condensation, just dry up

Pretty much right. Although it's called it's called the "Conservative" Party, and not the "Greedy" Party, that's pretty much branding. There's a fundamental difference in views there about people helping themselves and counting on others to do the same, and people looking to make everyone better, even if it means giving up advantages themselves. Curiously, we see this dynamic happen all the time in WebDip with regards to alliances and solo efforts.

this my new symbol '[;-)

I'm sorry if you don't understand the differences between:
1. only helping yourself
2. helping others
3. being forced to help others

i've never done this but i might have my first ever muted thread.

You can see my house from that field. The woods behind is where we get holly at Christmas :).

Young libertarians are so cute.

Old libertarians are so ugly.

Coercive agents can be in the interests of the community. You clearly don't understand the point of my link, James. Until people become perfectly ethical (lol), we need coercive governments to regulate behaviour.

Libertarianism is deluded high school shit.

@Condescension

I like it when the community decides what "coercive agents" there should be, rather than extreme appropriation of such decisions to the federal gov't. I also support preventive measures against Market Failures. My only criticism of socialized healthcare is the fact it has quite a bit of economic burden that it places on a country, and it generally increases poverty rates.

But you can call me a libertarian all you want...

@sly you're kinda missing the point.

I actually don't think conservatives are especially greedy. I think they are naive.

The reality is that most people are greedy, and we need the government to prevent a race to the bottom. See: economic, environmental, criminal regulation.

@James the whole point is that we live in a "global community". The commons of the 21st century are the domain of all mankind. This is why only large-scale governments can regulate it.

If you just have a bunch of cities using their own environmental law, you still get a tragedy of the commons - you have cities competing with each other, rather than people.

Which is better, but still not sufficient.

Also when your OWN link says

"Although commons have been known to collapse due to overuse (such as in over-fishing), many examples exist where communities use common resources prudently without collapse."

perhaps you're participating in pseudo-paraphrasing for your own benefit. who knows?

James.

You are fundamentally misunderstanding my point. My point is not "tragedies of the commons exist, so we're fucked".

My point is that we need to develop new social structures (in the form of government regulations) so we don't all get shrekt.

Because in the status quo, the global community is NOT one of the communities you're referring to.

Trump supports:

Deglobalisation
Nationalism
Arms races
Environmental deregulation

In what way can any of these things be said to respect the commons? Trump is the King of racing to the bottom.

condensation is a deluded little high school shit.

@CAPT mind responding to any of my points or do you just feel like spouting ideology today? :^)

Brad doesn't believe in communal property. So naive! Sad!

In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem. From time to time we've been tempted to believe that society has become too complex to be managed by self-rule, that government by an elite group is superior to government for, by, and of the people. Well, if no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? All of us together, in and out of government, must bear the burden.
Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no responsibility at the other.
You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down
They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.
Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.
overnment exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.

I live in a community property state. thus your point is moot condensation

Can you address any of my points rather than spouting ideology?

I agree, the government shouldn't run your life. But you say the government should be there to protect us; doesn't the government have an obligation to protect communal property, like the environment?

* quotes from Ronald Reagan

Brad....

I don't mean community property as in the marital property laws....

Dude... you have really poor reading comprehension.

Condescension tells Brad not to spout ideology

Brad responds by literally quoting Reagan

:^)

@Condescension

on Trump's desires:
"Deglobalisation" i agree he's a shit. let people do as people want
"Nationalism" stupid concept but so is religion. i'll give him a pass
"Arms races" yes. he is shit
"Environmental deregulation" environmental deregulation is a little overgeneralizing. in the end i kind of agree, but the EPA has been a shit show. type in "orange river, EPA" and see the results.

and now, a rant!

It's funny because the people RESPONSIBLE for global warming and the such ARE the big cities. They have the most massive electricity costs, and everytime they plug their prius in thinking they're saving the earth, they're using energy gotten from fossil fuels in Oklahoma!

So then disproportionately the big-gov't voters are liberals in city who effectively are saying "we need more gov't to regulate ourselves!" Because they never learned self control and it's their constant demand for commodities that's created these gluts.

They keep growing, and somehow it's the small kid in a rural area who says "can we just live as a small community, we've done it for literally over a century now with low crime rates and low pollution and..." but gets roared at NO IT'S NOT POSSIBLE as the eventual march towards a complete globalist society stomps forward.

Like even the Kibbutz in Israel, they're communes, but the can function on a small scale!

The answer is simple: our resources are limited. Cities are using too many resources. We should cut back on Cities. NOPE. We need massive funding of alternative energy programs, even though wind farms and solar panels and dams all have their own protesters saying it's messing up bird migration patters and destroying the environment, and subsidies ALWAYS either 1. FAIL or 2. create monopolies in the industry

Some people turn to Nuclear, but the federal gov't is so inept they haven't even checked like half of our nuclear stockpile of warheads in the last decade to see what condition they're in, so we're way behind on that game.

Using big cities as a prerequisite of something that must be regulated upon must-have is where you're losing me! It's an AWFUL place to live, crime, pollution, no sense of real community, zero nature.

If you want to live in a city, fine. Don't blame the guy sitting out in the middle of nowhere enjoying life on the problems that you created, and then try to take his rights away because of your "global community"

Take the rights of the people in the cities away if they're screwing around with our ecosystem so much. Christ I'm sorry about this rant, it's been a long day.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

You have some reading to do!

if you have seen my previous postings on the environment you can find my answer there. if not either look for them and then comment or not.

Dude... you have really poor reading comprehension.
you have no humor like most liberals. that was a pun, boy!

Decent rant. I don't think you can just wave the environment away by saying it's up to people's individual consumer choices. Again, race to the bottom.

Instead, we need to regulate consumption and industrial production. Which will disproportionate impact urbanites. But which urbanites nonetheless disproportionately support.

People critizing nuclear, wind or solar are all idiots btw. I don't give a shit about some birds. GCC is an existential threat, bird migration patterns are not.

So Brad, when asked to respond to a point, instead:

quotes reagan
makes a dumb joke to handwave an argument
tells me to look somewhere else for his arguments





Greaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat