Climate Activists Defend Property Rights...

By -
...by attacking a smokestack. I am curious what our libertarian friends who believe in manmade global warming think of this verdict. I am sure they will tell us.

Comments

  1. TokyoTom2:43 PM

    Some of my thoughts are noted here, if the mountain doesn`t mind paying me a visit. Maybe I`ll even get a reaction!

    It`s off-thread, but in light of the front page news on our latest scandal regarding oil & gas on public lands, you might care to revisit my post about cranking up pressure on politicians to cut American citizens directly in on all of the fithly lucre If politians, bureaucrats and Alaskans get to play with the roylaties, why can`t we? If we did get a cut, you can bet there`ll be citizens, prosecutors and lawyers all paying closer attention to how public resources are managed. Nothing like semi-privatization to alter incentives.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Jim10:41 PM

    Bob, this may be the single silliest post you've ever written, and given that IIRC you're a creationist, that takes some doing.

    Why on earth do you imagine that I or people like me, who recognize the truth of AGW, are obligated to answer for either the action or the verdict? Because we aren't.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Bob Murphy10:55 PM

    Jim,

    Sorry I was just referring to Silas and Tokyo Tom. I actually believe in manmade global warming, I just don't believe most of the recent global warming is manmade.

    Also, I wouldn't call myself a creationist, except in a sense that is equivalent to a theist.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wabulon3:21 PM

    God created global warming (unless you don't believe in global warming), so He wants the planet warmer, and we should all frgeddabahdit awready.

    ReplyDelete
  5. TokyoTom11:20 AM

    Hmmm. Apparently your curiosity was a rather idle one, Bob ....

    Wabulon, so having eaten of the fruit of the tree of knowledge, we have not inherited any responsibility for understanding or considering the consequences of our own actions? Great!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

In ancapistan, if you have no property, you have no rights

By -
Ancaps often declare, "All rights are property rights." I was thinking about this the other day, in the context of running into libertarians online who insisted that libertarianism supports "the freedom of movement," and realized that this principle actually entails that people without property have no rights at all, let alone any right to "freedom of movement." Of course, immediately, any ancap readers still left here are going to say, "Wait a second! Everyone owns his own body! And so everyone at least has the right to not have his body interfered with." Well, that is true... except that in ancapistan, one has no right to any place to put that body, except if one owns property, or has the permission of at least one property owner to place that body on her land. So, if one is landless and penniless, one had sure better hope that there are kindly disposed property owners aligned in a corridor from wherever one happens to be to wherever the...
Read more

St. Paul and I Agree...

By -
Taxation is not theft: "Let every soul be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and the authorities that exist are appointed by God. Therefore whoever resists the authority resists the ordinance of God, and those who resist will bring judgment on themselves." -- Romans 13 The key idea implicit here, and the one that turned me on the subject of whether or not taxation is theft, is that "every soul" owes obedience to the "governing authorities." Now, if that is a debt I truly owe , then, when those authorities levy the taxes they need to do the job of governing, I owe them those taxes, and attempts to collect them certainly do not constitute acts of theft. And obviously it doesn't matter at all, from this point of view, whether or not I "signed" any sort of "social contract." (In fact, the history of political thought since the Reformation can be read as an attempt to find a secular rep...
Read more

Libertarianism and Violence, II

By -
I decided to move some discussion from this post up to the top level here. Specifically, Watoosh wrote: "Well, if violence is defined as initiation of force (which, of course, presupposes certain property rights), then I think Rockwell is correct..." Well, if we define cats as elephants, then many people keep elephants in their house. More seriously, firstly, violence is not usually defined that way. It's defined as, you know, violence, so that, say, someone may respond violently or non-violently to someone who aggresses against them. Otherwise, it would make no sense to say, for instance, "He punched me, but I did not stoop to violence in response." And, secondly, the libertarian usage of "initiation of force" is very offbeat. If I wander onto someone's meadow, most people would not say I had "initiated force" -- I mean, sure, I used "force" against the earth to push off walking, but that's not force directed against...
Read more