Donald Trump

"

NeroNoah wrote:

"

jebroni wrote:

Is anyone listening to this hillary victory speech? How can people vote for someone like this. Every word coming out of her mouth sounds incredibly scripted. Even if her policies make sense, I wouldn't trust anything to such a unmotivated person like her :\

This post is related because: if sanders is out, then my second choice is trump out of pigeonhole principle lol.

You'll regret that, trust me.

Ominous but empty. What you know about Donald J. Trump is filtered through a casual perusal of oppo media loaded with negative agit-prop. You probably even blame him for the rioters posing as morally righteous protesters. Please do us all a favor and stop pretending to be a source of sage political advice for people in a country 4,000 miles away on another continent. 'Kay? ='[.]'=

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Now, you may ask yourself: is forcing someone to do something good really a bad thing? Of course it is; you shouldn't need to force them to do it, and if you must, then clearly they disagree about the whole "good" thing. As long as they have liberty, they should have some incentive to pursue actions in line with rational self interest. And if they don't, and everyone else has liberty, who cares?

It is good to not use force even if it could end in human extinction? I mean, things like pigovian taxes are basically that. Rational self interest alone cannot think further than some decades, yet actions can have an impact beyond that.

What's the point of temporal absolute freedom if it indirectly brings tyranny resulting in less freedom?

In your system, maximizing liberty is your main objective, yet the only result will be an unstable system. I've seen it. It's history. Is it really worth it or we should consider how to make a more stable system?

No coercion alone is not enough. I postulate that maximizing welfare and liberty will result in a more stable system, even if non of the two would be at a maxima alone.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Also, re: "market collapse is sometimes undesirable," I mean, I desire a brand new car but that doesn't mean I should steal it. As far as I'm concerned, desire has almost no relevance to this topic, while justice and liberty do.

There is no justice in bringing so many innocent down.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

It is good to not use force even if it could end in human extinction?

Is the human the body, or what's in their mind? If we slowly kill off the latter, can we still claim to be human?

"

NeroNoah wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

Now, you may ask yourself: is forcing someone to do something good really a bad thing? Of course it is; you shouldn't need to force them to do it, and if you must, then clearly they disagree about the whole "good" thing. As long as they have liberty, they should have some incentive to pursue actions in line with rational self interest. And if they don't, and everyone else has liberty, who cares?

It is good to not use force even if it could end in human extinction? I mean, things like pigovian taxes are basically that. Rational self interest alone cannot think further than some decades, yet actions can have an impact beyond that.

What's the point of temporal absolute freedom if it indirectly brings tyranny resulting in less freedom?

In your system, maximizing liberty is your main objective, yet the only result will be an unstable system. I've seen it. It's history. Is it really worth it or we should consider how to make a more stable system?

If someone's actions are threatening anyone's life or liberty through the use of force, much less the entire species, then that's precisely where government intervention is appropriate. I mean, did you even read what I wrote?

"

DalaiLama wrote:

"

NeroNoah wrote:

It is good to not use force even if it could end in human extinction?

Is the human the body, or what's in their mind? If we slowly kill off the latter, can we still claim to be human?

I'm afraid there are no easy choices, but I choose avoiding extinction, at least while it's a better fate than death.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

If someone's actions are threatening anyone's life or liberty through the use of force, much less the entire species, then that's precisely where government intervention is appropriate. I mean, did you even read what I wrote?

Here is the thing, there is no use of force. Case in point, CO2 emissions. They damage the enviroment slowly, so there are few incentives to solve it. The only known solution is to price out the damage it makes via pigovian taxes, but that's coercion, you are forcing people to add this considerations while doing trade. There is a big information asymmetry, so don't expect rational self interest to solve anything.

Doing nothing will end bringing suffering in 80 to 100 years, even human extinction.

What to do? Is it your principle more important than humanity itself?

In general, I view polluting to be the destruction of property (sometimes public, sometimes private). Like any vandal, a polluter should be punished. Damaging someone else's property (or another person's body) counts as force to me, and to any rational interpretation of Mill; also, deliberate or accidental doesn't matter.

However, in the specific case of carbon dioxide, um, I emit CO2 every time I breathe. That's not pollution. And if you really think the world is going to end because of something all nonplant organisms do every minute of every day, then
* most likely: your "science" is wrong. Mother Earth is one tough bitch.
* if CO2 actually will bring on the Apocalypse, we're kinda inevitably fucked anyway. But I guess a tax on excessive emissions would be quite logical.

No, I checked (some of) the science, I'm of those that can actually read scientific studies (STEM, specifically electrical engineer). I'm fairly sure, even if I cannot explain all the details.

Pollution is destruction of "property", but it's no coercion a lot of the time, and the enviroment is no one's property to be precise.

C02 is partially absorbed normally, so I'm more concerned about unnatural sources of emissions (livestock, industry, vehicles) than anything else. Try to use a better refutation, that's barely one step above Reagan's "Trees cause pollution". Mother nature can be destroyed relatively easy.

PS: what about drug trade? Crack destroys the body of a person, and it destroys any capability for liberty. Should we allow it or use coercion? Or something in between?

You throw around the term liberty in a weird way.

Mother Nature is tough as nails. It's people who aren't. I'm pretty confident nothing we could do would wipe out life on Earth. Wiping out human life, however, is a much more doable task.

Here's the truth about the war on drugs: it's just a way to cut corners. As long as crack users do not harm other people or their property, there's no logical justification in making it illegal. However, due to the high correlation between crack use and actions which do harm other people or their property, and above all because of the difficulty in prosecuting offenders of assault, theft, and similar crimes, the possession of the substance has been illegalized to greatly simplify the evidentiary burden against such violent offenders, while simultaneously and unjustly persecuting those who have harmed no one but themselves. In short, it's the mundane everyday version of hitting Al Capone for tax evasion, but with an extra law added specifically for that purpose, which hits some non-Capones as well. Collateral damage.

The level of education of some investigating officers I've encountered personally is appalling. The image of the ideal cop needs to be less John McClane and more Sherlock Holmes. Although I doubt Sherlock would help the police these days, as it might interfere with his cocaine habit. So McClane is what they get.

I see why they'd try to improve prosecution efficiency this way - it's an efficient albeit unethical solution to a personnel competence problem - but police should be held to a higher standard. They should be going after those who harm others and their property, for the crimes of harming others and their property. They should be arresting plenty of crack users, but for crimes like theft, assault, and murder. Doing crack itself should be no more illegal than drinking alcohol (I could accept an under-age prohibition, nothing further)... and I'm sure the cops arrest plenty of drunk people too.

"

NeroNoah wrote:

No, I checked (some of) the science, I'm of those that can actually read scientific studies (STEM, specifically electrical engineer).

You're hilarious. Is pretentiousness a badge of honor where you're from?

"

Raycheetah wrote:

"

NeroNoah wrote:

"

jebroni wrote:

Is anyone listening to this hillary victory speech? How can people vote for someone like this. Every word coming out of her mouth sounds incredibly scripted. Even if her policies make sense, I wouldn't trust anything to such a unmotivated person like her :\

This post is related because: if sanders is out, then my second choice is trump out of pigeonhole principle lol.

You'll regret that, trust me.

Ominous but empty. What you know about Donald J. Trump is filtered through a casual perusal of oppo media loaded with negative agit-prop. You probably even blame him for the rioters posing as morally righteous protesters. Please do us all a favor and stop pretending to be a source of sage political advice for people in a country 4,000 miles away on another continent. 'Kay? ='[.]'=

shots fkn fired!!!!

crying