No, it's already here. You just don't see it because it's based upon a religion you happen to be a part of.
Thursday, December 15, 2011
Wednesday, December 14, 2011
Adventures in Amarillo
I went to the big city today. Spent some time in a mall. Yeah, believe it or not I do enjoy malls and the opportunity they provide for people watching. And going to the knife store.
Anyway, I was sitting in the play area watching my daughter play with the other kids when she suddenly commented about the baby running off. She was pointing past the exit. I turned and looked and, yep, there was a little kid (probably not much over a year old) toddling for the mall's exit. I quickly scanned to see if any adults seemed to be going after him, and seeing no one, I took off.
The path he chose was not crowded so I didn't exactly run or anything, but just walked with purpose after him. (with my 40" inseam, I cover ground quickly) About halfway there a woman asked if that was my kid. I said "No. He just left the play area and no one went after him, so I thought I should bring him back." About this time (I never stopped walking) he reached the exit and started trying to get past the Salvation Army bell ringer, who was trying to keep him from wiggling through. I got to the kid and offered him my hand. He quite happily took it and I began leading him back to the play area. He traveled just as fast back as he did in his escape attempt.
The bystander was still standing there staring at the scene. She once again asked about his parents. I said that no one seemed to be watching him or noticing that he was gone. I said I just figured I'd get him back in the play area and see who claimed him.
I took him in and was met by my daughter's mom, who loudly asked a chatting woman if this was her kid. She answered "Well, if I have to claim him..."
I told her that he made it all the way to the exit and would have made it outside had the bell ringer not held him back. (Of course, he wouldn't have gotten through the second set of doors, as by that point I was right there.) She just kinda shrugged and led him back to where she was sitting. Then resumed chatting to someone sitting a few feet from her as the kid started playing again.
The bystander came up to me and made some comments about the mother's lack of attention and seemed completely bewildered how anyone could just let their kid wander off that way, and seem so unconcerned after it had happened.
I did notice he was watched a little more carefully after that, since his subsequent escape attempts were thwarted by his mother before he could leave the area.
Just another day...
.
Tuesday, December 13, 2011
Libertarians aren't angry people
Libertarians aren't angry people (...in general) If that link doesn't work, try this one.
(My Clovis News Journal column for November 11, 2011.)
One accusation I have seen repeatedly leveled at libertarians, by people who see themselves as being in the mainstream, is that libertarians must be "angry". Just because we speak out against the use of coercion, and don't fall for exceptions based upon- well, anything, we must be "angry"?
Now, I won't deny I have known a couple of angry libertarians. And angry conservatives and angry liberals too, for that matter. Considering human nature, and with all else being equal, you might imagine the percentages are comparable.
On the other hand, a philosophy that rejects aggression seems ill-suited to angry people. Angry people are drawn to revenge and punishment. If a libertarian is consistent, revenge and punishment (beyond restitution to the individuals directly harmed by an act of aggression or theft) are impossible to justify.
To assume a person must be angry just because he speaks out when he see things wrong with the world makes no sense. Are you angry when you say the house needs fresh paint, or when you mention to someone that your car needs gas? Neither am I angry when I point out that coercion is wrong, and that I do not want any individual, or any group, using it against others on my behalf. It is just the way it is.
Now, I might be angry if I know my house needs to be painted, but someone uses coercion or theft to prevent me from painting it. Or if I see someone forcing others to paint his house against their will. And, knowing that liberty would solve most of the real and imagined problems in society, I get more than a little frustrated when popular pundits and powerful puppeticians (* note to editor: Yes, I made up a word to describe politicians who are controlled by something other than Principle. You can change it back to "politician" if you must) propose the opposite- and then pretend to be surprised when the problems inevitably get worse.
Perhaps the "angry" label is applied because libertarians are not ashamed to speak out. Silence changes nothing, and it gives an illusion of consent where none exists. I prefer to give fair warning and point out the lines in the sand. No one seems too shocked that liberals/conservatives speak out; only that those who don't buy into that false dichotomy speak up.
I feel bad for those who have hitched their wagon to the twin horses of coercion and theft. The choice was theirs to make, and I wonder if the accusation is an attempt to put libertarians on the defensive.
