Has Civilization Passed the Environmental Point of No Return?

darohitster · 2012-05-25T00:07:46.318540+00:00

They go back much much farther than 1900. Malthus was the intellectual grandfather of the modern over population doom Sayers, but he certainly wasn't the first.

Smooth152 · 2012-05-24T20:56:45.308156+00:00

You've set up an unsupportable double standard. You can't just assume a god who violates the laws of physics and causality without evidence. Either everything has to follow the same rules or nothing does.

Smooth152 · 2012-05-24T17:59:54.037800+00:00

I dont know any scientists who claim this happened. I've only seen this as a straw man presented by theists.

Matter cannot be created or destroyed. It may change form wildly, it may be converted to energy or vice versa. However something may not come from a literal nothing.

darohitster · 2012-05-24T13:14:50.362589+00:00

This should be at the top.

DescendingLogic · 2012-05-24T12:47:31.437300+00:00

User fees only apply to something you choose to do. Say the government decided to keep some national parks. They could fund them with user fees from the people that actually go to enjoy them.

Or look at government owned schools. There is now way we could get rid of them over night, so they could draw up a 5 year plan to eliminate tem. The first year, parents who wanted to send their kids to a government school would have to pay a user fee of 20% of the total cost. Next year it would be 40% and so on until the people who use such schools were payin the full cost to educate their children.

peetss · 2012-05-24T05:33:56.561742+00:00

Over 100 million murdered people would beg to differ if they were still alive. I'm sure this "doesn't count" though. No one has ever "done it right".

DescendingLogic · 2012-05-24T05:09:15.742333+00:00

it is just as corruptable as anything else so what is the point in advocating this?

Corruptibility was never my goal. Consent instead of force was my goal. In any case, since the government I propose would do so much less, there is much less opportunity for corruption. No system could eliminate the potential for corruption.

DescendingLogic · 2012-05-24T04:14:11.274666+00:00

What about food safety? I might wanna have a contract for those burgers.

So, pay 23 cents to the government for a burger certified to be clean. Or, just go to high quality places and take your chances. It's up to you.

But more seriously, how would this stop corruption?

I didn't claim that this specific method of government funding would end corruption. My proposed police, courts, military, and nothing else government would certainly cut down on chances for corruption though.

Companies can still buy gov. workers and cheat the system.

There would still be some room for defense contractors to rip people off I suppose. However, this applies in every system I am aware of too. At least this way it's impossible for people to scam entitlement programs, collect corporate welfare, or muscles out competitors with biased government regulations.

I just don't see how this would really solve anything.

It would be voluntary. Instead of depending on force, this system would operate on mutual consent.

I'm not saying its terrible or worse than what we have, just that it has the same flaws as any other system: power begets power, and the little guy is going to get crushed (or atleast squeezed).

It fixes some pretty important things, but it isn't guaranteed to bring about a utopia. Ultimately, people get the government they deserve. Unless citizens remain vigilant about would be tyrants, they are bound to end up with one eventually.

DescendingLogic · 2012-05-24T03:07:04.555863+00:00

There are things like user fees, import tariffs, donations, the sale of un-needed assets (it's astounding how much land the government owns and lets sit idle) and lotteries. My personal favorite idea is a contract enforcement fee. If you want a contract to be enforceable in court, you must pay 5% of the value to the government. It's optional whether you do or not, but if you don't, you can't take them to court.

No one would take the trouble when they buy a burger. Many people would pay the 5% on a new TV purchase or something larger. It would be insane to take over a company without paying the fee. If they lied about their financial state, it would be impossible to sue without paying the fee.

Now, let's couple this with a government that protects citizens from force (whether from criminals locally, or foreign armies abroad) and fraud. That's all the government does. No entitlement programs, no job programs, no housing programs, nothing. We've got courts, police, an army, and not much else.

Say this sort of minimal government wouldn't increase the size of the economy at all. Based on historical results, it would, but let's be conservative. Further, let's assume that people opt in for half of the transactions they make by value. As of today, such a system would generate $750 billion annually. That's easily enough money to fund the night watch men state envisioned by the founders.

