/sci/ - Science & Math

>>2123345
I agree wit this

>mfw all terrans in the future exist in a trans-human fascist communist state

lol tea party faggots

The problem here is that coal is the cheapest form of energy and also the most pollutant. The free market would undoubtedly choose coal which dumps CO2 into the atmosphere along with many other pollutants bad for people's health.
Regulation is necessary to ensure the health of citizens and the health of our atmosphere

damn right, no regulation, no law. I should be able to do whatever i want. No government should stop me eating babies if i have enough money to buy them

I should be able to own nukes if I want.

>>2123377
no, OP's post are the views of Ron Paul.

RAND Paul is a tea partyer religious conservative.

>>2123470
ron paul is a faggot who wants a fucking state religion for america, no one whos not a complete retard wants that pluralist faggot in the presidents office.

if Teddy Roosevelt were alive he would hunt Ron Paul down and beat him into a pulp.

>>2123498
You, sir, are confused. Ron Paul is completely against state sponsored religion or really state sponsored anything.

Anyone who knows anything about Ron Paul knows he would be against such legislation.

>>2123345
The Cuyahoga River would like to have a word with you.

>>2123525
i guess ron paul doesnt know fuck all about himself then
http://www.freedomunderground.org/newsite/view.php?v=3&t=3&aid=23794
because this article shows he is clearly FOR pluralism.

>forgetting the Coase theorem only works in a perfect world with no transaction costs

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

>>2123571
>The establishment clause of the First Amendment was simply intended to forbid the creation of an official state church like the Church of England, not to drive religion out of public life.

I guess you don't know fuck about your own link then, because this article shows he is clearly AGAINST the establishment of a state religion

>>2123610
He is also anti-abortion and anti-gay rights. I guess it is okay to have government adopt the morality of one religion as long as you don't explicitly acknowledge that is what you are doing, right?

>>2123619
You know nothing about how Ron Paul works. Maybe he doesn't like abortion, considering he's an OBGYN and all, but he wouldn't override a vote because of his personal beliefs.

And you've only read the talking points if you think he's anti gay rights. He thinks they shouldn't be treated differently.

free market is the efficient way to allocate resources in any given situation.
Why? The principle of natural selection, or in economic terms, creative destruction.
Natural selection selects for the fittest version of a species for a given environment.
creative destruction selects of the most successful companies in a given society.

Those are pretty much what economists all agree on. market libertarians assume additionally that we do not have an environment in which the market operates.
Others assume that society should decide what ideals our society should have, set the framework, aka the environment for the market to operate in.

What do you think?

>>2123610
read the article, not just the fucking header, he goes on to say in a very glen beck fashion that the founding fathers intended for america to have firm christian authority in daily life, to the point of eclipsing the fucking government. his idea is to curtail government power to give room for his religious faggotry to take over, Some of his criticism is valid, all crazy fuckwhits out to steal your rights sight valid criticism, its his ANSWER to those problems that is wrong; shaving off the rights of the american citizen, by letting churches not their own votes, form the major basis of authority in our country.

>>2123345

RON PAUL 2012
Oh yeh and Ron Paul has never said anything along the lines of wanting a church to eclipse people's lives and take the place of the government. In fact, he sees that one of the governments few roles would be to stop a church or religion that begins to control people. Most atheists that don't like Ron Paul I have found are pretty ignorant of what he actually believes unless of course they believe religious people altogether should be persecuted, but I don't think there are many atheists that actually believe that.

>>2123662
He says the Constitution forbids the creation of a state religion, whereas you say he wants a state religion.

>ron paul is a libertarian (live and let live)
>ron paul is pro-life

lol wut?

I'd never vote for him (or any other libertarian).

>>2123797
but your mom is a whore

free market fails because no way to assess deferred costs of pollution.

>>2123345

Free market? Motherfucking FREE MARKET? You'd thing given the mess we're in now, people would have noticed that free market FAILED and stop invoking it for anything...

People never learn.

