It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

EPIC FAIL!!! The Left tries to connect Private Property Rights and Climate Change

page: 1
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   
The left has time and time again has tried and failed to figure out why us conservatives do not bow down to their environmental overlords and deny that climate change is an immediate threat. While there are some climate change warnings that I do agree with like the mixing of salt water and fresh water interrupts the normal flow of the oceans and the seas, electric cars, and zero pollutants. I do not agree with the burdensome taxation on everything that touches the grass, and "absolute proof" that Global Warming will be irreversible by 2017 or the "general consensus among all scientists" when time and time again individual studies against the mainstream Global Warming theory like those at CERN or NASA are shut down by the media and the government.

That all being said, this is the latest poor attempt that the left tries to understand why one could possibly question the doomsday scenario of Global Warming. Far left liberal Mr. George Monbiot claims that Libertarians and Conservatives deny climate change because they see it as a threat to their private property. He goes on to say that private property is not all that important and the government has a right to take it away, and tax it to death in the name of Climate Change.

On Speaking about owning property Mr. Monbiot says:


It is a pitiless, one-sided, mechanical view of the world, which elevates the rights of property over everything else, meaning that those who possess the most property end up with great power over others. Dressed up as freedom, it is a formula for oppression and bondage. It does nothing to address inequality, hardship or social exclusion. A transparently self-serving vision, it seeks to justify the greedy and selfish behaviour of those with wealth and power.


Really? I thought most people rewarded themselves with an investment in a home thanks to all of their hard work!!!

This is how he illogically connects the two.


The owners of coal-burning power stations in the UK have not obtained the consent of everyone who owns a lake or a forest in Sweden to deposit acid rain there. So their emissions, in the libertarian worldview, should be regarded as a form of trespass on the property of Swedish landowners. Nor have they received the consent of the people of this country to allow mercury and other heavy metals to enter our bloodstreams, which means that they are intruding upon our property in the form of our bodies.


It appears to me that he just decided that this is how conservatives view Global Warming and that this is it!!! This is the reason. I have never heard any conservative or republican say this is the reason they don't believe in Global Warming.

www.guardian.co.uk...




posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
The connection of private property and global warming is the impact that private ownership can have on the environment in the continuing search for capital. For in a world of common ownership the persons of said world would not need to pollute and destroy peoples homes in order to gain capital.

That's the thinking behind it anyway.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Tea4One
 


And that would erase everything that Freedom stands for. This is dangerous thinking and takes away individual rights. It's basically slavery.
edit on 8-1-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 05:45 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


Depends what your vision of "freedom" is.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 06:01 PM
link   
Let's see since the last 20 years and "climate change" has been mainstreamed jobs have been outsourced and we are more dependent upon foreign oil which has led to pepetual war.

When the entire country and the worlds economies depend on one commodity to make everything happen add the fact that green legislation has led to controlling the land we walk on the water we drink the air we breathe the food we eat

Seem's to me that the left has no clue of what property rights are.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 06:07 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


Thank God we'e got the "Right," good honest people who would never lie or misconstrue information to make a profit. God bless the GOP, Foxnews, Glenn Beck, Newt Gingrich, Halliburton and Dick Cheney.

"Families is where our nation finds hope, where wings take dream." - George W Bush



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 06:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tea4One
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


Depends what your vision of "freedom" is.


Placing quotation marks around freedom does not diminish freedom in any way. All people, from the moment they took their first breath, are free and in possession of certain unalienable rights, among them the right to property.

Take your notions of "shared property" and go inside a cave where a bear hibernates and explain to that bear how he must share the property with you. Trust the black widow who has built a web over your child's bed satisfied in the notion that the black widow is in agreement with you about "shared property". Tell the den of lions they must share property with you. These creatures will give you no more credence than any sane person who owns property would.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 06:32 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I was not aiming to diminish freedom in any way or form. I just believe that the right to own property is not an unalienable right we are born with.

The bourgeoisie are indeed animals like those named and so must be over-thrown for humanities sake

edit on 8-1-2012 by Tea4One because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-1-2012 by Tea4One because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tea4One
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I was not aiming to diminish freedom in any way or form. I just believe that the right to own property is not an unalienable right we are born with.

The bourgeoisie are indeed animals like those named and so must be over-thrown for humanities sake

edit on 8-1-2012 by Tea4One because: (no reason given)

edit on 8-1-2012 by Tea4One because: (no reason given)


Unalienable rights are not a belief system. Your use of the term "bourgeoisie", however, reveals your belief system quite handily, and if you weren't attempting to diminish freedom in anyway then why place quotation marks around the word?

You speak as a collectivist and as such you reveal your true contempt for not just the individual but for humanity.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 06:51 PM
link   
reply to post by Tea4One
 

May I ask a question or two in order to clarify your position?


I just believe that the right to own property is not an unalienable right we are born with.
You seem to be saying that there is a right to own property but that right comes from some other person or institution. What kind of right is it that somebody else can grant, or not, as they see fit?