Now, I won't deny I have known a couple of angry libertarians. And angry conservatives and angry liberals too, for that matter. Considering human nature, and with all else being equal, you might imagine the percentages are comparable.
On the other hand, a philosophy that rejects aggression seems ill-suited to angry people. Angry people are drawn to revenge and punishment. If a libertarian is consistent, revenge and punishment (beyond restitution to the individuals directly harmed by an act of aggression or theft) are impossible to justify.
To assume a person must be angry just because he speaks out when he see things wrong with the world makes no sense. Are you angry when you say the house needs fresh paint, or when you mention to someone that your car needs gas? Neither am I angry when I point out that coercion is wrong, and that I do not want any individual, or any group, using it against others on my behalf. It is just the way it is.
Now, I might be angry if I know my house needs to be painted, but someone uses coercion or theft to prevent me from painting it. Or if I see someone forcing others to paint his house against their will. And, knowing that liberty would solve most of the real and imagined problems in society, I get more than a little frustrated when popular pundits and powerful puppeticians (* note to editor: Yes, I made up a word to describe politicians who are controlled by something other than Principle. You can change it back to "politician" if you must) propose the opposite- and then pretend to be surprised when the problems inevitably get worse.
Perhaps the "angry" label is applied because libertarians are not ashamed to speak out. Silence changes nothing, and it gives an illusion of consent where none exists. I prefer to give fair warning and point out the lines in the sand. No one seems too shocked that liberals/conservatives speak out; only that those who don't buy into that false dichotomy speak up.
I feel bad for those who have hitched their wagon to the twin horses of coercion and theft. The choice was theirs to make, and I wonder if the accusation is an attempt to put libertarians on the defensive.
.
Arguing is so tiresome
You know, I'm getting tired of arguing.
I feel like it might just be easier to let people wallow in happy ignorance than to try to show them a little light of truth.
But, the problem is that I care about people and I think operating from faulty premises hurts them.
It's like if I see someone in a survival situation trying to make a fire without matches. I've started thousands of fires that way. If I see someone trying in a way that I see isn't going to work I want to at least give pointers. People generally hate that. I know because I've done that, too.
I've also been on the other side. I was once the guy who had tried to make a fire with a bow/drill... and failed- probably hundreds of times. I had read every description ever written of the making of the kit, and the techniques, and failed time and time again. Then, one day high in the Rockies, I heard a guy was going to do a demonstration on bow/drill firemaking. I swallowed my pride and showed up- an ignorant pilgrim in need of help. I watched him make a fire- and saw him correct the one fatal error in every single description I had ever read- and I had a fire in minutes the very next time I tried. Which was just as fast as I could gather the materials.
But, perhaps I had to be at the point where I was ready for help. (I think I was ready for help years earlier; I just couldn't find it.)
So, the best thing might be to clear a spot and build my own fire without uttering a word. Or, just let objections go unanswered while just living it. That makes me feel a little like I am ignoring my duty, though.
.
Monday, December 12, 2011
Concentration camps, and those who support them.
Prison.
Is my life one iota better because there are prisons? No!
Oh, but you might claim I am "safer" when the bad guys are locked up where they can't hurt me. And I would scoff.
Prisons are nothing but concentration camps that enrich and empower the real bad guys.
Not all are as bad as this example, but none are good. And those who work in them should examine the evil they are supporting and enabling.
Prison, and the looming threat of prison, is used to silence legitimate dissent. A large percentage who are imprisoned are political prisoners- caged and controlled for violating drug "laws", gun "laws", and other counterfeit "laws". Some are caged and controlled for being uppity enough to do the right thing and defend their own life or property instead of standing aside while testosterone-jacked thugs who work for the State do the job (poorly and randomly) for them.
"Society", meaning individuals like you and me, would be safer if there were no prisons, and those who decide to attack or steal had to face targets who didn't have to worry that the legitimate act of self defense- of life or property- would result in a potential prison sentence.
Concentration camps are disgusting, and all associated with them would be ashamed if they had any ethics or principles.
.
