details are ironed out*).  We see many religious people who deny evolution because they can't square it with their view of the bible as literally true, and we see many conservative people who deny global warming because it doesn't square with their opposition to government regulation of industry.  In both cases, the primary motivation for the opposition is political, rather than scientific (since, of course, the people making the challenges by and large aren't scientists).  Also, in both cases, the propaganda machines aiding these denial efforts claim loudly enough that "there is little evidence for the theory" or "there are fatal flaws in the theory" that people such as yourself are duped into believing it. 

*this is much less of a caveat than it seems; there are no scientific paradigms in which all the details are ironed out (which is why scientific research will continue indefinitely so long as humans remain extant).

If you are interested in reading up on the evidence for global warming, here are some very handy links:

http://www.realclimate.org/
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/evidenceforwarming.htm
http://environmentalism.suite101.com/article.cfm/evidence-of-global-warming

And check this wikipedia article for confirmation that there truly is consensus within the scientific community:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

Key quote:

With the release of the revised statement[95] by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[2][3]

I created this account just because I'm incredibly bothered by the willingness people show in mistrusting scientists when it doesn't support their political/religious ideologies.  It's almost never justified.  Even if global warming proves false, the deniers will not be able to say that they held a rational position.  Thinking that you know better than the people with the skill sets to undertake, understand, analyze, and draw conclusions from the research that supports global warming is simply the height of arrogance.  I don't tell car mechanics how to do their job, so why should I presume to be able to tell scientists how to do theirs?

2.71828183 wrote: thellama73 wrote: Re: environmental change. I am not at all convinced about this man made global warming thing. It seems to me taht there is not all that much evidence for it and the fact that some people are so eager to stifle all opposing views strikes me as suspicious. "Debate's over! We win! Look over here, please, while we assume control of all aspects of industry." If the numbers that many experts have produced are correct, in order to make any significant difference we would essentially have to regress to pre-industrial revolution technology. I think we better be pretty damn sure before we take such a drastic step. It also doesn't help that people like Al Gore refuse to follow their own advice on conservation. Kind of puts a damper on their credibility. Well, you should be convinced.  Denying global warming is a position on an intellectual level with denying evolution.  Scientists say "debate's over!" because, within the scientific community, the debate is over.  It is simple ignorance to say that there is not much evidence, as, despite what those who deny global warming will say, scientists do not just decide what to believe on a whim.  As explained by Thomas Kuhn in his incredibly important book The Structures of Scientific Revolutions, it is actually quite a long and involved process for a new paradigm to take hold in science, as global warming has done. As a general rule, laypeople don't challenge the findings of scientists.  There's a very good reason for this: doing truly meaningful, innovative scientific research today requires an extremely high degree of specialization that can only be achieved by years of preparation (college, graduate school through to a PhD, and then a post-doctoral position).  The reason this level of specialized training is needed is that, in order to truly understand scientific findings deeply, in all their implications and support, you need very specific skill sets.  These skills are possessed by and large only by the specialists within each field.  They are almost entirely absent in the general population.  And yet we see two areas in which laypeople challenge the scientific validity of issues which are, let me say again, completely decided within the scientific community as being true (even if not all the details are ironed out*).  We see many religious people who deny evolution because they can't square it with their view of the bible as literally true, and we see many conservative people who deny global warming because it doesn't square with their opposition to government regulation of industry.  In both cases, the primary motivation for the opposition is political, rather than scientific (since, of course, the people making the challenges by and large aren't scientists).  Also, in both cases, the propaganda machines aiding these denial efforts claim loudly enough that "there is little evidence for the theory" or "there are fatal flaws in the theory" that people such as yourself are duped into believing it.  *this is much less of a caveat than it seems; there are no scientific paradigms in which all the details are ironed out (which is why scientific research will continue indefinitely so long as humans remain extant). If you are interested in reading up on the evidence for global warming, here are some very handy links: http://www.realclimate.org/ http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/ http://oceanworld.tamu.edu/resources/oceanography-book/evidenceforwarming.htm http://environmentalism.suite101.com/article.cfm/evidence-of-global-warming And check this wikipedia article for confirmation that there truly is consensus within the scientific community: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change Key quote: With the release of the revised statement[95] by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists in 2007, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate change.[2][3] I created this account just because I'm incredibly bothered by the willingness people show in mistrusting scientists when it doesn't support their political/religious ideologies.  It's almost never justified.  Even if global warming proves false, the deniers will not be able to say that they held a rational position.  Thinking that you know better than the people with the skill sets to undertake, understand, analyze, and draw conclusions from the research that supports global warming is simply the height of arrogance.  I don't tell car mechanics how to do their job, so why should I presume to be able to tell scientists how to do theirs?

Awesome.  Scientists (who get their funding from a variety of sources) get to think for me!

Better follow the orders of the men in the white coats, gentlemen.  They know what's best for all of us in this madhouse. 

We are going to destroy all your libraries and burn all your books.  Oh wait.  Libertarian not Librarian.  Never mind.