libertarian paradise - Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

WP Members: > 70,000

New Today: 18
New Yesterday: 29

libertarian paradise

Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11

Wrong Planet Autism Forum Index -> Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

puddingmouse
exclamation mark!
Phoenix

Joined: Apr 25, 2010
Age: 26
Posts: 7066
Location: Mega City 3

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 11:42 am Post subject:

This is just a reminder to everyone on this thread to keep the discussion civil and to refrain from personal attacks, direct or indirect. [/mod hat] _________________ I'm as ugly as sin and twice as sweet.

Burzum
Indeed
Phoenix

Joined: Apr 27, 2011
Posts: 1205

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 12:11 pm Post subject:

marshall wrote:

One successful anecdote, though it was bought into a trust fund as a last ditch resort because the current PRIVATE owner was going to log the sh** out of it otherwise. You know there was a reason the national parks were created.

You asked for an example of a large old-growth redwood forest on private property. I gave you one. What more do you want?

Here's a question though: In your opinion, what function does an old-growth redwood forest have, and how much is required to adequately serve that function?

marshall wrote:

It's not logically sound because it doesn't apply in most cases where public land use is regulated and protected from abuse.

Let's go back. You said if libertarians had their way all the redwood forests would be logged, implying that we would wish to remove governmental regulation of national parks. I said no, that's not what libertarians want if the land is owned by government. I, as a libertarian, would not advocate lifting regulation of national parks, because that would subject those parks to the tragedy of the commons, and as you've just pointed out yourself the tragedy of the commons does apply on unregulated collective land. That is a whole different ballpark to privatizing the land on which the redwoods grow.

marshall wrote:

That's usually not the case though. In a lot of third world countries private land owners have just as much trouble keeping out trespassing poachers. Lawlessness occurs regardless of who's hands the property is in.

The USA is not a third world country, and poaching is not relevant to the core principle of the tragedy of the commons.

LKL
Phoenix
Phoenix

Joined: Jul 22, 2007
Age: 37
Posts: 5693

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 7:22 pm Post subject:

ruveyn wrote:

LKL wrote:

Bullshit. The rich (or those with some other type of access) just pay more until the last of the resource is gone, and then there's none for anyone. This has happened with at least dozens of animal species in the last few hundred years, and is happening now with dozens more.

It has never happened historically and it is not happening now. You just don't like rich people. Do you know why some people are poor? Because they are either lazy, stupid or unfocused.

ruveyn

Species driven to extinction by hunters or collectors in the past(off the top of my head, not google):
Passenger pidgeon
Carolina parakeet
great auk
dodo
stellar's sea cow

species being driven to extinction by hunters or collectors now (again, off the top of my head):
bluefin tuna
swordfish
red coral (the kind used in jewelry)
Javan rhino
White rhino
Black rhino
Siberian tiger
African elephant (protected and recovered somewhat during the ban on ivory; now declining again with the lift of the ban)

LKL
Phoenix
Phoenix

Joined: Jul 22, 2007
Age: 37
Posts: 5693

Posted: Sun Feb 19, 2012 7:38 pm Post subject:

Burzum wrote:

LKL wrote:

A tree farm is NOT a forest, darling.

The chart shows forest area. There is no further argument.

You are incorrect. Logging companies routinely count single-aged, single-species replanted areas as 'forest' when they make this type of graph. Just because a logging company calls something 'forest' does not make it so.

Quote:

Can you give an example of an animal that was used as a resource and is now extinct that wasn't subject to the tragedy of the commons?

Off the top of my head, I can give you a forestry example: Pacific Lumber Company, a locally owned company with enough timberland to log sustainably in perpetuity, was bought in a hostile takeover (a la Bain Capital of recent political ire) by Maxxam corporation, which loaded the debt that it had used to buy the company onto the company itself and then proceeded to liquidate all of its standing timber while simulatneously whining that 'environmental regulations' were prohibiting it from doing what it wanted. Maxxam trashed the employee pensions, routinely ignored environmental regulations protecting the rivers and streams that local salmon fishers depend on in order to have fish to fish for, ran the company into the ground, sold of its last remaining old growth to the state, and then declared bankrputcy, fired all of its employees, and sold off the company's remaining assets while its owners walked away with millions.