Sunday, December 11, 2011
New excuse to keep long hair
I just read this little article: Hair Is An Extension Of The Nervous System, Why Indians Keep Their Hair Long. Read it. It isn't very long.
No, I don't buy it either.
Hair is dead, and it made of keratin, not nerve tissue. However, I'll take whatever silly justifications I can when told I "should" cut my hair.
I know I feel better when my hair is long. That's enough for me.
.
Anti-Christmas Christians
I don't remember ever seeing as much anti-Christmas whining as I'm seeing this year. By Christians.
A lot of it is based around this video which keeps cropping up on Facebook. My thoughts are "so what?" You try to co-opt an ancient holiday, and then moan and complain because the original bits of it won't go away peacefully and let you have it all your way? OK, so it was your ancestors, not you, who tried that sneaky little trick. Still... Why not just enjoy the holiday?
So, here's a compromise: you Christians who aren't happy about the pagan aspects of a pagan holiday which you tried to claim for yourselves, why not find out with absolute certainty if/when Jesus was born and then go celebrate that date as your holiday and leave Christmas- by whatever name- to the rest of us. You are perfectly welcome to continue to celebrate with us, of course. Just stop trying to poop on the fun. OK?
.
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Offensive materials online
I keep seeing different governments and moralizers trying to forbid or regulate "offensive material" on the internet.
Offensive to whom?
Pro-cop drivel is extremely offensive to me, so why should I be exposed to it?
Anti-gun nonsense also offends me. As does pro-military stuff and anti-sex hand-wringing. Yet no one seems bothered that I am routinely exposed to this crap. For that matter, I have never sought to have anyone protect me from it. I need to be aware that it is out there so it doesn't catch me unaware. I can pretty much control what I am exposed to by avoiding certain sites. I am not a baby to be coddled. Can't say the same about the statists and moralizers.
.
Friday, December 09, 2011
Some people just don't get it- firefighting edition
Another entry in "Some people just don't get it".
Someone, or a site, calling himself/itself "Needlenose" has latched onto a symptom of The State and declared it to be a consequence of "Libertopia". He is gloating over the "libertarian" Tennessee firefi... firewatchers who refused to put out a fire until they got paid.
So, I posted the following comment (over a day ago, but it is still languishing in Moderation):
"You kinda miss the point, since things like this would probably not happen in Libertopia, yet this event did happen in a coercive, non-libertopian society."
.
Defeating "confirmation bias"
How can you be sure that libertarianism- respect for the liberty of each individual- is the right path?
Confirmation bias means that we will ignore counter evidence and play up the importance of evidence that supports our case.
However, I didn't always support the whole "liberty package". In fact, there are aspects of libertarianism I used to hate. However, when presented with evidence that showed that respecting individual liberty was better- made my life and the lives of those around me safer, wealthier, and more consistent- I switched sides on those issues. I didn't allow confirmation bias to obscure the evidence for liberty.
Perhaps that means something.
.
Thursday, December 08, 2011
Liberty Lines- December 8, 2011
(The State Line Tribune, December 8, 2011)
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." – H.L. Mencken
Freedom of speech is meaningless until you want to say something that those with power- be they a dictator or a voting majority- don't want you to say. And property rights are likewise meaningless until you want to use your property in a way those with power don't like.
With the Esparza property rights case in Texico, a property owner's rights are being trampled, apparently with universal approval, and that's sad.
This doesn't mean I appreciate junk and litter. On the contrary, I hate them with a passion. However my right to do something about it ends at my property lines. I have every right to take action to stop anyone from damaging my property, but only until I try to control someone else's property. Requests and privacy fences; not invasion and theft.
Ah, but some will claim that freedom of speech doesn't mean you have the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, so property rights don't mean you can use your property in a way that might devalue your neighbors' property or cause a "health hazard".
You have the right to shout whatever you wish to shout, wherever you wish to shout it, but you are accountable for any actual harm that occurs from your doing so. Offending or frightening someone is not harming them; they are still fully responsible for how they react to your shout.
Accordingly, you have a right to use your property however you wish and then you have a responsibility to pay any real damages your usage causes your neighbors. Resorting to "legal coercion" when negotiation fails means you are cheating to get what you want.