>>2123883

(cont'd)

But NO, you stupid Americunts are incapable of thinking without relying on a text that was written over 200 years ago and is hardly relevant anymore today, to the point that you have endless debates bout what the folks who worte it actually meant instead of saying "Well, what does it matter? Let's do what's best now, and fuck the old guys." That's one thing I hate about you.

>>2123906

>>2123847
What's Astitine?

>>2123345
Rivers run through thousands of properties and air is circulated amongst billions of people. Who, if not the government, should be the arbiter of these resources?

You voted for him.
Say hello to Big Brother.

>>2123345
>The best way to protect the environment is through respecting private property rights.
Yeah, because, letting me dump my trash and nuclear waste and corpses on my front yard when I no longer want them is surely helping the environment.

>>2123345
yeah

disregard the fact that goverments are trying to regulate the environmental fuck corps' money-mongering causes

if you wan't to be libertarian at least be honest that you don't give a fuck if Earth is reduced into a plutocratic polluted shithole and try to pass as an elitist instead of pretending that you care about the environment and well being of all people... it would make you seem less fucktarded if your only delusion was that the free market will make you rich

Sad to see how you all don't know what libertarian means. Yet you voice such strong opposition to a system where your freedoms are prioritized. FYI you can be socialist and libertarian. Or are you all a faggot, a bundle of authoritarian sticks?

>>2123945
>implying he's any different than every other president from the two-party pendulum.

It's just a cycle. You get pissed at one party, you forget that the other party is essentially the same, vote the rascals out, then get disappointed with the new party. Rinse and repeat. The only concessions made by the system in terms of equality, individual freedom, and welfare were the price paid to reabsorb the disenfranchised group back into the pendulum swing. We had a deficit under Bush, we have a deficit under Obama. Bush accrued eight years of two-front war debt, and Obama is sure to keep borrowing. Sure, sometimes one group improves your life a fraction of a bit, sometimes some people can't find work. At the end of the day, however, the vast majority of people still don't own the vast majority of wealth, and thus most certainly the vast majority of the people do not have any majority in power.

>>2123975
>FYI you can be socialist and libertarian.
Backing your claim up here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism

And since we're on this subject: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_National_Socialist_Green_Party

>mfw kids these days

Free-market ideology is for children who want to pretend that the world is simpler than it actually is.

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

>>2123975
>none understands me
>you are all sheeple and communists
kids these days...

>>2123984Isn't cherry picking parties fun?

>>2123999
Do you enjoy sucking authoritarian cock? Like being bossed around? Told what to do? huh?

Basically everyone here is "libertarian" in the sense that we want a high level of personal freedoms.

But free market? That's just an experiment that has failed over and over and over again. You'd have to be a masochist to still support it.

Look at Northern Europe, they're doing it right. Highest HDI, happiest people, best public acceptance of science. Welfare state, high taxes. That's what works.

>>2124012
What exactly does that mean, to "cherry pick" a party? Does it mean to pick a party that accurately describes and conforms to your ideas about government? If so, then fuck yeah, cherry picking parties is fun.

>>2124012
Maybe, you should tell me once you return from one. Anyway, still doesn't look good for libertarians. And since they're usually a minority here, it's a bigger slap to the face than with Republicans or Democrats.

>>2124017
>accurately describes and conforms to your ideas about government

>implying I uphold Nazism, fuck off.

>>2124017
Cherry picking is essentially "nitpicking" when it comes to arguing politics. Where you only pick out little details about political party or individual that makes them look bad, even if it's true; and usually that detail is of lesser significance than what the party or person actually is.

>>2124016
>Welfare sates have Highest HDI, happiest people, best public acceptance of science.

It must be that welfare and taxes are the reason why they have all this, couldn't be any other factors. No, correlation is causation. And while we're at it, vaccines cause autism.

>>2124026
Don't really see how you got to that one...

>>2124039
no it's the other coincidence that in non-welfare states the majority of the people are fighting for survival with questionable results to that

>>2124047
Their flag has a fucking swastika, are you blind?