And what do you mean by "property?" Someone has lent my coffee cup to me? It's never my coffee cup to do with as I please? Who do I have to reimburse if I break it? Who does own my coffee cup? The institution of the state? The majority of people living in my area?

These questions, off the top of my head may indicate the confusion I'm having with your posts. Would you be so kind as to clarify things for me?



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 06:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by Tea4One
 

May I ask a question or two in order to clarify your position?


I just believe that the right to own property is not an unalienable right we are born with.
You seem to be saying that there is a right to own property but that right comes from some other person or institution. What kind of right is it that somebody else can grant, or not, as they see fit?

And what do you mean by "property?" Someone has lent my coffee cup to me? It's never my coffee cup to do with as I please? Who do I have to reimburse if I break it? Who does own my coffee cup? The institution of the state? The majority of people living in my area?

These questions, off the top of my head may indicate the confusion I'm having with your posts. Would you be so kind as to clarify things for me?




That's not only questioning his posts that's also questioning the whole far left communism mindset. Why communism will never work and why government shouldn't take control over all the people's properties. If that happens the United States of America is no long in existence, but some on the left would applaud that anyway.

Property Rights is the most basic Rights of the United States of America! So yea, I'll defend my house, the home I worked so hard for. But it's got nothing to do with climate change.
edit on 8-1-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 07:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


I merely used quotation marks to implement the difference in visions of freedom. That was all. Unalienable rights aren't part of a belief system I agree but property rights just aren't a part of these rights.


reply to post by charles1952
 


I was suggesting that property rights aren't unalienable rights. Property rights are given by the state and so the right is very hollow.

What I mean by property is most things. From homes to factories to the things created in those factories. The people who would own that cup would be everyone.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 07:11 PM
link   
Why is it they continue to allow these political trolling threads?
Sure enough if it was me, I would be banned by now.

Can we PLEASE Trash bin this....some people need to learn remain silent and have people think they're an idiot or speak and remove all doubt...JEBUS!
edit on 8-1-2012 by ldyserenity because: wrond conjective



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 07:18 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


How is this a trolling thread? Do you not want me to state my opinion? Do you not think that this is an epic fail? Why should I keep my opinions to myself. I'm just pointing out some political madness.



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 07:20 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


Dude the freaking title...
Seriously can't be that dense.


It's a slam on a group of people. I just think I need to get off ATS this dreg behavior very uncommon but becoming more frequent.

Can you express your opinion without calling all of a group a derogetory name?
If not then no.
edit on 8-1-2012 by ldyserenity because: to add



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 07:22 PM
link   
reply to post by ldyserenity
 


You have a problem with me putting epic fail in the title??? well, I don't know how else to describe it.

I'm not calling the left any names, I'm calling how they view conservatives an epic fail, which it is.


edit on 8-1-2012 by jjf3rd77 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 07:23 PM
link   
The recent earthquake in Ohio was tied to fracking, a very WELL KNOWN problem because it is done on private property and then pollutes surrounding property, was done on private property.
Who is being successfully sued for the repercussions of fracking?

I know it is climate change but thanks to fracking on private land, our water catches on fire up here.
edit on 8-1-2012 by Kafternin because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 07:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Tea4One
 

Dear Tea4One,

Thank you for your response, it does clarify your thinking for me, I'm grateful for that.

If I may ask two more questions about the implementation of this belief? One, is the old question of incentives.

Why should anyone do any work, if the property that is produced thereby can be taken at any moment? Certainly they can be forced to do it, but forced labor with no property rights seems to be very close to slavery. If you see a distinction, I'd be glad to know of it.

My second question is a little more theoretical. It comes from your comment:

The people who would own that cup would be everyone.
This confuses me even more. Surely, you can't mean it exactly as you have written it.

Suppose I create a large, beautiful statue, and decide I want to trade it to my neighbor for food. I can't believe that there would be a nationwide vote on the proper disposition of that statue. Wouldn't the actual procedure would be that some minor local official would take possession of it in the name of "the People," then decide what to do with it?

By any standard, wouldn't that official own it? What if the regional official hears of this statue and decides that for the good of "the People" it should be transferred to his office. And, so on up the chain until we see that the owner of everything is not 'the People," but the one person in charge. Haven't we seen that happen?

If you're tired of my questions, please just ignore me, but I am honestly confused about how your position would be implemented.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 07:27 PM
link   
reply to post by jjf3rd77
 


"...........Far left liberal Mr. George Monbiot claims that Libertarians and Conservatives deny climate change because they see it as a threat to their private property , "


Sounds like Mr. George Monbiot is Daft . We are supposed to listen to this guys Abnormal thoughts because ? .......



posted on Jan, 8 2012 @ 07:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Tea4One
The connection of private property and global warming is the impact that private ownership can have on the environment in the continuing search for capital. For in a world of common ownership the persons of said world would not need to pollute and destroy peoples homes in order to gain capital.

That's the thinking behind it anyway.



Well , I Guess that makes sense . I see a Solution to the Problem though . 5 Billion People should be Killed in order to Stop the Pollution of Mother Earth . So , how can that be Accomplished ? ..........

edit on 8-1-2012 by Zanti Misfit because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
9
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join