Or how about the Appalachian coal companies that are sacking the environment and destroying their workers' lives and health?
How about hydrofrackers that destroy the groundwater and farmability of privately-held land when they access the gas underneath?

Quote:

Provide me with a study proving that humans are enough of a contributing factor to cause the Earth to reach a "tipping point".

*sigh* the question you are asking is not small enough for a single study. I can dig up a few dozen for you to read, but only if you'll actually read them. Will you?

Quote:

$8.95 for 24 condoms, instructions on the packet. Condoms being arguably the best way of preventing not only unwanted pregnancy but STI's. Are you really going to make this argument?

You are ignorant if you think that condoms will solve the world's problems, particularly overpopulation. They are the best way to prevent STIs, but have the small problem of being both controlled and disliked by men. The best way to control the birth rate is for women to control their own fertility. I can provide multiple citations for that, too: again, will you read them? (also: $9 for 24 condoms is prohibitively expensive for a 3rd-world man who makes less than $10 a month - note that poverty and high birth rates are correlated on both global and local levels).

Burzum
Indeed
Phoenix

Joined: Apr 27, 2011
Posts: 1205

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 6:10 pm Post subject:

LKL wrote:

Except logging companies didn't make the graph, it was made by the Forest Inventory and Analysis National Program.

LKL wrote:

That is neither an example of an animal going extinct nor an example of a resource being used up entirely. Timber continues to exist outside of this companies land.

LKL wrote:

*sigh* the question you are asking is not small enough for a single study. I can dig up a few dozen for you to read, but only if you'll actually read them. Will you?

Yes.

LKL wrote:

So don't have intercourse with a man if he isn't willing to use a condom.

Furthermore, can you show that

Men dislike condoms
Men that dislike condoms are unwilling to use a condom during intercourse
Women will have intercourse without a condom if the man doesn't want to use one

LKL wrote:

(also: $9 for 24 condoms is prohibitively expensive for a 3rd-world man who makes less than $10 a month - note that poverty and high birth rates are correlated on both global and local levels).

Would a third-world country be able to afford free birth control for all its citizens? I doubt it.

Why don't you look at what is causing the poverty in these third-world governments? Authoritarian, repressive governments. That is the issue that should be dealt with, not free trade of contraceptives.

LKL
Phoenix
Phoenix

Joined: Jul 22, 2007
Age: 37
Posts: 5693

Posted: Mon Feb 20, 2012 10:31 pm Post subject:

Burzum wrote:

LKL wrote:

Except logging companies didn't make the graph, it was made by the Forest Inventory and Analysis National Program.

http://fia.fs.fed.us/
The USFS exists primarily to support logging operations, not to manage the ecosystem for non-timber benefits or ecological stability.
quote:

Quote:

Mission. The Forest Inventory and
Analysis (FIA) program of the
USDA Forest Service has been in
continuous operation since 1930
with a mission to:
"make and keep current a
comprehensive inventory and
analysis of the present and
prospective conditions of and
requirements for the renewable
resources of the forest and
rangelands of the US."

http://fia.fs.fed.us/documents/pdfs/Guide%202-Forest%20definitions-%20a%20global%20view.pdf
quote:

Quote:

UNFCCC, 2001: “Forest is a minimum area of land of 0.05-1.0 hectares with tree crown
cover (or equivalent stocking level) of more than 10-30 per cent with trees with the potential to
reach a minimum height of 2-5 metres at maturity in situ. A forest may consist either of closed
forest formations where trees of various storeys and undergrowth cover a high proportion of the
ground or open forest. Young natural stands and all plantations which have yet to reach a crown
density of 10-30 per cent or tree height of 2-5 metres are included under forest, as are areas
normally forming part of the forest area which are temporarily unstocked as a result of human
intervention such as harvesting or natural causes but which are expected to revert to forest.