>>2124031
I understand what cherry picking means int he context of an argument. It means to examine only the arguments in favor of your position, and to ignore ones that are against. But how does one cherry pick a party?

>>2124039
Sorry, but it really is causation.

>Since there are comparative measures of the level of subjective well-being in different countries and measures of how generous or encompassing various welfare states are, it has been possible to carry out statistical analyses of if and under what conditions these are related. Simply put, does a more generous and encompassing welfare state make people happier and increase their life satisfaction? A review of the available empirical research gives a clear answer which is: Yes, definitively. Comparing the 18 most developed Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries, and using a wealth of high-quality data and controlling for a fair number of other variables (for example, unemployment, the level of social trust, GDP per capita, the level of individualism), Pacek and Radcliff conclude that their analysis "clearly and unequivocally confirms the hypothesis that the welfare state contributes to human well-being" (Pacek and Radcliff 2008a: 272; Pacek and Radcliff 2008b). This result is confirmed by other studies with a similar approach--for example, Haller and Hadler (2006), and Ryan, Hughes and Hawson (1998).

>>2124053
whose flag? How did Nazis get brought into this? I think that anon doesn't know what's going on...

>>2124064
>implying those studies were published without a hidden agenda.

>>2124053
That's just the Libertarian Green Party's flag. I don't think Libertarianism itself (or even Libertarianism Socialism) has a flag or emblem. Though since you're still associating the Nazism with libertarianism and yourself, I'm growing a bit suspicious about your views...

>>2124015
>Like being bossed around?
>implying governments are doing this worse than private interests
tell the truth... did you EVER had a job, kid?

tl;dr

Free market makes rich people happy and promotes wealth gap, creating anti-intellectualism

Welfare state makes everyone happy and well-educated

Well, /sci/ducks? Is your ideology more important than the facts?

>>2124077
>>2124068
Libertarian National Socialist Green Party emblem
look it up on wiki.

>>2124080
Yes, and like every non-drone I didn't enjoy it.

>>2124076
>implying those studies were published without a hidden agenda.

Reality has a left-wing bias.

>>2124087
And you're equating a sub-party to yourself and your views because of this connection? Again, that's a bit suspicious and questionable on your part.

>>2124077
What are you talking about, Nazism and Libertarianism are on opposite sides of the spectrum.

>>2124073
are you op?

>>2124097
Libertarianism is of the entire North spectrum of the compass, and covers both West and East. Nazism would be one of the East-enders on the spectrum, not a complete opposite, even if it does dip into the South (Authoritarianism) sometimes..

>>2124090
>>2124092
I hate authoritarianism and that includes the fucking Nazis. I'm a libertarian who doesn't really give a shit about whether or not its capitalist or socialist.

>>2124109
The fact you're still equating and associating yourself with authoritarianism when it was brought up is still strange and iffy and suggests something more to your views than what you claim. I'm sorry, but you're just giving this off yourself.

>>2124108
The fuck? Nazism is authoritarian. Has nothing to do with libertarianism at fucking all.

Most of /sci/ is in the green zone.

They think personal freedom is important, but they recognise that free-market ideology leads to public rejection of academia and general unhappiness, and an inability to solve problems facing all humanity.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

>>2124121
Libertarian and Authoritarian (both left and right) are still right next to each other on that chart. As well as the right ones are still a shade of blue, a color shade similar to each other. This is also an accurate chart, libertarianism is the one on the top, authoritarianism is the one on the bottom.

The keyword to this thread that nobody mentioned is

EXTERNALTIES.


I think i don't have to explain anything further.

>>2124119
You are giving me a fucking headache. Read my previous posts then. Or develop your reading comprehension. I Never once claimed to have any fucking ties to want authoritarian garbage. I want freedom for all, thats fucking it. If it is socialist or capitalist in nature, so be it. Fuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

>>2124121
The Libertarian National-Socialist Green Party managed to find a way to put them together. And considering both libertarianism and fascism both practice some form of capitalism, I would say Nazism (a socialist form of fascism) can be easily put in similarities with libertarianism.

