"Currants Bw..."

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

That's an illogical leap. But humans are biologically family oriented, that just makes sense in terms of environment and survival. A post state environment needs to be analysed beyond the tight and imposed state framework. It's like that silly question, if there was no state who would build the roads. Another red herring is the notion we must instantly switch from a state system to an alternative. My objections arise from the consolidation of the power of the state. I'd be all for a progressive walk away from the state. It might take hundreds of years. But we should at least stop walking in the wrong direction. Just look at what the scumbags are up to now. Their definition of human progress is global government. I guess they think national government and continental government hasn't fucked things up enough.

Simple issues could be liberated to begin with. We've already talked about a few, for instance the state getting the fuck out of marriage. Ultimately though the state would have to have its capacity to enact violence curtailed and removed. There can be no real and lasting progress until that is achieved.

Where do you draw the line with curtailing the authority of the state to act violently

All your solutions are predicated on the assumption that people want to peacefully get on with their lives

As I've said from the beginning I don't object to you doing what you want, in your case i don't imagine for a second anything you want to do could result in having any detrimental effect on me.

But to make that assumption of everyone is illogical, some people can only be deterred from inflicting violence or curtailing my rights through the threat or imposition of coercive methods.

Just take the example of the banks, what happened in 2008 was an example of how some people will behave as a result of being given the freedom to self govern their actions.

[Niall_Quinn]

Where do you draw the line with curtailing the authority of the state to act violently

All your solutions are predicated on the assumption that people want to peacefully get on with their lives

As I've said from the beginning I don't object to you doing what you want, in your case i don't imagine for a second anything you want to do could result in having any detrimental effect on me.

But to make that assumption of everyone is illogical, some people can only be deterred from inflicting violence or curtailing my rights through the threat or imposition of coercive methods.

Just take the example of the banks, what happened in 2008 was an example of how some people will behave as a result of being given the freedom to self govern their actions.

That's a bad example. It was the government that not only enabled but encouraged the banks to behave in that manner. And anyway, restrictive state policies create banking cartels and bring about the very "too big to fail" conditions that undermine what would be a natural market outcome for these abusers. It's the state that encourages and rewards abuse, mainly because the state has incentives based on self preservation. The state knows who butters its bread, but of course if you didn't have a state then the banks would have to appeal to the citizenry and I doubt they'd get much traction gambling away depositor funds, nor would they have much incentive to do so unless they were considering purchasing an army to enforce bail-outs currently on-tap from the state. If they thought their PR was bad now...

[The Emirates Gallactico]

Third Runway approved at Heathrow

End of the day, if you don't believe in man made climate change (which seems to be more about making an argument for convenience) than it won't make a difference. If you do believe in it, then people should be honest enough to admit that we've passed the point of no return anyway and any carbon tackling measures is just a futile attempt to slow down the inevitable.

No point inhibiting ourselves economically especially in this post Brexit world just so some economically well-off posh yuppies can feel good about themselves. As you say the flights aren't going to vanish, they'll just head off to Frankfurt and we'll lose the economic business nor would any reduction in C02 mean much when India and China continue to pump it out to grow their economies.

Just disgusted it's taken this long to approve and I hope there aren't even more delays in it's construction (there probably will be knowing it's England). What a shambles we are.

P.S. - Fuck off Zac Goldsmith you cretin. Hope he loses.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

That's a bad example. It was the government that not only enabled but encouraged the banks to behave in that manner. And anyway, restrictive state policies create banking cartels and bring about the very "too big to fail" conditions that undermine what would be a natural market outcome for these abusers. It's the state that encourages and rewards abuse, mainly because the state has incentives based on self preservation. The state knows who butters its bread, but of course if you didn't have a state then the banks would have to appeal to the citizenry and I doubt they'd get much traction gambling away depositor funds, nor would they have much incentive to do so unless they were considering purchasing an army to enforce bail-outs currently on-tap from the state. If they thought their PR was bad now...

My point is without a set of laws and regulations setting out how businesses can operate, whether you think the theft was state sponsored or not is irrelevant the result is the same. There is no self corrective power, unless you operate under the assumption that I am incorruptible and therefore I must assume other people are as well.

This is my critique of libertarian philosophy, the problem is other people. People aren't all products of an environment imposed upon them by a sinister big brother state, some people are just cunts.

Libertarian works on the assumption that people should be given the benefit of the doubt that they aren't going to fuck eachother over.

[Letters]

End of the day, if you don't believe in man made climate change (which seems to be more about making an argument for convenience) than it won't make a difference. If you do believe in it, then people should be honest enough to admit that we've passed the point of no return anyway and any carbon tackling measures is just a futile attempt to slow down the inevitable.

It's interesting how things like this are treated as a matter of faith as if it's something we can choose to believe in or not.
It's like the Trump thing, and Brexit. Facts don't matter any more.
It's not quite the same as saying you don't believe in gravity (while floating away, presumably) but the scientific debate about this is all but over, although I pretty much agree it's too late now any I doubt they can do much about it. It's a damage limitation exercise now.

[Niall_Quinn]

My point is without a set of laws and regulations setting out how businesses can operate, whether you think the theft was state sponsored or not is irrelevant the result is the same. There is no self corrective power, unless you operate under the assumption that I am incorruptible and therefore I must assume other people are as well.

This is my critique of libertarian philosophy, the problem is other people. People aren't all products of an environment imposed upon them by a sinister big brother state, some people are just cunts.