(bolding mine)

Quote:

That is neither an example of an animal going extinct nor an example of a resource being used up entirely. Timber continues to exist outside of this companies land.

It is an example of a privately owned resource being degraded to the point of worthlessness, which counters your claim that such incidents only happen as a 'tragedy of the commons.' As I have noted above (several times), a tree plantation is only a forest in the eyes of a timber company (or the USFS, which serves timber companies).

Quote:

LKL wrote:

*sigh* the question you are asking is not small enough for a single study. I can dig up a few dozen for you to read, but only if you'll actually read them. Will you?

Yes.

Ok, at what level do I need to start? Do you not accept that the planet is warming, not accept that humans are the cause, or just not accept that there's a tipping point?

Quote:

So don't have intercourse with a man if he isn't willing to use a condom.

Are you really that effing naiive?
It's a little difficult if your husband doesn't like condoms and you live in a country where 'spousal rape' is not illegal. A little difficult if you're a prostitute and feeding your child depends on the money you might get from a john who doesn't want to use a condom.

Quote:

Furthermore, can you show that

Men dislike condoms
Men that dislike condoms are unwilling to use a condom during intercourse
Women will have intercourse without a condom if the man doesn't want to use one

http://menshealth.about.com/od/contraception/a/condoms.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7589360
http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.jsp?
http://www.mendeley.com/research/male-attitudes-family-planning-era-hivaids-evidence-kwazulunatal-south-africa/
_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ831039&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ831039
http://rsh.sagepub.com/content/124/5/230.abstract
http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/hea/16/5/458/
http://www.peplaulab.ucla.edu/Publications_files/Campbell,%20Peplau%20%26%20De%20Bro%2092.pdf
http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/jwh.1998.7.371
http://www.bdac.ws/women_hivaids_contents.htm
http://www.worldmapper.org/display.php?selected=226
http://www.jstor.org/pss/1966433
http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.80.4.460
many of the links focus on HIV transmission, and discuss condom use in that context.

Quote:

Would a third-world country be able to afford free birth control for all its citizens? I doubt it.

Well, if a vulture capitalist demands that the funds they received for AIDS prevention be used to pay down an ancient, inflated, oft-transferred debt originally incurred by a dictator, they're even less likely to have those funds, aren't they?
http://dollarsandsense.org/archives/2007/0507palast2.html
http://www.thenation.com/blog/154214/vulture-capitalist-funding-gop
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15745003
http://www.obv.org.uk/news-blogs/vulture-funds-preying-democratic-republic-congo

Quote:

Why don't you look at what is causing the poverty in these third-world governments? Authoritarian, repressive governments. That is the issue that should be dealt with, not free trade of contraceptives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographic_dividend
http://www.unfpa.org/public/home/factsheets/pid/3856
https://www.allianz.com/en/press/news/studies/news_2010-06-22.html
http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/journals/2804102.html

Chronos
Phoenix
Phoenix

Joined: Apr 23, 2010
Posts: 5231

Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 5:27 am Post subject: Re: libertarian paradise

The extremes of humanity collimate on the same point.

LKL
Phoenix
Phoenix

Joined: Jul 22, 2007
Age: 37
Posts: 5693

Posted: Tue Feb 21, 2012 6:29 pm Post subject:

^ coalesce?

Burzum
Indeed
Phoenix

Joined: Apr 27, 2011
Posts: 1205

Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 12:13 am Post subject:

LKL wrote:

http://fia.fs.fed.us/
The USFS exists primarily to support logging operations, not to manage the ecosystem for non-timber benefits or ecological stability.

I am well aware of their website. You appear to be arguing against a position I do not hold and have never claimed to hold. I never argued that the FIA exists to maintain ecological stability, nor did I argue that they do not include plantation forests in their data. You made the assertion that the chart was made by logging companies, and I simply pointed out that this is false.

As for your "forest vs plantation" argument, I brushed it aside because it is merely a matter of semantics, and I do not care for arguments over semantics. It is also not relevant to my argument, the crux of which being that we are never going to run out of timber, which is patently true. Upon reflection this doesn't address CrazyCatLord's argument, but if you want to make an argument about ecological stability then go ahead.