>>2124109
you just angry with authority

I can respect that, but being "libertarian" in the american sense only implies that you are an elitist with materialistic goals or an idealist that dreams of a capitalism made of unicorn tears and lepprechaun treasurechests at the end of the rainbow

I suggest to be an anarchist instead and go make your revolution by blowing up shit. m,kay kid? Don't ridicule yourself.

>>2124144
Most of America doesn't even know what political view point they are in. You are a gigantic faggot who doesn't know any definitions. Fuck yourself.

>>2124144
Libertarianism is the advocacy of individual liberty, especially freedom of thought and action.

No go fucking off yourself. The world doesn't need any more idiots.

>>2124139
You never did claim it, but you're still associating yourself with it and bringing the idea to question when you took exception when the Nazi form of libertarianism was brought up, made arguments and references about it, and tried relinquish some similarities and opposition about Nazism, even though virtually no one else made references or arguments about it themselves. Sorry, but it's just odd and suspicious you would do something of the likes so intermittently, obtusely, and forestallingly. It says something more than what you're trying to left off.

>>2124140
communist scum here

I don't think it's fair to treat the kid as if he is some kind of fascist.

You can find similarities between every ideology. I think you are pointing a bit too much those emotionally charged aspects. And fuck Godwin's Law. Just want to be fair on that. The boy is not a social darwinists, he's just retarded or angry with his dad.

>>2124155
I think you've mistaken me for that other guy in this post >>2123984

The fact that we're anons can be confusing. I apologize for not seeing this sooner.

>>2124161
No, but you're still arguing in regards to what that person posted, and are still taking a deterred manner in such with your postings. Neither of you are palpable here.

>>2124152
>>2124149
Good. Disregard the fact that commonfolk don't give a fuck what political definitions and self-proclaimed libertarians in the americas are like OP:
>guverments are bad and communists, i am poor because of taxes, corporations would be better people if they weren't taxed, let's have gun to protect ourselves from the communist conspiring to steal our freedum

>>2124171
I give up on you. You can think whatever you like. I stated my case and argued against that guy. So Whatever.

>>2124181
I'm sorry, but what I'm thinking are going off of what you posted and what you keep trying to post and assert this thread. An educated opinion going off the evidence you've provided about yourself in this thread, a judgement based on what you post and how post. It's no more my fault than it is yours.

>ctrl-f
>"tragedy of the commons"
>no results

>>2124192
I shall do this as a gift to you.

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

There you go, now you owe me a sexual favour.

Just realized /new/ has far better political outlooks than you pseudo-intellectuals. None of you even bother researching your own, albeit twisted, political viewpoints. Most of the arguments here are on the same level as the one used by creationists. So tell me /sci/, what's it like discussing something you know squat about?

ron paul 08

no matter what you say, god will still exist and theres nothing you can do to prove he doesnt.

>>2124202
>no matter what you say, god will still exist and theres nothing you can do to prove he doesnt.
Equally valid:
no matter what you say, god doesn't exist and theres nothing you can do to prove he does.

>>2124198
Feels like being in college again, and learning and debating new things with other science nerds instead of getting laid.

Take that as you will.

>>2124198
yeah whatever, fag

creep back to your shithole to mumble niggers, jews and liberal conspiracy

>>2124204
>learning
nope.jpeg
Have yet to see that become a reality.

>>2124209
Now you're randomly bringing black and Jewish people into this argument and including conspiracies towards both parties. Sounds like you're wishing for something that's not so.

>>2124203


explain to me why the bible is the most popular book in the world


christians : 1
atheists : -9000

>>2124219

ITT: communist scum

DEATH IS A PREFERABLE ALTERNATIVE TO COMMUNISM

>>2124219
>all the stormfags pilling up in /new/
>randomly
sure thing bro

>>2124223
Ok, but first deal with this philosophical paradox that I'm about to give unto you: The Bible has been translated millions of times from it's original to language virtually every language on the planet... How do you even know what's the in BIble now is even the right or original one?

>>2124236


because jesus was american, faggot.