Libertarian works on the assumption that people should be given the benefit of the doubt that they aren't going to fuck eachother over.

Again, you are taking the conditions under the existing system and assuming these are inviolate. People are fundamentally bad, people will do the wrong thing if given the choice, etc. And yet, what do we do? We go ahead and appoint "people" as our leaders. What happens then? Do they magically become virtuous? Are people good or bad, which is it? Or are you saying the state makes people good? I think you probably are because that's the general statist argument. The state is necessary because otherwise humanity would tear itself apart. This would be the same state busily building nuclear weapons I guess.

And your references to the market are similarly mired in the current environment. What does "corrective" even mean in the a contemporary context? Some bloke who has a new theory advising a bunch of blokes who don't have a clue so a one-size-fits-all "solution" can be imposed on the majority? And what about avoiding corrections altogether by tackling causes rather than symptoms? Don't make money your God in the first place perhaps?

I think your problem with libertarianism is you perceive it as isolated individualism. It is possible to have a society without a state, even if such reality has been carefully cultured to appear impossible.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

As a caveat, I would say science has often made assertions that have proved incorrect. Einstein for instance dismissed the concept of an expanding universe until he was proved wrong.

I don't see why opinions that deny man made climate change shouldn't be made, however what I generally find is that they are often made by people in the main who have a vested interest in denying the scientific consensus on climate change.

But like I say it's largely academic anyway, the likelihood is that by the time people like my nephew grow most of the planets surface will be unable to support life, and people will die through the spread of disease, exposure to the elements because of the lack of shelter and starvation due to the inability to create a sustainable food source.

I won't live long enough to see this scenario play out, but potentially barring technological advances beyond our comprehension (which seems unlikely as advances even seen as theoretically possible take sometimes hundreds of years to develop) the human race will be a tiny footnote in this planets history.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

Again, you are taking the conditions under the existing system and assuming these are inviolate. People are fundamentally bad, people will do the wrong thing if given the choice, etc. And yet, what do we do? We go ahead and appoint "people" as our leaders. What happens then? Do they magically become virtuous? Are people good or bad, which is it? Or are you saying the state makes people good? I think you probably are because that's the general statist argument. The state is necessary because otherwise humanity would tear itself apart. This would be the same state busily building nuclear weapons I guess.

And your references to the market are similarly mired in the current environment. What does "corrective" even mean in the a contemporary context? Some bloke who has a new theory advising a bunch of blokes who don't have a clue so a one-size-fits-all "solution" can be imposed on the majority? And what about avoiding corrections altogether by tackling causes rather than symptoms? Don't make money your God in the first place perhaps?

I think your problem with libertarianism is you perceive it as isolated individualism. It is possible to have a society without a state, even if such reality has been carefully cultured to appear impossible.

I'm talking about human nature, whether you agree or not. My belief is whether a state is benevolent or not ultimately it is the nearest thing to a guarantee of protection from those who would do me harm.

Yes of course you are right to state that the state itself can do me harm, but unlike you I do believe there is a marked difference between totalitarian states of fear and opression and one where people are disincentivised to visit harm upon me because of the negative consequences.

Otherwise it has to be taken on trust. A set of laws enshrining my rights means nothing without the power to enforce them.

As for your don't make money your God suggestion. You don't believe there is a natural human tendency towards being acquisitive?

[Letters]

As a caveat, I would say science has often made assertions that have proved incorrect. Einstein for instance dismissed the concept of an expanding universe until he was proved wrong.

I don't see why opinions that deny man made climate change shouldn't be made, however what I generally find is that they are often made by people in the main who have a vested interest in denying the scientific consensus on climate change.

But like I say it's largely academic anyway, the likelihood is that by the time people like my nephew grow most of the planets surface will be unable to support life, and people will die through the spread of disease, exposure to the elements because of the lack of shelter and starvation due to the inability to create a sustainable food source.

I won't live long enough to see this scenario play out, but potentially barring technological advances beyond our comprehension (which seems unlikely as advances even seen as theoretically possible take sometimes hundreds of years to develop) the human race will be a tiny footnote in this planets history.

Yes, of course. Science should always be open to revising theories in the light of new evidence or data. But the data on this one is pretty good.
Of course alternative opinions should be heard, if they're based on good, empirical evidence. The problem I have with conspiracy theorists is their starting point for any theory is that it's a conspiracy being orchestrated for some nefarious purpose or other. They state it without any back up despite the evidence and data. And the trouble is it's an impossible position to debate against. You can present a mountain of evidence and data backing up the prevailing theory but then they just claim that that's all part of the conspiracy.
Meanwhile any scrap of evidence which may indicate a different view is seized upon by them as though that's the only trustworthy source. It shows a complete inability to think logically or reason.
I remember one conspiracy theorist friend saying one time (about the Diana death) "Well, there's no evidence it wasn't a conspiracy" What kind of logic is that?! It's a weird mindset I'll never understand which starts with a perceived truth and fits (or dismisses, as appropriate) available evidence around it. Complete cart before the horse thinking.

I don't subscribe to your gloomy outlook. I do think it will cause a lot of problems for humanity over the next century but I think you're over-stating quite how bad it will get.

[Niall_Quinn]

Of course alternative opinions should be heard, if they're based on good, empirical evidence. The problem I have with conspiracy theorists...

I don't think he's aware he's doing it. Which makes it funnier.