That includes billing property owners for work they did not consent to having done on their property.
The individuals actually harmed, not any government entity, are within their rights to demand restitution for the harm, and they are also within their rights to fence their property, shoot or poison any pests coming from the problem property (regardless of "laws" to the contrary), and to completely shun the owner- refuse to have any dealings or do business with him in any way even if it means he starves in the dark and cold. No one is within their rights to take ownership of someone's property by controlling how they use it just because the person isn't cooperative.
If I had the money I'd even help the property owner pay any lien that is placed on his property so that it won't be stolen, "legally" or not, from him. Because it's the right thing to do.
"The trouble with fighting for human freedom is that one spends most of one’s time defending scoundrels. For it is against scoundrels that oppressive laws are first aimed, and oppression must be stopped at the beginning if it is to be stopped at all." – H.L. Mencken
Freedom of speech is meaningless until you want to say something that those with power- be they a dictator or a voting majority- don't want you to say. And property rights are likewise meaningless until you want to use your property in a way those with power don't like.
With the Esparza property rights case in Texico, a property owner's rights are being trampled, apparently with universal approval, and that's sad.
This doesn't mean I appreciate junk and litter. On the contrary, I hate them with a passion. However my right to do something about it ends at my property lines. I have every right to take action to stop anyone from damaging my property, but only until I try to control someone else's property. Requests and privacy fences; not invasion and theft.
Ah, but some will claim that freedom of speech doesn't mean you have the right to shout "Fire!" in a crowded theater, so property rights don't mean you can use your property in a way that might devalue your neighbors' property or cause a "health hazard".
You have the right to shout whatever you wish to shout, wherever you wish to shout it, but you are accountable for any actual harm that occurs from your doing so. Offending or frightening someone is not harming them; they are still fully responsible for how they react to your shout.
Accordingly, you have a right to use your property however you wish and then you have a responsibility to pay any real damages your usage causes your neighbors. Resorting to "legal coercion" when negotiation fails means you are cheating to get what you want.
That includes billing property owners for work they did not consent to having done on their property.
The individuals actually harmed, not any government entity, are within their rights to demand restitution for the harm, and they are also within their rights to fence their property, shoot or poison any pests coming from the problem property (regardless of "laws" to the contrary), and to completely shun the owner- refuse to have any dealings or do business with him in any way even if it means he starves in the dark and cold. No one is within their rights to take ownership of someone's property by controlling how they use it just because the person isn't cooperative.
If I had the money I'd even help the property owner pay any lien that is placed on his property so that it won't be stolen, "legally" or not, from him. Because it's the right thing to do.
.
Wednesday, December 07, 2011
Busting another myth
The news says that the Mythbusters guys have had an accident and shot a cannonball through a house and left a path of destruction through a neighborhood, ending with a damaged van.
The truth is somewhat different.
I have watched the show a lot. Whenever cannons or guns are involved, the Mythbusters crew defers to local Only Ones. You know, enforcers who are the "only ones" to be trusted with guns and such. So, if an accident happened, it was NOT the Mythbusters who screwed up. It was just another Lee Paige moment.
.
Gun bans
Outlawing guns in big cities makes as much sense as outlawing snow shovels in the Rocky Mountains.
And don't forget, any "laws" forbidding owning or carrying, or demanding a license for either, are "laws" which outlaw guns.
.
Tuesday, December 06, 2011
Don't let imperfections ruin life
Don't let imperfections ruin life
(My Clovis News Journal column for November 4, 2011.)
The imperfections in the world can bring some entertainment. I am glad for that. Unbroken comfort can make you more numb than jumping into that frozen lake with a polar bear club.
Recently I enjoyed sitting outside during the dirt storm that hit the area. My young daughter enjoyed it with me. She ran around laughing as the dirt engulfed her- obviously exhilarated by the novelty of the situation. We could have hunkered indoors and complained about the weather, but look at the joy we would have missed. Adverse conditions can be fun to sit through, with the right attitude. Witness storm chasers.