>>2124226
Now you're, again, bringing up Jews and Semites again to this argument without any logical attachment or similarity to previous and withstood arguments. Yep, definitely wishing for something that isn't so, delusional and unintelligent as well.

>>2124231
if you are the same kid butthurting about authoritarianism

I must point out what militant anti-communism implies...

if we just live like cave men or like 5 years without using any fuel. just fire and wood and shit, we can then go back to living like now but shit will have cleared up loads. we'l just have to deal with 5 years of no technology. simple.

>>2124246
>now he is more intelligent than I am
your all-caring non-elitist persona did not last long, did it kid?

>>2124247
I couldn't care less about the leftism, why so authoritarian /sci/?

>>2124255
Actually no one here (in this thread) even claimed they were intelligent, just making references to intelligence and broad/general intellectual skills of others, but did not mention anything about their own intellect. But since you're taking exception to this, it does suggest you are making references to your own knowledgeability.

>>2124265
lulz

Don't be fooled by the trolls, /sci/ is mostly sensible left-libertarian types.

>>2124231
Not if its stateless.

>>2124273
Honestly, I doubt it.

So you want services that are essential for a persons way of life like electricity to be run by the free market solely for profit? Remember when Enron shut down the whole power grid of California for personal profit? This plan is a great idea.

Really libertarianism is mostly a mix of both liberalism and conservatism. I'm not quite sure how most internet libertarians always seem to claim and align it with conservatism instead.

>>2124300
Enron was from government intervention

>>2124265

mfw most 'libertarians' ie on the right want to ban abortion and gay marriage.

Take a lesson from the anarchists and dont be a faggot.

>>2124265
fixed for reality.

>>2124329
I'm glad you put that in quotes. Even if they call themselves libertarian they aren't. No libertarian wants to infringe upon someones right to have an abortion or marry someone of their own sex. Restrictions are the opposite of liberties.

>>2124296
>Honestly, I doubt it.

It's true, whenever there's a "post your compass" thread just about everyone is in the green. Which makes sense, because that's the sort of society that science thrives in.

This thread is trolls trolling trolls.

>>2124346
When I see it, I will shit brix.

Did someone say gold standard?

>>2124269
>But since you're taking exception to this, it does suggest you are making references to your own knowledgeability.
>implying it's not common knowledge that /new/ is full of anti-semetists and stormfags

DEMOCRACY IS NON NEGOTIABLE

>>2124332
>>2124265
how the fuck is /sci/ authoritarian?

>>2124375
Yeah but just because it's common knowledge, doesn't mean it's going to referenced indirectly in an argument. And we're not talking about /new/, we're talking about libertarianism and /sci/ (and Nazism apparently).

>>2124387
We take after science. What's right is right based on proof, not consensus.

>>2124247
COMMUNIST DETECTED

PROBABILITY OF HINDERING MISSION: ZERO PERCENT!

>>2124402
you are the one who brought /new/ into this, idiot, by bragging how superior to /sci/ /new/ is in its political views... also by doing so you confirmed that other anon's claims for similarities between your "libertarianism" and nazism

are you a troll or that fucking retarded?

>>2124427
I'm afraid that's false then as >>2124375 was the one that brought /new/ into this argument with their "implying it's not common knowledge that /new/ is full of anti-semetists and stormfags" claim. I was just responding in reference to it, and that unless it's direct, it's invalid for the time-being.

>>2124414
i am so fucking trolled, now

>>2124427
>doesn't know that freedom is slavery.

>>2124427
>bragging how superior to /sci/ /new/ is in its political views
>implying you're not the only one making that comparison

>>2124438
>I was just responding in reference to it, and that unless it's direct, it's invalid for the time-being.
have you some form of training in spouting bullshit in a verbose tone?

>>2124412
>We take after science.

You don't represent /sci/. /sci/ is mostly left-libertarian, as people have already pointed out.