LKL wrote:

It is an example of a privately owned resource being degraded to the point of worthlessness, which counters your claim that such incidents only happen as a 'tragedy of the commons.'

No, no, no. That does not address my argument, and it certainly does not counter it. If anything your argument supports private ownership, because it demonstrates a business being punished into bankruptcy for mismanaging its resources. As such it can no longer chop down entire plantations as it no longer exists as a business.

I am asking for an example of a resource that was depleted into non-existence which was not subject to the tragedy of the commons. Timber is clearly not an example of that, as timber still exists. When every single private plantation in the world is logged into non-existence, let me know.

LKL wrote:

As I have noted above (several times), a tree plantation is only a forest in the eyes of a timber company (or the USFS, which serves timber companies). [citation needed]

Semantics.

"A plantation is a long artificially established forest, farm or estate"

LKL wrote:

Ok, at what level do I need to start? Do you not accept that the planet is warming, not accept that humans are the cause, or just not accept that there's a tipping point?

I have already explicitly stated that it is not the "tipping point" theory that I take issue with. Whether the Earth's temperature is changing or not is irrelevant, as it does that on its own naturally (take a look at how warm the Earth was during the time of the dinosaurs). It is whether humans are enough of a contributing factor to be causing serious harm that is the issue.

LKL wrote:

Are you really that effing naiive?

Did you really not effing read puddingmouse's comment?

LKL wrote:

It's a little difficult if your husband doesn't like condoms and you live in a country where 'spousal rape' is not illegal

So this is an issue with spousal rape being legal, not with the husband disliking condoms. How is making spousal rape illegal not a bigger issue to you than making contraceptives free?

LKL wrote:

A little difficult if you're a prostitute and feeding your child depends on the money you might get from a john who doesn't want to use a condom

What has caused this woman to become so poor that she depends on prostitution to feed her child? Do you not agree that solving that problem is of greater importance than providing the woman with free contraceptives?

LKL wrote:

While many of those sources do seem to agree that males have more of an aversion to condoms than females, they neglect to mention what percentage of males dislike condoms, and unless I've missed something they fail to address my second and third points. That is, are males unwilling to use a condom if the female wants to, and are females unwilling to deny intercourse if the male is not willing to use a condom?

A few of these sources even mention rape. Dealing with rape is a matter of severely punishing perpetrators, not of providing free contraception. Rape does not justify socializing contraception when contraception is so cheap.

Which brings me to my next point, which I should have made much earlier. Condoms are not the only cheap contraception. I found femidoms for sale for $3 each. And I've read prices for "The Pill" being as low as $15 a month. Both are controlled by the female and not the male. So how can you justify making contraception "free", especially considering the reason it is so cheap and readily available is because it is produced by competitive businesses on a free market? Don't use third-world countries as an excuse, that is an entirely separate issue.

I would love to know what your plan is, anyway. Would there be a limit on how many contraceptives someone could use in a given period of time? Would government take over the means of production of contraceptives?

LKL wrote:

You're citing an example of poor management by a corrupt authoritarian government as an argument against what, exactly?

LKL wrote:

Quote:

Don't link me a bunch of sources without even making an argument.

Chronos
Phoenix
Phoenix

Joined: Apr 23, 2010
Posts: 5231

Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:23 am Post subject:

LKL wrote:

^ coalesce?

I believe both words can be used.

LKL
Phoenix
Phoenix

Joined: Jul 22, 2007
Age: 37
Posts: 5693

Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 1:26 am Post subject:

Burzum wrote:

LKL wrote:

http://fia.fs.fed.us/
The USFS exists primarily to support logging operations, not to manage the ecosystem for non-timber benefits or ecological stability.

You have changed your argument in the face of contradictory evidence, which I count as a victory on my part.

LKL wrote:

It is an example of a privately owned resource being degraded to the point of worthlessness, which counters your claim that such incidents only happen as a 'tragedy of the commons.'

