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

reply to post by ldyserenity

I'd like to hear your thoughts on private property rights. If I grant you that his title offended some, can I then persuade you to participate?

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
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)

I believe she's referring to the fact that you come on here looking to pick fights using broad generalizations. People like you are the reason it's referred to as "Political Madness." You fail to realize that the real enemy is any and all bias and the Right and Left are all equally guilty.

Please open your eyes to the fact that NO ONE in politics is on our side when money is involved. The left, the right, the middle are all corrupt

reply to post by Hawking


Yeah, but in this case it's the left doing it without even asking the republicans why they deny Global Warming. He's just assuming this is the reason. That's called failure in reporting where I come from.

I've played that game before and in this case it's easier to pick sides since the one was so blatantly wrong and ignorant of the other sides concerns.

reply to post by Tea4One

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.

And yet you completely ignored my assertion that you would have very little luck convincing a bear hibernating in a cave that he must share that cave with you. Weeds grow where they please as if it is their property. Flowers, bushes and trees all spread their roots where they are. All creatures, great and small have a notion of property and their right to it.

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by Tea4One

 

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.

And yet you completely ignored my assertion that you would have very little luck convincing a bear hibernating in a cave that he must share that cave with you. Weeds grow where they please as if it is their property. Flowers, bushes and trees all spread their roots where they are. All creatures, great and small have a notion of property and their right to it.

Your right humans are instinctive territorial animals. I personally think we are born with some type of value system, moral system, and therefore capitalistic system. Even bees for instance, although on the surface they appear to be hive like, know that they cannot destroy all of the flowers. Then, they will be left without any honey for their hives. That's a trade system too.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by ldyserenity

 

I'd like to hear your thoughts on private property rights. If I grant you that his title offended some, can I then persuade you to participate?

Well I certainly don't think they're just for the "elite" and the Government...which is the way it is going if the GOP wins...I don't like either the rights being for one group over another, it should be obtainable (KEY WORD THERE) for everyone, not a select few.

And I also agree that killing our environment to have more over another isn't really very smart, even if global warming isn't true, we all can agree Oil Spills and Deforestation isn't a walk in the park either.

Isn't that cute....people still believe in the fairy tale of socialism and a communal society where everyone shares. Too bad they ignore the fact this fairy tale has to be enforced at the end of the barrel of a gun for their utopias to work. But I'm not surprised, since belief in the socialist fable now rides the myth of cataclysmic climate change.

Private property is an inalienable right as far as I am concerned. Humans, like any creature, have the right to their own homes and territory. As they also have the right to defend that which is theirs from interlopers or jackboots trying to seize it. Like, well, any of nature's creatures. And really, I could care less what the moonbats think on the matter.

A bigger crime, however, is the way real environmentalist concerns get overshadowed by people like this bashing the panic button. There are real environmental concerns out there that people need to pay attention to. Running around like Chicken Little everytime the seasons get a little odd and demanding more govornment control is, to say the least, doing nothing for the environment. But this is because these Chicken Littles have their own political agendas, and I am not fooled by the packaging they try to feed it to me in. The left has a well established track record for attacking property rights.

And for the record, I'm not conservative, I hate them too, for different reasons. I'm Libertarian. I oppose any attempts at social engineering or behavior modification, whether it comes from the right or left. When it comes to control and removal of indivdual rights wrapped in the banner of "environmentalism", it's almost always liberals trying it on. The conservatives try to rob your rights in the name of "national security". Both make me want to puke.

This is really ironic! Ron Paul was on Fox this morning discussing how guarding property rights automatically guards all civil rights.

Interesting target for the Dems, don't you think?

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
reply to post by Hawking

 

Yeah, but in this case it's the left doing it without even asking the republicans why they deny Global Warming. He's just assuming this is the reason. That's called failure in reporting where I come from.

I've played that game before and in this case it's easier to pick sides since the one was so blatantly wrong and ignorant of the other sides concerns.

Yeah the only concern that side has is their wallets...oh wait that goes for both sides, at least one is more fair and it's not the GOP.
I rather have people be able to afford property because we have fair laws but the GOP looks to change all the laws to favor one group, the elite. That's what I see.

reply to post by ldyserenity

Dear ldyserenity,

Thanks for sticking with us.

It may be that we just have different meanings for the same words and we're getting confused that way. In the most basic terms I think "property rights" mean the rights to own, possess, transfer, and use some "thing" in whichever way you freely choose.

I agree that we should be able to buy or make something and then have property rights in it, whether elite or not. Government can take property, but ideally (and Constitutionally) it should be for an vital public purpose and the owner should get fair compensation for it. I also believe that the reasons for taking someone's property should be very limited and we should fight against government taking more of our property rights, or any rights for that matter.

Are we pretty much agreed?

With respect,
Charles1952

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)

Ok, I was with the honest debate and idea sharing, but the use of the word "bourgeoisie" this way has me confused. If owning property is not an inalienable right, which I can understand in your comment's context, and feel you have the right to believe, then why this type of insulting phrase for those who do own property.

