No! er..Yes! I mean... I never did beat my wife!
As I said, if you think taxes = theft then there is not much for you and I
to discuss. BTW, who paid for all that infrastructure you are using to post
here? How long have you been a thief?
Who surveyed your plot? Maybe he thinks it is his land. Anyway, I have
trouble believing that any intelligent person can truly believe that a
society bigger than one person can exist without some form of government.
But we probably need to define "society" "government" and "exist" before
this can be a fruitful discussion.
Well since you hardly exist in a world without gov't, you are no living
proof of successful living without it, anecdotes about gov't imposed
Nice rhetorical device. But is that a yes?
I agreed to this arangment, so no, it does not bother me very much.
I would either not agree to this, or I would be sure to never get within 10
km/hr of the speed limit.
Fine, I bit, and read it. It is not relevant, or rather you are taking it
far beyond what it truly means. No one has once mentioned charity in this
thread, and certainly Colonel Crocket did not argue as you do that there is
no place for law and order in a free society. Nor did he argue that
taxation is theft.
Bullshit. If you breakdown my front door and yell at me how my posts are
garbage and I should be shot for them, I *will* have you thrown in jail.
You are constructing arguments from some philisophical fantasy world.
I wish you would actually address one of my points on its merits, instead of
just saying it is wrong.
Fine. You're not. But as you are obviously not an idiot, you and I must
have differing definitions of what it means to be free. You first.
I demand that you do not spit in my face. Am I given only your word that
you don't feel like doing that as my only protection, while you however
claim you are free to do so at any time? You keep doing this, I am talking
about you not being free to do me harm and you keep making it out like I'm
asking you for a hand out.
It is entirely of the concern of those you chose, sorry, this is reality.
This may well be true, but you are arguing that too much something is bad
therefor no something is good. This is not logically supportable.
Call me a cynic, but your word is not good enough for me. I want fair laws
and access to fair court systems in case you do not keep your promise. You
may use the same to hold me to mine.
uh... you do see that I said you are *not* an idiot, don't you?
Look. I'm honestly trying to understand what you are saying. You keep
saying your freedom is absolute and I have no rights to restrict you in any
way, whatsoever. Don't you? If this is how you feel, then you are nothing
but a menace to me and I have to either keep a gun by my side at all times
or just trust that you're a good fellow. That is not my idea of utopia,
sorry, if it is yours all the best, please stay on your island.
I am not scared of freedom (though I still don't really know what you mean
by it). I am not afraid of responsibility either, nor do I take mine
lightly. I am afraid of the people who do not understand that freedom
without responsibility is dangerous. I am afraid of people who value their
own freedom over the rights of others.
Please get the point. It *is* my business if you choose to associate with
Yes. Slavery and theft are bad on their own merits, not becuase too much of
it is a bad thing. You have tried to support your claim that taxes are bad
because too much taxes are bad. Regulations are bad because too many
regulation are bad. That is not logical. Why is it not just a question of
The courts indeed have major problems. But even the most cursory
examination of history or world affairs indicates you are probably wrong
about this. Do you know of any societies past or present that had no laws?
I would be interested to know the details.
But by your arguments, I am free to choose otherwise and you have no right
to stop me. You have the freedom to try to stop me, but where is your
right? You fail because I am big and strong, or just fast and well armed,
and too bad so sad, my freedom, your loss. Now your house is mine, I am
free to take it, you are gone.
Where have I misunderstood you?
No, that's anarchy. Society gets to tell you you cannot rob a bank, drive
through a red light, or dump toxic waste upstream of me. If your idea of
freedom is so warped that you disagree with this, your option is to leave this
society. There are no fences keeping you here.
If you're a member of this society, we collectively do.
That's why everybody ignores all laws, right?
Your definition of theft and slavery are warped big time.
See above comment.
Let's be clear: You're an extremist who doesn't fit in society.
Yeah, let's get rid of those "restictions" against robbing banks too!
We're also living much closer to others. As I said, if you want total
freedom, move to a desert isle.
From what I've seen of "global warming" we aren't going to get an answer
until it happens and we can stand around and point at it. Of course, we may
not have an answer then. For an example of that, see the "see, we told you
Y2K wasn't going to be a problem and YOU spent billions of dollars 'fixing'
it. neener neener" people.
Are you sure that he isn't arguing that we have too much of a bad thing?
What? You're not in favor of the legal fiction of an immortal "person"
with no sense of pain or other punishment, the human decisionmakers of
which are not liable for the direct results of their actions? Gee, what
could be wrong with that concept? Let us not forget that the
corporation gained popularity as a means of stripping the New World of
its wealth as efficiently as possible with a minimum of risk to the
individuals deriving the benefits. The general concept certainly seems
to thrive in any number of venues, once the wealth of the Americas had
been safely divvied up.
unfortunately, neither of these statements is anywhere near true.
volcanism emits several orders of magnitude more co2 anually than
anthropogenic, and it is *not* well quantified, it is a little tough to
study an erupting volcano.
The difference is that the eco-system is used to handling
outgassing volcanos, and this was a system in balance. now along comes
man with an additional 2-3% co2 emissions annually, that was applied on
a geologically negligible timescale (read "the eco-system is NOT used
to it"). 2-3% applied continuously for 50 years = 100% increase in
atmospheric co2. Nuff said
Bill, I will grant you it is not well quantified only because I am not an
expert and do not feel it is important to argue about. But as for your
numbers, all I can do is give you a reference to support my assertion and
ask what you source is. I have not dane any such studies of volcanic
outgassing myself, but from the web page I cited above:
Present-day carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from subaerial and submarine
volcanoes are uncertain at the present time. Gerlach (1991) estimated a
total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr from volcanoes. This is a
conservative estimate. Man-made (anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this
estimate by at least 150 times"
I can not tell you how authoritative this source is, but absent something
better from you I suggest it stands for the time being. I wonder if you are
not attributing all CO2 emissions from life, land and ocean to volcanoes.
What's nowhere near true is your rebuttal.
From the link above:-
"Gerlach (1991) estimated a total global release of 3-4 x 10E12 mol/yr
from volcanoes. This is a conservative estimate. Man-made
(anthropogenic) CO2 emissions overwhelm this estimate by at least 150
This is corroborated in a 1995 study that extrapolated a value in the
range of 2-3 x 10E12 mol/yr
"Measured carbon dioxide emissions from Oldoinyo Lengai
and the skewed distribution of passive volcanic fluxes",
Susan L. Brantley Kevin W. Koepenick
The ratio you try to refute is also supported by:-
"Carbon dioxide emissions from volcanoes total around 110 million tons
per year, but this number is extremely small if compared to the 10
billion tons put into the atmosphere by human activities. "
Time to stand behind your post with something better than BS (bill
sez) as froof.
What kind of fantasy is this? No more Lovelock for you before
You just tried to slip in incremental CO2 (as a function of total GHs)
when the discussion is CO2 sources. Lame.
Snuff head on your response, bonzo.
There's one for the comic column - 'the eco-system is not used to it.'
Got any data for volcanoes putting out 'magnatudes' more that
human-sourced 8 Gt's a year of CO2? Please include the approx amount
in your reply.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.