If you make your definitions broad enough, then NOTHING has ever been subject to the tragedy of the commons, either: the classic 'commons' being grazing ground, the 'tragedy' never happened because 'grazing land still exists.' Again, your argument has become so pathetic that I count it as a victory.

LKL wrote:

As I have noted above (several times), a tree plantation is only a forest in the eyes of a timber company (or the USFS, which serves timber companies). [citation provided above]

Quote:

Semantics.

"A plantation is a long artificially established forest, farm or estate"

I suddenly get the idea that you're one of the people that has wikipedia contemplating restrictions on editing.

LKL wrote:

Ok, at what level do I need to start? Do you not accept that the planet is warming, not accept that humans are the cause, or just not accept that there's a tipping point?

[snip warming denialism screed] It is whether humans are enough of a contributing factor to be causing serious harm that is the issue.
Ok. But see below wrt. providing links.

Quote:

So this is an issue with spousal rape being legal, not with the husband disliking condoms. How is making spousal rape illegal not a bigger issue to you than making contraceptives free?

Ieysu Christos, don't change the subject. We were talking about why just selling condoms won't work to decrease population growth, not about women's rights. Spousal rape is important, but it is besides the point in the current context. If you had read the links I provided, which you said that you would but clearly did not, you would realize that women around the world generally live in patriarchal cultures in which they do not have to power to tell their husbands to wear a condom if he does not want to. Subject change = pathetic argument = I win.

Quote:

Maybe having a half a dozen children to feed in a third-world country made her that poor. Again, read the links I provided.

Quote:

See above. The percentage is immaterial; the simple fact is that contraception has to be controlled by women if it's going to be effective.

Quote:

A few of these sources even mention rape. Dealing with rape is a matter of severely punishing perpetrators, not of providing free contraception. Rape does not justify socializing contraception when contraception is so cheap.

Contraception that men do not control is not cheap. That's the entire point.

Quote:

Which brings me to my next point, which I should have made much earlier. Condoms are not the only cheap contraception. I found femidoms for sale for $3 each.

And, again: that's not cheap for the man who makes $10 a month, much less for the woman who doesn't make squat and survives by picking through garbage.

Quote:

Don't use third-world countries as an excuse, that is an entirely separate issue.

Bullshit. We're talking about population control, and 3rd world countries are where the population is still growing.

Quote:

I would love to know what your plan is, anyway. Would there be a limit on how many contraceptives someone could use in a given period of time? Would government take over the means of production of contraceptives?

I can't tell if you really are this clueless, or if you're being disingenuous. Contraception is health care. The best health care systems in the world, both in terms of overall proportion of GDP and in terms of health outcomes for citizens, are social or semi-social programs.

Quote:

LKL wrote:

You're citing an example of poor management by a corrupt authoritarian government as an argument against what, exactly?

That wasn't what I was citing, darling.

Quote:

LKL wrote:

Quote:

Don't link me a bunch of sources without even making an argument.

[/quote]
Read the links. They make the arguments self-evidently.

As for you, I am done: your arguments are either disingenuous or ignorant, and you can't be bothered to read evidence (which you said previously that you would) if it is provided to counter your points. It is therefore not worth the effort to either argue with you or find the evidence to support my arguments.

Burzum
Indeed
Phoenix

Joined: Apr 27, 2011
Posts: 1205

Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2012 5:12 pm Post subject:

LKL wrote:

You have changed your argument in the face of contradictory evidence, which I count as a victory on my part.

Show me where I argued in favour of what you are arguing against. I'll wait.

LKL wrote:

The argument was this broad from the beginning, genius. Remember why we are arguing about this? It is because I claimed resources (specifically fossil fuels) will never be depleted into non-existence. Then you came along and tried to make the argument more narrow to suit your own purposes. Pathetic indeed.

I'm still waiting for an example, by the way. Not that I'm expecting to ever be provided with one.

LKL wrote:

I suddenly get the idea that you're one of the people that has wikipedia contemplating restrictions on editing.

I don't give a sh** about your little argument over semantics. If I did I would have done more than link you a Wikipedia article.