That reeks of the nastier elements of socialism, and the communistic ideology of suffering that we have seen it turn into everyplace on Earth that it has been attempted.

Or not? Please explain why this insulting aspect has been introduced to a civil discussion.

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by ldyserenity

 

Dear ldyserenity,

Thanks for sticking with us.

It may be that we just have different meanings for the same words and we're getting confused that way. In the most basic terms I think "property rights" mean the rights to own, possess, transfer, and use some "thing" in whichever way you freely choose.

I agree that we should be able to buy or make something and then have property rights in it, whether elite or not. Government can take property, but ideally (and Constitutionally) it should be for an vital public purpose and the owner should get fair compensation for it. I also believe that the reasons for taking someone's property should be very limited and we should fight against government taking more of our property rights, or any rights for that matter.

Are we pretty much agreed?

With respect,
Charles1952

Agreed.
I just don't think also banks should own prperty especially when it comes down to property taxes...How does it go to the bank when it should go to the IRS???

Originally posted by jjf3rd77
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.

There is no such failure of understanding... I think property rights, all things private and wealth
generation are vulnerable to sweeping policies that can change and impact things like pollution.
For one, whats good for business is rarely whats good for the environment. It is more cost
effective to pass off as much cost as possible onto the consumer, the local community and
the environment.


This simple equation is the elephant in the room that conservatives ignore.

Problem X interferes with doctrine/ideology

Solution: pretend there is no such problem, blame the person concerned about the problem
or market the proposed solution as being worse than the problem.


If it is cheaper to pollute and it is bad to interfere with markets or regulate, what option is there
to slow pollution?

Guess what? Business almost always wins, guess who ensures that is the case?

Originally posted by mastahunta
For one, whats good for business is rarely whats good for the environment.

You are basing your whole of your argument on a false maxim. The assumption -- through your use of phrasing and word usage above -- is that the vast and overwhelming (rarely) practices harm the environment.

This also is built upon the notion that companies do not change -- ever. That they will continue practices unless Government forces its hand to do otherwise and they would ignore the natural and open market -- even at the risk of finding no capital nor investors -- due to their practices.

This also doesn't mean that "conservatives" ignore companies that make egregious and blatant environmental impacts nor does it, as you have subtly been implicating, that non-conservatives know what is best for the environment and thus should be able to regulate and control industry.

It is more cost effective to pass off as much cost as possible onto the consumer, the local community and
the environment.

You would be amazed at how much support one finds among "conservatives" and other parties alike that have no problem with and support sound regulation that aims to find a balance -- as opposed to trying to levy an entire natural process onto the backs of ownership of private property; as if all the land were owned by the State, climate change would instantly disappear.

Problem X interferes with doctrine/ideology

Sadly you wish to paint all of conservatives of this yet want to ignore your own elephant in your room -- that you are doing exactly the same thing; ironic.

If it is cheaper to pollute and it is bad to interfere with markets or regulate, what option is there
to slow pollution?

If it is more "environmentally sound", based upon debated and contested data/practices, what option is there other than to proclaim that private ownership practices is the offender and only through State control will pollution be slowed.

That has been what I have gathered from your posts here.

reply to post by jjf3rd77


I'd say property rights has something to do with Climate Change. When you have corporations laying claim of OWNERSHIP to entire regions of the Earth and to any oil or resources there in and then polluting the areas they claim ownership of. And of course this can all be tied into religious viewpoints as well, the idea that man was somehow given Dominion over the Earth by God to do with it as we please. All of these greedy attitudes stem from an anthropocentric viewpoint, a view of humans as being better than everything else, as being special and thus as being allowed to do whatever we want with this planet. Might doesn't make right and our insatiable greed and lust is damaging the Earth, Climate Change or NOT our current path is dangerous to ourselves and the planet.

Reminds me that China entire business is state controlled and they are the largest polluters in the world by which any laws and what government does here is all for nothing.

The current regulations championed by the left has made energy and food more expensive than any other time in history even medicines and healthcare everything cost wise has increased with government intervention.

Of course they spin that as evil corporation which means they outsource which means they are outside of US Federal jurisdiction.

reply to post by neo96


Maybe Representatives of the E.P.A. should take a Trip to China and try to Convince the Chinese Goverment over there to Impose Enviormental Regulations on themselves . The Pollution created in China eventually goes into the Enviorment and travels around the Globe . They won't though , more than likely they would end up in a Chinese Prison and be Branded as Anarchists..........

reply to post by jjf3rd77


Since when does an individual have rights that usurp the detriment and demise of his own existence? So, do we not also have a right to die? Or to get sick? Or to succumb to an illness or accident?

My point is that as much as you can look at it from the standpoint that owning thousands of acres through transfer of wealth or corporate acquisition is an individual right, so too is it a right (or perhaps privilege or inherent quality) of man to be subservient to his environment, be destroyed by it in the long run.

