Comments by "PM" (@pm71241) on "Trump, Cruz, Abortion, and Climate Change | Steven Crowder | COMEDY | Rubin Report" video.

  1. +Stratahoovius Believe me ... finding out that fellow libertarians could deploy science denial as absurd as that of creationists have come as a chock to many on the "right" too. (not so surprised about conservatives, but libertarians was really a disappointment) Way too many people seem to think they can solve a problem by denying its existence and that the scientific facts are in some way a threat to their ideology, so the have to deny them. ... at the same time, it's the absolute most idiotic reaction they can have if they really want to prevent an authoritarian future. How do they expect people to react when they realize that they have been lied to and climate change is real and dangerous?? ... During WW2 the government took over large part of industry and people accepted it, because the situation was dire. When people realize just how bad a situation the deniers have helped create, they'll accept much more draconian means to control the situation. Not only climate it self, but also the conflicts it causes. If we end up in a totalitarian martial law situation as a result of not doing anything to address climate change when the scientists first warned against it - we know who to blame: The deniers.
    4
  2. +Chris G If you are not on the right side of the argument, being louder is a way to compensate.
    4
  3. Matthew Morris What "philosophy" ? ... denying scientific facts? I have no patience for science denial.
    4
  4. ***** "Maybe it's because the only solution leftists propose is massive government takeover of the economy and every aspect of our lives? .......maybe??" ... maybe if the right stopped trying to "solve" the problem by denying its' existence and actually came up with serious proposals for a real effective solution, the initiative wouldn't be left to the left ? ... maybe ??
    2
  5. Matthew Morris Pure nonsense... Crowder is wrong - and so are you. Nothing in you post was true.
    2
  6. ***** "How does it help the environment to line the pockets of politicians?" That's not the proposal. No revenue should go to politicians. Everything should be returned to the public. https://citizensclimatelobby.org/carbon-fee-and-dividend/ The intent is not to "fund" anything. The intent is to fix the market error of negative externalities when burning fossil carbon.
    1
  7. ***** Just as voluntary as in general obeying the basic libertarian principle that your freedom only extends so far as to not interfere with the equal freedom of others.
    1
  8. ***** First of all: I honestly don't know what you think the strawman is. I don't assume that you are the entire right, so when I said that "the right" should stop trying to solve the problem by denying its existence, I was obviously pointing at a general phenomenon. I do assume you agree with me that there actually exists plenty of climate science deniers on the right? Just pick the first snowball throwing senator you can think of for an example. Secondly ... I don't assume you deny the science if that's what you were hinting at.  Though I do believe that the rejection of all proposed solution does put a burden on you to suggest an actual working solution you would be fine with. (And no - failure to solve this problem is NOT an option - given the science) Thirdly ... I'm a classical liberal. Geo-liberal to be more precise. So no - I'm not "switching over to your side" more than that I've been libertarian all the time. I didn't say that the government should stay the hell out of this particular problem. I don't know where you got that from. First of all: IT'S NOT A SOLUTION Secondly... I tried to make you understand that government actually DO have a role in society. Most basically, the government is needed to enforce the basic libertarian principle that your freedom only extends so far as to not interfere with the equal freedom of others. If you don't believe that - I wouldn't regard you as classical liberal, but rather some kind of anarchist. (a strain of thought which have poisoned liberalism and gives it a bad reputation IMHO) Point being... you actually DO interfere with the freedom of others if you ruin the habitability of the planet they live on.
    1
  9. ***** > I couldn't have been more clear. I provided ample quotes to illustrate your obvious strawman. Well... except. What you quoted was about "the right" in general. Not about you. >>"I didn't say that the government should stay the hell out of this particular problem." >I'm getting sick of responding to your points, only to have you deny the points you just made. But. I simply didn't say that. Could you please give an EXACT quote where I said that? You don't expect me to adopt positions you invent for me, do you? I mean... you have just accused me of using strawmen.!! >>"IT'S NOT A SOLUTION" >No, I never said it was. I didn't say, that you said that. I just wanted to point it out that you still owe a proposed alternative solution. >... to create massive socialistic tyranny isn't, itself a "solution" You are the only one talking about socialism here. What I proposed is NOT socialism. > I'm seeking common ground here on the most basic and obvious point I can find. If the patient is sick, he needs a doctor, not a fucking politician!!!!!!! So - as I pointed out above - please suggest a doctor, a diagnose and a cure. > If we agree on the disease, then we should be able to agree that punching him in the face and injecting him with the plague at least won't HELP him to recover!!!!! Bad analogies and appeal to emotion brings the discussion no where. ------------------------------------ > Having said all of that, I'm happy to hear you're a libertarian. In that case, we can agree that if a person makes a mess, they and only they can be charged with cleaning it up. Sure ... which is fully compliant with what I propose. > So if an oil tanker spills off our southern coast, the person or company that spilled the oil must be held legally to clean up the mess. That's as basic as it gets, it's moral and it's the proper role for government. Again - fully compliant with what I propose. > Taxing stuff like "carbon emissions" Just to be clear: I didn't advocate taxing carbon emissions, but rather adding fossil carbon to the carbon cycle. (which is simpler and addreses the problem directly) > ...is so disconnected from the actual issue No it's not. I directly addresses the "mess" you were talking about above. To say otherwise would be in confict with the science. >.. and it DOES IN FACT line the pockets of politicians No it doesn't. It goes directly to the public. Have you read the proposal? > (where the fuck do you think "TAXES" go!?!?!) This one goes directly to the public as a dividend. Why do you think it's called "fee-n-dividend" ? No money goes to government. It does in no way increase the overall tax burden. > and doesn't even accomplish the basic point I outlined in the above paragraph, namely, the one that makes the mess cleans it up or compensates the damaged parties. It does... you just don't know what the "mess" is in this situation. > So if a company is belching smog into the air, the people affected either accept it, or sue for damages or accept some payout. It makes no sense to sue for damages in this situation. First of all. You cannot identify a single company/person or group of such to sue for a specific consequence. Secondly. The problem will remain and keep causing further damage for several thousands of years. The "mess" here is not the water in my basement as a result of sea level rise. It's the extra fossil carbon in the atmosphere.
    1
  10.  @john-waynetyler4139  Well ... I'm not the one who spend time counting them. My life is fine thanks... I'm more concerned about yours.
    1
  11. No... actually ...scratch that ... I don't give a f*ck about that.
    1