Debates
06 Aug 11
08 Aug 11
Originally posted by WajomaActually you did say that - and you have refused every opportunity to elaborate your position on this and a myriad of other issues when questioned.
And you'd like to ban selfishness? I don't have a problem with people acting in their own self interest to be sure, it is entirely their business, it's no crime, there should be no laws against, much to the consternation of some terminal busy bodies around here.
No, libertarianism makes no comment on selfishness, at the core of libertarianism is the non-i ...[text shortened]... s to play with it much as a baby who has discovered doodee in their nappy for the first time.
08 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaTo be fair to KazetNagorra, you did say that nobody should be affected by anyone else's pollution - or perhaps you just meant that society should be organized so that Wajoma is not affected by anyone else's pollution. When questioned about how this would be regulated and enforced you went off in a huff muttering about people playing you like a puppet and trying to control your mind and body.
Of course I have never said that all forms of pollution should be banned by law, it is in the nature of some posters here to misrepresent others, at times this misrepresentation reaches the level of down right lies, KN has found something to play with, he likes to play with it much as a baby who has discovered doodee in their nappy for the first time.
Seeing as you have refused to elaborate on your pollution proposal, we are left with you saying that nobody else's pollution should be permitted to affect you. That would involve, as KazetNagorra has pointed out, banning all forms of pollution that affect Wajoma - by law. If not by law, how would you apply this policy?
08 Aug 11
Originally posted by kbear1kLibertarians stand for the Jeffersonian principles of "self-sufficiency, self-government, and individual responsibility." They believe the government has important functions, such as defense, police and courts but in minimal interference with individuals beyond what is absolutely necessary to ensure the security of the people.
"Libertarians are not anarchists."
What exactly do libertarians stand for? (Since many seem to stand for selfishness.)
It is nothing like anarchism, which is a belief in having no government at all.
09 Aug 11
Originally posted by FMFOne must really appreciate the humour of this place.
To be fair to KazetNagorra, you did say that nobody should be affected by anyone else's pollution - or perhaps you just meant that society should be organized so that Wajoma is not affected by anyone else's pollution. When questioned about how this would be regulated and enforced you went off in a huff muttering about people playing you like a puppet and trying ...[text shortened]... rms of pollution that affect Wajoma - by law. If not by law, how would you apply this policy?
To be fair to KN? ha
To be fair, KN made up a story and attributed it to me.
To be fair, when this was pointed out to be untrue KN reasserted the same make up story.
To be fair, KN tried to power up his untrue stories by adding the word 'actually'.
Some people make a career out of misrepresenting others, sad to see KN, who is generally a straight shooter, now picking up those habits.
09 Aug 11
Originally posted by WajomaNo he didn't. I can corroborate it. I even started a thread about it which you rather comically refused to participate in. KazetNagorra did not make up the story - as you say, he is a straight shooter. You obviously feel you have backed yourself into a corner. It would explain your call-people-names reaction. And it also perhaps explains why you STILL won't explain your pollution-is-not-allowed-to-affect-Wajoma policy proposal.
To be fair, KN made up a story and attributed it to me.
09 Aug 11
Originally posted by FMFCorroborate with some evidence ciiting me as saying all pollution should be banned.
No he didn't. I can corroborate it. I even started a thread about it which you rather comically refused to participate in. KazetNagorra did not make up the story - as you say, he is a straight shooter. You obviously feel you have backed yourself into a corner. It would explain your call-people-names reaction. And it also perhaps explains why you STILL won't explain your pollution-is-not-allowed-to-affect-Wajoma policy proposal.
Or s t f u
09 Aug 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorra
It's hard to figure out what Wajoma stands for, since he refuses to answer most queries that go into the specifics or pragmatic applications of his ideology. His positions vary from anarchism, which he usually advocates while denying he does so, to absurdly oppressive government policies, like when he argued in favour of banning all forms of pollution by law.
09 Aug 11
1 edit
Originally posted by WajomaYou said something which implies that pollution should be banned by law and then refused to clarify what you meant if not what was deemed the implication. Here's another opportunity to clarify. Should or should not others be allowed to harm you, physically? If not, you are in favour of banning pollution by law - after all, pollution is, by definition, harmful. If they are, to what degree (if at all a limit), and by what mechanism ought society decide to what degree?
I'm fine with it, I have never said all forms of pollution should be banned by law, as per the quote above, it's a prime example of the type of misrepresentation you make a hobby of, this time it was from KN.
09 Aug 11
Originally posted by KazetNagorraAs a general principal isn't the problem with pollution the fact that it is an externality that isn't normally measured in the marketplace so that normal market solutions will not lead to having an optimal level. I think the best solution is try to internalize the externality and let the market determine the optimal amount (when the true cost is measured). Since that often isn't possible, I would just ban certain forms of pollution.
You said something which implies that pollution should be banned by law and then refused to clarify what you meant if not what was deemed the implication. Here's another opportunity to clarify. Should or should not others be allowed to harm you, physically? If not, you are in favour of banning pollution by law - after all, pollution is, by definition, h ...[text shortened]... to what degree (if at all a limit), and by what mechanism ought society decide to what degree?
09 Aug 11
Originally posted by quackquackIndeed. And because representative democracy is the only sensible way to determine allowed pollution levels (as the market has no way of doing it, and dictatorships are very prone to corruption, the consequences of which are visible in e.g. China where pollution is severe), Wajoma immediately goes into full-fledged cognitive dissonance-mode. Amusing, in a way.
As a general principal isn't the problem with pollution the fact that it is an externality that isn't normally measured in the marketplace so that normal market solutions will not lead to having an optimal level. I think the best solution is try to internalize the externality and let the market determine the optimal amount (when the true cost is measured). Since that often isn't possible, I would just ban certain forms of pollution.
09 Aug 11
Originally posted by quackquackI don't remember Wajoma ever accepting that externalities exist. Do you? It will be interesting to see how he will create a system that protects just himself [presumably, not sure - he has refused any questions about what he said] from all pollution without conceding that there is such a thing as an "externality".
As a general principal isn't the problem with pollution the fact that it is an externality that isn't normally measured in the marketplace so that normal market solutions will not lead to having an optimal level.