Some people live lives of bitterness just because everything in the world isn't perfect. They seem to believe the only way to make themselves feel better is to force everyone else to conform to their idea of "perfect". That is sad. Sure, there are so many things that could be better, but you may as well enjoy what you can when the opportunity presents itself. You are only responsible for your life, and you have an obligation to mind your own business. Remembering that frees up a huge amount of your life.
For example: I value liberty, but I can still enjoy life even though I am surrounded by a government that I don't need, I don't want, I don't respect, and that only gets in the way. There is no Utopia. Even in a free society there will still be bad guys trying to use coercion or other aspects of the political method in order to deprive individuals of their life, liberty, and property. If you can't enjoy life now, under government, you wouldn't be able to enjoy a life of liberty. either. If you can't enjoy a little dirt storm now and then, you probably can't enjoy the rainy days. There will always be something you could complain about.
That doesn't mean you let evil go unnoticed or unchallenged. It just means you call a spade a spade, then move on and don't let it ruin your day. In fact, you can probably get on with the business of living more easily when you clear the air and stop trying to justify the unjustifiable.
Just weather the storm, try not to get blown away, and laugh at the foolishness of it all. Especially the foolishness of those who mistake the storm for life.
Recently I enjoyed sitting outside during the dirt storm that hit the area. My young daughter enjoyed it with me. She ran around laughing as the dirt engulfed her- obviously exhilarated by the novelty of the situation. We could have hunkered indoors and complained about the weather, but look at the joy we would have missed. Adverse conditions can be fun to sit through, with the right attitude. Witness storm chasers.
Some people live lives of bitterness just because everything in the world isn't perfect. They seem to believe the only way to make themselves feel better is to force everyone else to conform to their idea of "perfect". That is sad. Sure, there are so many things that could be better, but you may as well enjoy what you can when the opportunity presents itself. You are only responsible for your life, and you have an obligation to mind your own business. Remembering that frees up a huge amount of your life.
For example: I value liberty, but I can still enjoy life even though I am surrounded by a government that I don't need, I don't want, I don't respect, and that only gets in the way. There is no Utopia. Even in a free society there will still be bad guys trying to use coercion or other aspects of the political method in order to deprive individuals of their life, liberty, and property. If you can't enjoy life now, under government, you wouldn't be able to enjoy a life of liberty. either. If you can't enjoy a little dirt storm now and then, you probably can't enjoy the rainy days. There will always be something you could complain about.
That doesn't mean you let evil go unnoticed or unchallenged. It just means you call a spade a spade, then move on and don't let it ruin your day. In fact, you can probably get on with the business of living more easily when you clear the air and stop trying to justify the unjustifiable.
Just weather the storm, try not to get blown away, and laugh at the foolishness of it all. Especially the foolishness of those who mistake the storm for life.
.
Cursed turn signals!!!
I have come to the conclusion that I really dislike turn signals. I know, that's not a popular opinion. You are more likely to hear people cussing about those who don't use turn signals. But I have come to really despise the stupid things.
And, here's why.
Sure, it sounds like a good idea: let other drivers know that you intend to turn (or change lanes) before you do it. Of course, unless your move will actually interfere with other drivers in some way, it's pointless, but we'll ignore that for a moment.
The reality of turn signals comes down to this: Some drivers use your warning as a challenge to cut you off before you can do what you signaled your intention to do.
And, in the case of others signaling for your "benefit", in most cases it seems that the signal is ripe for tragic confusion. Here in town I can't trust drivers to turn when they are signaling that they are turning. And I am not talking about people who used their signal when changing lanes and then forgot to turn it off. When I am trying to pull out on the highway and see an apparent opening due to someone signaling, it usually turns out that they are actually turning beyond where I sit. If I trust their signal and pull out I will be hit. If they wait until they are past me to begin signaling so as to not be misleading me, the signal is meaningless. And in that case, according to the "law", they didn't turn on their signal far enough in advance of their turn. So, signal or not, I need to wait until they either turn or pass me before I make a move, just as I would have to do in the absence of turn signals.