DescendingLogic · 2012-05-24T02:59:28.641166+00:00

There are things like user fees, import tariffs, donations, the sale of un-needed assets (it's astounding how much land the government owns and lets sit idle) and lotteries.

My personal favorite idea is a contract enforcement fee. If you want a contract to be enforceable in court, you must pay 5% of the value to the government. It's optional whether you do or not, but if you don't, you can't take them to court.

No one would take the trouble when they buy a burger. Many people would pay the 5% on a new TV purchase or something larger. It would be insane to take over a company without paying the fee. If they lied about their financial state, it would be impossible to sue without paying the fee.

Say this sort of minimal government wouldn't increase the size of the economy at all. Based on historical results, it would, but let's be conservative. Further, let's assume that people opt in for half of the transactions they make by value. As of today, such a system would generate $750 billion annually. That's easily enough money to fund the night watch men state envisioned by the founders.

yaaaarrr_matey · 2012-05-24T02:31:45.863320+00:00

In college, I have always been taught that the government was made to make the rich have more say and more power because regular people were usually viewed as stupid

Citation needed. Not that you were taught this, just that this was the majority view.

DescendingLogic · 2012-05-23T19:14:08.693746-07:00

If those persons who claim taxes are theft use any public roads, use public water, rely on police and firemen and women, etc... then they are being hypocritical.

If a thief stole your jewelry, but left behind a gift card to Denny's, would it be hypocritical to use the card?

DescendingLogic · 2012-05-24T02:12:44.627525+00:00

There are consensual ways to acquire the funds to achieve these limited ends.

DescendingLogic · 2012-05-24T02:11:11.180637+00:00

Taxation without representation is theft.

Taxation without consent is theft. If 51% of the people in my district agree to take my stuff, it doesn't somehow become moral.

daver555 · 2012-05-24T02:06:24.197959+00:00

What's stopping him from doing it absent government force?

daver555 · 1 day

What about companies such as Standard Oil?

Standard Oil dramatically reduced the cost of oil to consumers. What's so bad about that?

Sure, their inefficient competitors didn't much care for it, but why should they be able to get the government to protect them?

philnotfil · 1 day

No, the wealthy do actually pay an absurd amount of the taxes. We are well into the welfare state zone of spending.

daver555 · 1 day

Because he denounces greed, but doesn't donate his considerable wealth to charity.

daver555 · 1 day

What are you talking about? You honestly think it is impossible to become wealthy without being greedy?

With the exception of the person who inherits money, yes this is impossible. Of course, only a greedy person would keep that inheritance, so this is a pretty small and short exception.

So by your estimation there is not a single person in the world who makes a significant amount of money doing what they enjoy.

I think we have a disagreement on the definition of greed. You seem to be operating on the premise that it means "acting like Ebeneezer scrooge" and I'm defining it as being selfishly interested in your own well being.

daver555 · 1 day

He isn't measuring some sort of objective greed index, and correlating that to economic performance. He is just on a personal diatribe, and he doesn't practice what he preaches.

daver555 · 1 day

Only someone who was greedy (selfishly interested in their own well being) would insist on being paid what they were worth. Only a selfish person would keep the fruits of their labor. The altruist would give all but the barest minimum to preserve life away.

ToastyRaichu · 1 day

Anyone arrogant enough to reject the verdict of the judge or of the priest who represents the LORD your God must be put to death. Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT

everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

daver555 · 1 day

Greed is good, and so is morally acquired wealth. You can't get that wealth without greed.

daver555 · 1 day

There's nothing wrong with being rich, but there is something wrong with being a hypocrite.

daver555 · 1 day

Then it is equally important to clearly define them. I think that given fair definitions, they will be nearly synonyms.

Scottmkiv

TROPHY CASE

Scottmkiv

TROPHY CASE

you'll need to login or register to do that

create a new account

login