Though, the true reality is that man exists within and as part of his environment, whether he creates a cultural simulation in his mind as a form of escapism or reassurance that he is not part of it - or worse, a delusion that he actually dominates it.

Perhaps if lions or sharks were self aware, they might lord over the savannah or ocean in a similarly disrespectful way. Instead, they only know what they know within the context of their environment and the relationship they hold with other creatures that occupy that same context.

In other words, a few "Masters of the Universe" can keep thinking they're at the top of the game and know what's what, even though they don't. They will get their come-uppance in the end, either by revolt of the masses or self-degradation and destruction of the last functioning ecosystem. At this point, it's just a matter of how they react and the option they choose. Of course, a course of mass control (globalization, if you will) will probably result in the negation of a mass revolt. Then, it will only be a matter of time for ecosystem failure compounds (probably just as exponentially as the technological growth that has fueled this degradation).

Of course, it is also our choice to participate in this same system even though it truly does not benefit us, but I know that that dead horse has been beaten before and I will assume we've all considered that. Maybe all of the considerations and "thinking" should stop and acting should begin - a la Derek Jensen would be the fastest - although since NDAA 2011 has been put into effect - it would probably be somewhat self-destructive to say I'm advocating his beliefs, just rationally acknowledging their existence and "putting it out there".

reply to post by mastahunta


Well first off, businesses have every right to own land as any person does. Sure there are different laws for them and yes, most businesses adhere to environmental laws.

Second, Businesses here in the US cannot produce its own energy because the far left environmentalists want to control our environment. Then they tax our energy to death and tell us we shouldn't be fighting wars in the Middle East for oil. You know what? You can't have it both ways. Either let us drill for oil here, or let us have wars that kill millions of people. I'd choose the oil here!

Yeah, that's right I said it. Drill Baby Drill. I don't see why that's such a bad evil phrase now.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by mastahunta
For one, whats good for business is rarely whats good for the environment.

You are basing your whole of your argument on a false maxim. The assumption -- through your use of phrasing and word usage above -- is that the vast and overwhelming (rarely) practices harm the environment.

No, that is hardly the whole of my argument, it is just a tiny portion of what I observe. But we can
examine industries from oil, nuclear, chemical to paper processing and see that containing costs and waste
are very costly to the bottom line and not good for profit.

This also is built upon the notion that companies do not change -- ever. That they will continue practices unless Government forces its hand to do otherwise and they would ignore the natural and open market -- even at the risk of finding no capital nor investors -- due to their practices.

OK, lets talk about the generation of nuclear energy... Tell me, who pays for the disease caused by the radiological discharge? Explain how the process of generating nuclear energy has changed. Or how the
lack of change has impeded the capital investment in the industry. The radiological event in Japan has
done nothing to dent futures in the industry.

Another nice example is the existence and constant expansion of the Military Industrial complex. Has
the industries ties to death and destruction done anything to halt capital investment? I would think
that if ethics trump profit in this world there would not be any MIC for me to cite. Shall I mention
the coal industry and what their business does to ground water in many parts of the rust belt?

This also doesn't mean that "conservatives" ignore companies that make egregious and blatant environmental impacts nor does it, as you have subtly been implicating, that non-conservatives know what is best for the environment and thus should be able to regulate and control industry.

You started off this response establishing that pollution can be realistically curtailed by investors
or market forces. The act of Mining, Drilling, radiological/chemical synthesis is separate from a
companies mission statement, one is a concept, while the other is a process that has naturally
occurring bi products that have nothing to do with management or policy. Can you provide
several examples where cleaning up and properly containing toxic waste is a net profit line
item?

I think that people who are very excited and focused on industry will champion business over
the environment. The environment is not animated and cannot hire advocates, the environment
does not pay people or sign pay checks either.

You would be amazed at how much support one finds among "conservatives" and other parties alike that have no problem with and support sound regulation that aims to find a balance -- as opposed to trying to levy an entire natural process onto the backs of ownership of private property; as if all the land were owned by the State, climate change would instantly disappear.

Well good, I don't see much evidence of that in the political world of Drill Baby Drill. I never said
that I thought the state would or could reverse climate change. All I am saying is the conservative
body politic is more focused on the market forces, not the bi products of those markets.

Sadly you wish to paint all of conservatives of this yet want to ignore your own elephant in your room -- that you are doing exactly the same thing; ironic.

It is hardly exact, of course, diminishing me with this bogus comparison is a good rhetorical
device. If you are for sound regulation levied upon private forces then I am glad.

If it is more "environmentally sound", based upon debated and contested data/practices, what option is there other than to proclaim that private ownership practices is the offender and only through State control will pollution be slowed.

I'm afraid it sounds like you have reverted to siding with private practices, evoking the same bias I was
referring to with my initial remarks. We have come full circle; unless you are saying that oil/nuclear
and petrochemical industries have a great track record of responsibly self regulating their toxic bi product
I am not sure what force will slow pollution, when that pollution is extremely expensive to counteract.