And, in response to one person I mentioned this to (after just such an event while they were driving) who couldn't wrap their mind around my point at all, I am not saying hand signals are "better". I think it's usually better- but not always- to forgo the signal completely. If you can signal in a way that has little chance of causing confusion, do it. If not, leave the lever alone!
.
Monday, December 05, 2011
Who started it?
Is it "theft" or an example of trespassing in order to retrieve your stolen property from someone else's property when your negotiations fail?
I don't think it is.
I have never been in a situation where I had to make that decision, but I wouldn't fault someone for breaking in and re-taking possession of their own stolen property as long as they did as little damage as possible on entering, and didn't take anything extra. What about you?
I think it is the same sort of situation where using violence against someone who is initiating force against you is not attacking them, but self defense.
I also don't think it is "cheating" if you don't stay faithful to the remnants of a relationship where the other person has unilaterally ended the sexual component.
And, there are other similar situations out there.
To me it all comes back to "who started it?"
.
Saturday, December 03, 2011
Fictional Mentors
My favorite fictional character "mentors", and the list may not be complete, are: Sherlock Holmes, Malcolm Reynolds, Han Solo, Indiana Jones, Crocodile Dundee, Captain Jack Sparrow, and Paladin. (If I think of more, I'll add them- sneak them into the line-up- later.)
Those are the characters I would most like to "be like" in some major way. None of them are perfect, and I would prefer to gain their good qualities while avoiding their flaws. Of course, I already have plenty of flaws of my own; perhaps theirs wouldn't be much worse.
I'm not sure what that says about me other than that it's probably silly of me to have "favorite fictional character mentors" at all.
.
Friday, December 02, 2011
Be Alert. Do it for YOU.
I was a little surprised that anyone wouldn't have already known this on their own.
Being alert and aware doesn't just protect you from bad guys and dangerous situations, it also allows you to notice the good stuff too.
I'm not always there, but I try. When my situational awareness slips, and then I snap back, I realize how much I have missed. Everything was gray and muffled, and once I start being aware again, the colors come flooding back.
I know a lot of people who stumble through life, noticing almost nothing. It shocks me how much they don't see. They don't know where their cell phone is, because, even though they are the one who laid it down and they have passed it repeatedly, they neither noticed placing it there, nor noticed it when they walked through the room. But outdoors this inconvenience becomes even more tragic. They don't see the animal tracks under their feel, nor the kestrel sailing overhead, nor the flower blooming in the shadow. They don't hear the prairie dog scolding them from a distance, or the sandhill cranes calling from high in the sky. They are missing out on life.
Let's face it- the lurking danger is pretty rare, but the beauty you could be enjoying is everywhere. Stay alert so you can enjoy your surroundings, and so that when the lurking danger does appear you will notice it before it becomes a problem.
It isn't an inconvenience or a burden to be alert. It's one of the greatest gifts you can give yourself.
.
Thursday, December 01, 2011
Pedobear Panic!
Pedobear? Really, Albuquerque Panic-Pushers are worried that pedophiles would advertise themselves as pedophiles? That should be their fondest wish!
Personally, I think it's a good thing when predators self-identify. Cops do it with uniforms and silly hair-hats. Encourage pedophiles to do it with Pedobear. It saves the rest of us a lot of trouble.
Look, it's just a cartoon character, and if someone chooses to display it they probably aren't going to be an actual pedophile. The real danger comes from those who want to avoid any suspicion.
But even if a pedophile has a Pedobear sticker on his car, so what? Teach your kids to stay away from that character, kinda like any other warning symbol. And more importantly, teach your kids to be aware of their surroundings and that it is OK to try to hurt anyone who tries to attack them. And teach them how to do it.
.
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Climate change no excuse for tyranny
Climate change no excuse for tyranny
(My Clovis News Journal column for October 28, 2011. This is the long version.)
You are being lied to about "global warming". By both sides.
Of course, it's no longer called "global warming", but "anthropogenic global climate change", to communicate the idea that the average global temperature might go up or go down in the short term, along with other climatic effects, and that human activities- specifically technology- are the cause.
No matter the name, "anthropogenic global climate change" ("AGCC" for short) is presented as a clear line in the sand between those who believe they have the right to control how you live "for the greater good" and those who don't.
