Next NASA Chief Nominee Doesn’t Believe in Climate Change

[diver0008]

In this context isn't the ethos "build wherever I see fit and damn the concequences for others"?

No. That is not how a Libertarian would generally see it, from my point of view. It would be more like "build it unless it hurts someone else." But of course that opens up a whole box of worms about determining what people deem hurtful. Libertarianism is not anarchy; it exists within the rule of law. It tends to attract people who are thoughtful, measured, of independant mind, and who don't require a moral authority to know right from wrong. You could easily inform yourself about it if you so desire. From a humanistic point of view, regardless of any shortcomings, I still see it as superior to any other social ideology, except maybe Buddhism. But it is certainly not for everyone.

 

[Storker]

I'll worry as much about big corporations when they can start forcing me at gun point to hand over money like the government can.

Hyperbole, much?

If you're so opposed to taxes, you can always go full John Galt on society. But be prepared to manage without public infrastructure (roads, railways, subways, electricity, water, sewage, etc.), schools, hospitals, medical research, police, an army and all that other stuff which is financed by the money that you and others are "forced at gunpoint" to pay for. For some reason it seems as if libertarians are just fine with using public infrastructure as long as they don't have to pay for it...

 

[admikar]

Hyperbole, much?

If you're so opposed to taxes, you can always go full John Galt on society. But be prepared to manage without public infrastructure (roads, railways, subways, electricity, water, sewage, etc.), schools, hospitals, medical research, police, an army and all that other stuff which is financed by the money that you and others are "forced at gunpoint" to pay for. For some reason it seems as if libertarians are just fine with using public infrastructure as long as they don't have to pay for it...

Problem with this statement is that people are asked to pay for infrastructure that might help with climate change. Problem is, no one knows if any measures we implement would change current climate changes. You can talk (in general, not personal you) as much as you want, fact is you don't know it will help.
Edited to add:I pay taxes,and to be honest, not really impressed, with government efficiency on applying those taxes. It is lesser of two evils.

 

[Storker]

Problem with this statement is that people are asked to pay for infrastructure that might help with climate change. Problem is, no one knows if any measures we implement would change current climate changes.

Problem is, you still don't seem to have understood the difference between a fiscally motivated tax and a Pigovian tax. Try going back to post #172 and read forward from that.

 

[Skeptic14]

Hyperbole, much?

If you're so opposed to taxes, you can always go full John Galt on society. But be prepared to manage without public infrastructure (roads, railways, subways, electricity, water, sewage, etc.), schools, hospitals, medical research, police, an army and all that other stuff which is financed by the money that you and others are "forced at gunpoint" to pay for. For some reason it seems as if libertarians are just fine with using public infrastructure as long as they don't have to pay for it...

I don't think it's any more hyperbole than fearing big bad corporations, that are basically powerless to compel someone in any fashion. Well, outside of really good advertising and marketing campaigns.

And like Murky Waters pointed out, libertarianism isn't anarchy... there's a whole spectrum of how big a government should be and how much taxation.

Who is John Galt?



















do I win the internet?

 

[Storker]

I don't think it's any more hyperbole than fearing big bad corporations

It looks as if you might be running out of straw pretty soon.

 

[tridacna]

A troll has no straw to start with. Just intentions of riling up folks and gloating at the results.

 

[admikar]

Problem is, you still don't seem to have understood the difference between a fiscally motivated tax and a Pigovian tax. Try going back to post #172 and read forward from that.

I understood it. Someone will have to make initial payment, aka tax payers for new technology and infrastructure.
You are firm believer that that new technology/infrastructure will deliver results, problem is, you do not know that. What happens if that new stuff does not deliver? Who is going to guarantee ROI? Who's going to pay their taxes?

 

[EdC]

Who is John Galt?

I see what you did there, had me for a second.

 

[RyanT]

I don't think it's any more hyperbole than fearing big bad corporations, that are basically powerless to compel someone in any fashion. Well, outside of really good advertising and marketing campaigns.

Except for lobbying that allows corporations to hide damaging information about their product, deliberate omissions of data, and price fixing allowing the company to sell above what the free market dictates (e.g. big Pharma these days).