LKL wrote:

No, no, no. Don't act obnoxious and claim victory, especially when your argument is so full of holes. If a woman does not have the necessary rights to deny sex with a man, then that is the issue, and your little "free" contraceptives plan is merely a band-aid on an open wound.

LKL wrote:

Quote:

What has caused this woman to become so poor that she depends on prostitution to feed her child[/i]? Do you not agree that solving that problem is of greater importance than providing the woman with free contraceptives?

Maybe having a half a dozen children to feed in a third-world country made her that poor.

Exactly, genius. So the issue is not with contraception, but with poverty, which is what you should be concerned about. Again, "free" contraception would be simply a band-aid on an open wound.

LKL wrote:

Again, read the links I provided.

I did, and don't try to tell me I didn't.

LKL wrote:

Contraception that men do not control is not cheap. That's the entire point.

Yes, it is. In fact The Pill is cheaper than condoms in some cases.

LKL wrote:

Quote:

Which brings me to my next point, which I should have made much earlier. Condoms are not the only cheap contraception. I found femidoms for sale for $3 each.

And, again: that's not cheap for the man who makes $10 a month, much less for the woman who doesn't make squat and survives by picking through garbage.

Quote:

Don't use third-world countries as an excuse, that is an entirely separate issue.

Bullshit. We're talking about population control, and 3rd world countries are where the population is still growing.

So your entire argument is based on living standards in third-world countries, not the availability of contraception.

Congratulations, you've dug yourself a hole and there is no getting out now. Want to know why? If illegitimacy is caused by poverty, which you yourself stated, then the most effective means of reducing illegitimacy would be to reduce poverty. Providing free contraception (which most third-world governments would not be able to afford in the first place) does not solve anything.

LKL wrote:

This is the truly hilarious. You call me clueless, and then conflate contraception and healthcare. Not only is contraception not healthcare, not by any stretch of the imagination, but your example of healthcare systems is incorrect and irrelevant for so many reasons - the most obvious being that countries with the greatest access to contraceptives are countries in which contraceptives are sold on a free market. If you were economically literate you might know why.

Furthermore, your response was entirely irrelevant to what I asked you. What would your plan be? Would there be a limit on how many contraceptives one can use?

You are ignorant of so many crucial economic aspects. For example, what is your budget going to be? Does it take into account the fact that if you make contraceptives free, people will be taking as many as they can irrespective of whether they are actually going to use them for contraceptive purposes? They could be selling them to people from other countries for cheap on e-Bay (in which case your country and your taxes would be subsidizing other countries' use of contraceptives), or they could be using them for purposes as trivial as water-balloon fights (why buy water balloons when you can get condoms for free?)

What if contraceptive producers invent some form of contraception that is ridiculously expensive but is also slightly better than all other methods of contraception? Do you make that "free", as well?

LKL wrote:

Quote:

You're citing an example of poor management by a corrupt authoritarian government as an argument against what, exactly?

That wasn't what I was citing, darling.

A poorly managed authoritarian country being taken advantage of by an overseas company. That is all I can see. Regardless, what is your argument?

LKL wrote:

Quote:

Don't link me a bunch of sources without even making an argument.

Read the links. They make the arguments self-evidently.

No. Make an argument. If you pulled that sh** in an actual debate you would be laughed off stage.

LKL wrote:

As for you, I am done: your arguments are either disingenuous or ignorant

What a cop-out. Your arguments were either poorly thought out or were strawmen. I even asked you at least twice, quite explicitly I might add, to show me an example of a resource that has been depleted into non-existence which you could not do.

LKL wrote:

and you can't be bothered to read evidence (which you said previously that you would) if it is provided to counter your points

What a cop-out. I did read your "evidence", the problem being it did not sufficiently counter my points and it especially did not make your argument valid. You have yet to make a coherent argument showing why all countries should provide free contraception.

LKL wrote:

It is therefore not worth the effort to either argue with you or find the evidence to support my arguments.

Yeah, whatever. Rolling Eyes

I'm still waiting for those global warming studies you said you would link, by the way.