Leftism is good for happiness and public acceptance of science, and libertarianism is good for scientific freedom. You are an outlier.

you know oil companies will then just stop other kinds of energy from becoming popular like thye did with the electric car

>>2124451
According to the charts, you are wrong.
>>2124332
>>2124265

>>2124443
>comparisson
>Just realized /new/ has far better political outlooks than you pseudo-intellectuals
yeap... no comparisson there boss
just GTFO

>>2124450
No, just truth, logic, and factuality. It's required when it comes to science and politics. LIke how words aren't the only ones required to make a sentence, but grammar of said language too. Like how electricity is not only required to power a home, but a way to utilize said electricity for said home. Like how water is not only required to hydrate a body, but the body's way to convert such liquids into resources for said body to use. Like a music note is not only required to make said music, but rhythm of said notes to drive it. And so much more and more.

>>2124469
Ok, but that's relevant to the thread's debate why?

>>2124470
yeah I get the point

you are a natural english speaker and I am a nigger/sandnigger/moonspeaker so my arguments are invalid

PLAIN ENGLISH MOTHERFUCKER!

DO YOU SPEAK IT?

How the fuck does this statement:
>I was just responding in reference to it, and that unless it's direct, it's invalid for the time-being.
invalidates my claims that you are the one who brought /new/ in the conversation WITH AN AGRESSIVE COMPARISSSON?!

Fuck I'm trolled!

>>2124493
>you are a natural english speaker and I am a nigger/sandnigger/moonspeaker so my arguments are invalid
No one's making that judgement, connection, or example except you. And no one even claimed if your arguments were valid or not, except you. I'm sorry, but you're the only one bringing this in and perceiving the arguments in this thread as such, without much hindering or argument to back it up.

Also this entire thread is as plain an English as possible, I'm entirely sure what you exactly are trying to apprehend.

>>2124460
>According to the charts, you are wrong.

Why yes, how silly of me. I take it back, the charts must be accurate.

>>2124493
>invalidates my claims that you are the one who brought /new/ in the conversation WITH AN AGRESSIVE COMPARISSSON?!
But no one did bring /new/ into this except: >>2124375, >>2124234, and >>2124198. And they aren't even direct or related to the thread's debate overall, just random squabberings a few individuals made that others, for some reason, clumsily made such a connection to the argument. It's not relevant to the debate for no one made a direct enough reference to it.

my work here is done

peace out faggots

>>2124472
excluding the "racist conspiracy-theorists are better than you because they hate the government more than you do?" part?

it has nothing to do with the conversation

I must just mention that under the political definition of "libertarian" you seem to promote in its original sense, most self-proclaimed communists in my country are libertarians or at least opposse the government in every turn (and are pretty much the equivalent of redneck militias in the U.S. with the exception of gun possesion that they were deprived off since the civil war) as left-wing parties are almost by default libertarian in Europe.

And about OP's original claims they may sound nice in the internets, but there is not a single indication IRL, as many anons noted, that corps would give a rats ass about the environment if they suddenly go free from state-imposed regulations.

Just open your eyes. Oil-drillers don't give a fuck about spilling. Your boss does not give a fuck about your working rights as long as your productivity is not diminished. All they give a fuck about is profit and they have proven in many occations that they'd rather see the world burn than lose a penny they could save.

the thing about statism is it never lasts... closed systems will always suffer from entropy, you guys should understand that concept... libertarianism is about letting the Heraclitian fire burn, and letting thesis and anti-thesis unite into synthesis... Let the evolution happen naturally and organically and arise from natural law alone... simply alow competing paradigms to exist and the better paradigm for all will arise out of this... libertarianism is about decentralization, and allowing people to have different views, just let go and stop trying to control everything and let it be... that is all

>>2124596
>economics = thermodynamics
the fuck?

>>2124563
But that just mere criticism or comment about the argument, instead of actually contributing to it.

>>2124606
why not?

look at the rise and fall in history and deny that it doesnt play a role.

>>2124613
what do you consider contribution? agreeing with you?

