jrodefeld posted:

I don't dispute the existence of climate change or the contribution that human activity has made to it. I intend to get into a discussion about my full views on this subject, but I know that is a contentious subject and I want to have the time to fully explain my views.

The only thing I meant by the mention of climate change is that the debate that takes place between average people on the subject relies almost exclusively on appeals to authority. This is not necessarily a bad thing. I am no expert on climate science and I don't pretend to be. But I would wager that not 1 in 10 people who hold strong opinions on climate change have any requisite knowledge of climate science and nearly every one of their views are parroted from political talking points they heard from the media. This makes discussion difficult. I would even say that far more people know a little economics that know anything about climate science.

Climate science is an incredibly complex field of study with an unimaginable number of variables to account for in attempting to predict future warming trends and assess the role of human behavior in altering complex ecosystems. The debate amonst scientists on the subject has less to do with the black and white dichotomy of "you believe in climate change or you don't" and instead involves countless differing opinions on what can or should be done, what the effects of rising CO2 will be, and what if anything nation States should do to abate this trend.

My frustration comes from hearing people who don't have the slightest qualifications to comprehend the complex computer and mathematical models that climate scientists rely on, simply cite a statistic such as "97% of scientists agree" so that is all that needs to be said. What this implies is not that there is overwhelming consensus of human cause climate change, but the implicit suggestion is that there is further agreement on a political solution and that we must let politicians and State bureaucrats regulate our economy and control human behavior.

They deflect the argument away from the efficacy of proposed legislation and/or reasonable skepticism at opportunistic political maneuvering and special interest pandering onto the work of laboratory scientists, which nearly no one is quality or able to comprehend.

One side note is that the 97% statistic that is regularly bandied about actually includes most scientists that one would classify as "skeptics" who, while acknowledging the fact of rising CO2 levels, either reject the political solutions being proposed, argue that nothing can or should be done, or that solutions lie outside of centralized States.

I am an environmentalist and that is precisely why I feel that States cannot be trusted in any capacity to protect the environment or draft good legislation. The correct solution, as I have said before, is to protect private property rights and force the polluters to pay for the cost of their own pollution since emissions and polluting activity violate the property rights of others. This would raise the cost of high emissions and incentivize businesses to adopt greener, less polluting manufacturing methods.

We should not continue to tolerate the "tragedy of the commons" where State owned or controlled property is ravaged and destroyed because there are no private interests who have an interest in maintaining the value and productivity of the land.

There are many libertarian solutions to these environmental problems. Buy why are these beliefs not considered? Could it be because the political agenda of some interest groups is to expand State power and they have found a convenient way to sell that notion to the public?

TVC posted:

You cant infringe on the rights of other human beings as an Ancap. No slavery.

shiksa posted:

an ancap libertarian paradise where some unknown entity is supposed to hand out fines for pollution to all the strapping individualist capitalists

hm yes this is good that'll work

Goon Danton posted:

WampaLord posted:

I still can't believe he came back

Jrod, if you're reading this, please never stop coming back, we love you

Goon Danton posted:

Dickeye was probed the whole time

WampaLord posted:

I still can't believe he came back

Jrod, if you're reading this, please never stop coming back, we love you

garbage pundit posted:

Libertarianism is "gently caress You, Got Mine", Fascism is "gently caress Ya'll, Got Ours". Fascists are Libertarians who went to a teambuilding seminar.

UrbicaMortis posted:

I thought he got perma'd?

RealTalk posted:

I have a really simply question that I don't expect to provoke too long of a discussion.

My question is simply: what do you think of Jordan Peterson?

I'm far from a die-hard fanboy, but I like him. I've read his book and gained something useful from it. I think he's helping a lot of people and his lectures are thought-provoking.

The vitriol with which some on the Left have attacked him and mischaracterized his views is astonishing to me.

I don't pretend that he's above criticism but I've seen a torrent of hit-pieces and character assassination attempts that are shocking in their shamelessness and unethical in their tactics.

I'm someone who worries about artificial constraints limiting the scope of allowable opinion. Outlier opinions on both the left and the right deserve to be discussed honestly within the mainstream and efforts to destroy people who stray outside narrowly defined confines of respectable thought should concern us.

What's most striking to me is that I don't consider Peterson to be a radical figure in any way. His politics strike me as being quite moderate.

At the very least a person on the moderate Left ought to see someone like Peterson as a useful corrective to a culture of political correctness that has gone too far.


What are your thoughts?

(USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)

WampaLord posted:

He re-registered as "RealTalk" and tried to spread the Good Word of Jordan Peterson

Goon Danton posted:

He reregistered as Real Talk and went right back to the loving libertarian thread because that's all he knows.

AARO posted:

AARO posted:

Wheeee posted:

are there any ayncaps who arent stupid?

seriously ive watched their sad little rise on reddit and every single one is a moron

Goon Danton posted:

He reregistered as Real Talk and went right back to the loving libertarian thread because that's all he knows.

Captain_Maclaine posted:

Yeah no they're all`dumb as hell.


I wasn't 100% convinced it was him until he busted out noted 19th century crazyman Lysander Spooner as his preferred model for abolitionism over, you know, what actually loving happened.

It was nice of R. Guyovich to let us mess with him for a while before banning him again.

Grand Theft Autobot posted:

For some unknowable reason, all of the scholars Jrod most admires just cannot stop posting breathless defenses of the CSA.

Dreddout posted:

https://mobile.twitter.com/D0GGEAUX/status/1008437849845198848
https://mobile.twitter.com/D0GGEAUX/status/1008439017392693248
https://mobile.twitter.com/D0GGEAUX/status/1008440590969655296

Dreddout posted:

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

Anarchists hate crimes.

Darkman Fanpage posted:

Darkman Fanpage posted:

Huragok posted:

what are you talking about

be gay do crimes

Gizmoduck_5000 posted:

So if I go to work on an ANCAPS farm after the state has been overthrown and governments banned, and I decide to clock out for the day after my contractually agreed upon work hours are completed, and I decide to go to the main house, climb the stars and bury a pickaxe in the heads of the boss and his family. Does that mean the farm and all of it's assets are now mine?

Captain_Maclaine posted:

*checks your contractual standing with local Valhalla DRO affiliate*
Looks legit to me.

Pener Kropoopkin posted:

in the instance of servant violation of the NAP ending in termination of the master, ownership of the property contractually falls into possession of Valhalla DRO per contract with the deceased property owner.