Except, that isn't the whole truth. The irony is that some of AGCC's most vocal critics also believe in using the violence of government to violate your property rights and individual sovereignty, but for different reasons. Reasons like "national security", "morality", or "preserving our culture". Those critics have to insist AGCC is false or their belief in using the authority of The State to control you would come back to bite them.
Is AGCC real? No one knows for sure one way or the other, although you'll hear both sides claim they know the truth and that the "other side" is lying in order to promote an agenda. I'll let you in on a secret: it doesn't matter if AGCC is real or not. Making laws that violate individual rights - even in an effort to "save the planet"- is still wrong.
Uncouple AGCC from the agendas and pretend for a moment that it is absolutely factual. Pretend also that climate change would be wholly bad rather than the more likely reality that it would be a mixed bag of good and bad effects. Do you have the right to prevent someone else from doing things that might contribute in some unspecified, non-quantifiable way to AGCC? How do you calculate the exact amount of damage any specific individual's actions are causing to your property? Almost any action taken by people, and most other forms of life, could be claimed to cause some "damage to the planet". It is wrong to criminalize human life.
Think about it another way: Do you have a right to prevent someone from making a mutually consensual individual economic decision that might contribute to the collapse of the world economy? Buying a car using US dollars is economically harmful compared to buying a car with real money like gold or silver, yet as long as the buyer and seller can both agree, it is their decision- even if it might contribute to global economic upheaval in the long run. And don't be fooled: economic problems can be just as deadly as climate problems can.
Your only ethical option is to convince people to do what you believe they should do rather than using collectivism and initiating force to impose your will. Present the best evidence for your position and admit the unknowns. Don't lie to be more persuasive; that will only harm your argument when it is discovered. Make the best choice you can, setting the best example possible, with the information you have. Change is inevitable. Tyranny isn't.
Related: Cosmos and "Climate Change"
Of course, it's no longer called "global warming", but "anthropogenic global climate change", to communicate the idea that the average global temperature might go up or go down in the short term, along with other climatic effects, and that human activities- specifically technology- are the cause.
No matter the name, "anthropogenic global climate change" ("AGCC" for short) is presented as a clear line in the sand between those who believe they have the right to control how you live "for the greater good" and those who don't.
Except, that isn't the whole truth. The irony is that some of AGCC's most vocal critics also believe in using the violence of government to violate your property rights and individual sovereignty, but for different reasons. Reasons like "national security", "morality", or "preserving our culture". Those critics have to insist AGCC is false or their belief in using the authority of The State to control you would come back to bite them.
Is AGCC real? No one knows for sure one way or the other, although you'll hear both sides claim they know the truth and that the "other side" is lying in order to promote an agenda. I'll let you in on a secret: it doesn't matter if AGCC is real or not. Making laws that violate individual rights - even in an effort to "save the planet"- is still wrong.
Uncouple AGCC from the agendas and pretend for a moment that it is absolutely factual. Pretend also that climate change would be wholly bad rather than the more likely reality that it would be a mixed bag of good and bad effects. Do you have the right to prevent someone else from doing things that might contribute in some unspecified, non-quantifiable way to AGCC? How do you calculate the exact amount of damage any specific individual's actions are causing to your property? Almost any action taken by people, and most other forms of life, could be claimed to cause some "damage to the planet". It is wrong to criminalize human life.
Think about it another way: Do you have a right to prevent someone from making a mutually consensual individual economic decision that might contribute to the collapse of the world economy? Buying a car using US dollars is economically harmful compared to buying a car with real money like gold or silver, yet as long as the buyer and seller can both agree, it is their decision- even if it might contribute to global economic upheaval in the long run. And don't be fooled: economic problems can be just as deadly as climate problems can.
Your only ethical option is to convince people to do what you believe they should do rather than using collectivism and initiating force to impose your will. Present the best evidence for your position and admit the unknowns. Don't lie to be more persuasive; that will only harm your argument when it is discovered. Make the best choice you can, setting the best example possible, with the information you have. Change is inevitable. Tyranny isn't.
Related: Cosmos and "Climate Change"
.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)