>>2124618
and what exactly makes coroprates monopolies and trusts any less closed systems than states?

do you thing that exausting natural resources and making the majority of people payed slaves and hobos will reduce systems' entropy somehow? (inb4: Malthus, but that's not exactly a "humanitarian" view)

>>2124634
Direct reference to the debate's subject would be a contribution, instead of going in a tagent on random subjects like this thread is doing. Also relevance would be a contribution, a good-enough relevance.

>>2124658
maybe we need to convince the people why the shouldnt support said corporations, but that would just be hard work. Expecting the government to actually regulate things effectively is retarded, it just gives the big business someone to bribe so the laws actually prevent competition with their corrupt practices. I know I'm probably putting to much trust in humanity, but really, the solution to the ills of society are for good men to rise up and openly compete with what they see wrong, if it affects a buisness' market share they may just change their ways...

>>2124658
remember it was the state that prevented the factories in america to not be taken over by the worker... if people have a problem with their employers I see no problem in them coming together to negotiate contracts and even getting rid of management if they have just cause

>>2124668
okey I'll give you an example from the big-town next to my grandpa's village

>big coal-electricity plant
>perma smog and black skies
>government suggests installing filters
>plant-management butthurts for cost
>government threatens with fine
>plant installs filters
>sky goes clear, town goes cleaner and inhabitants go healthier
>plant still makes significant profit but not as much as before
everybody is pretty happy

TADA!

>>2124713
>no goverment
>workers threaten to take over
>Man spents a bit extra in "security"
>workers shut up not to get shot
believe me... hiring bullies is an ancient tactic, cops that enforce "the state's evil will" are pretty much the democratic version of it

>>2124725
Ok, but how are any of that relevant to the original private properties and environmental rights argument OP proposed?

>>2124753
Maybe if they tried that shit nowadays it would allow men to be men and noble people will band together and fight the bullies... The IWW did this back in the day, and in my home state of washington the police actually turned around and joined the the unionists... Also they would suffer from productivity loss if a company actually tried to bully their workers and could be made uncompetative

>>2124755
you are losing me here

how is it not?

>The best way to protect the environment is through respecting private property rights. A big government approach to the environment will only limit freedom and prosperity. Oil, coal, natural gas, nuclear power, and various other alternative energy sources should not be prohibited, over regulated, or subsidized by the government.

I gave an example why I think his claims are invalid.

BP's spill was because it was heavily taxed or because it wasn't very profitable to have developed some emergency plan?

If we allow fossil fuel plants to maximize their production suddenly the greenhouse gases will have a reverse effect?

What do I miss?

>>2124793
Something more solid than they "BP purposely spilled" claim, that can be reputably backed up.

>>2124773
You have a good point there but... it's so idealistic is almost romantic.

Embargos could work.

An enlightened consumer society could be better than a fine-threatening (and by rule corrupt) representative with inflated power but...

the "sheeple" are not exactly the people you blame to be (/sci/ in this case)

consumers are more succeptible to commercial advertising and egoism than in any authoritarian indoctrination ever invented

give a hobo a piece of shit in a pretty package with a smile and suddenly you are more important to him than the indiferrent social worker cunt that brings him food and bosses him around

catch the allegory?

>>2124801
>"BP purposely spilled"
where did I claim that? why should anyone claim that?

yes BP lost money, but what they spent in finding a solution would not be cost effective if it was researched "just in case" prior to the incident

>>2124857
>BP's spill was because it was heavily taxed

SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT
SO MUCH BUTTHURT ITT

ITT /new/ trolls itself for hours and pretends it's trolling /sci/.

>>2124862
>implying I claimed that
uum... I am not even the libertarian guy.

TROLLOLOLOLOL

I agree with this poster >>2124198

Even though /new/ is full of idiots there are some people from both left and right side who know their stuff. Economic policy talk in /new/ is mostly just uninformed guesses. Very unscientific.

I agree with this poster >>2124198

Even though /new/ is full of idiots there are some people from both left and right side who know their stuff. Economic policy talk in /sci/ is mostly just uninformed guesses. Very unscientific.

I will delete this thread in the next minute

>>2124826

yeah :(