Gee stari.... You're making my points for me now!


I agree there is nothing natural about the internal combustion engine, but oil most certainly is a natural substance made by the Earth. I don't see much difference between processing mother natures oil than processing mother natures wood or rocks that we melt for out metals.

I'm sure neither of us wants to return to the stone age. I imagine that the furnace was developed over thousands of years and even the most elementary one would pollute even if it burned wood.

So humanity is into all kinds of unnatural activities that permit us to feed ourselves on an industrial scale and to get rid of the waste we produce on same said industrial scale.

The question begs of why your neighbor can stop you from shitting in his yard but he can't stop Dow chemical from doing the same thing......

It's because the law became convoluted when the state permits the common good to supersede individual property rights.

What if all the law did was protect property rights? Then the same law that prevents you from shitting in your neighbors yard will prevent Exxon Oil and Dow Chemical from shitting in his yard too!

In Lew Rockwell's world, protecting property rights is the only duty of the state...not looking out for the so-called public good.

See, politicians can be bought, that's why the government ought to be limited.

The notion that there ought to be more regulations on polluters makes about as much sense as saying there ought to be more regulations on drug use..... the laws just make things worse... every new one bringing more power to the state and less power to the owners of private property.

The Soviet Union and the Eastern block countries were by far more polluted than the West. There was never a shortage of laws, rules and regulations that had the common good superseding any private property rights in the Eastern bloc.

So Lew Rockwell protecting your property rights above whatever someone else thinks is the common good would be the best way to reduce pollution or compensating those who suffered from someone else shitting all over them.... you just can't shit on the next door neighbor when the state protects private property rights for everybody, including the person who owns the river.

Remember in Lew Rockwell's world, all real estate is privately owned with the state held to whatever small parcels of land needed for administration and that is all. The Government of the United State and Canada own by far more land than the total owned by private interests. When the majority can have its way with the minority....injustice will occur because that majority figures they are all powerful and can shit wherever they damn well please no matter what you the private guy has to say.

Individualism must supersede authoritarianism if we the people are to keep the polluters responsible for disposing of their shit.

"I don't see much difference between processing mother natures oil than processing mother natures wood or rocks that we melt for out metals."

Growing hemp for ethanol would result in carbon sequestration - oil wells can't do that.

Hemp ethanol doesn't result in oil spills or oil wars, either. An "ethanol spill" would evaporate ... and hemp can grow anywhere - even in sand - so no country could monopolize the market.

"I don't see much difference between processing mother natures oil than processing mother natures wood or rocks that we melt for out metals."

- processing isn't the greatest concern...burning fossil fuels is the greatest concern...processing fuel is like making bullets - exxon doesn't have to worry about their products killing people and destroying the planet because they aren't pulling the triggers...we need regulation and laws to discourage the burning of fossil fuels and encourage greener alternatives (which may or may not be natural)



"What if all the law did was protect property rights? Then the same law that prevents you from shitting in your neighbors yard will prevent Exxon Oil and Dow Chemical from shitting in his yard too! In Lew Rockwell's world, protecting property rights is the only duty of the state."

- in lew rockwell's environmentally unregulated and lawless world, the burden of proof of harm, aggression, and causality still exist...it is very difficult to prove those things after pollution from many sources is released into the general commons, and so the public gets stuck with the tab and the diseases despite any claims lew rockwell makes to the contrary



"See, politicians can be bought, that's why the government ought to be limited."

- no, that's why we need separation of politics from corporatism the same way we need separation of church and state



"The notion that there ought to be more regulations on polluters makes about as much sense as saying there ought to be more regulations on drug use."

- that doesn't make sense, but not for the reason you imply...drug use is a personal choice that doesn't cause direct harm to others...pollution is harmful and it is forced upon EVERYONE



"the laws just make things worse... every new one bringing more power to the state and less power to the owners of private property."

- so we take away the laws and the owners of private property are supposed to protect themselves by ??? with ???...the people with no private property just have to suck it up...dow chemical has billions of dollars and teams of attack lawyers that can delay and pervert justice to the extent that it is not accessible to ordinary owners of private property...we need stronger laws and more importantly, stringent enforcement...a large corporation can dump pollution into the commons and treat the tax deductible fine as a regular operating expense when it comes due ten years later...under your imaginary libertarian system, we wouldn't even have that protection...dow chemical could fight each individual private property court case with photocopied submissions faxed to the individual judges for YEARS until the court costs outweigh the value of the private property and bankrupt the victim



"The Soviet Union and the Eastern block countries were by far more polluted than the West."

- the government owned the industry so the government was the polluter



"Lew Rockwell protecting your property rights above whatever someone else thinks is the common good would be the best way to reduce pollution or compensating those who suffered from someone else shitting all over them"

- only if i have enough money, and only if my private property is worth more than the cost of defending it from polluters, and only if i can prove direct harm, direct causality, and direct liability...once the pollution from multiple sources gets into the commons, it is extremely difficult to prove anything...therefore for almost all property owners, lew rockwell is protecting nothing...we need regulations and laws to stop the pollution from getting into the commons in the first place



"Individualism must supersede authoritarianism if we the people are to keep the polluters responsible for disposing of their shit."

- and what are we supposed to do when the individuals are the authoritarians? in the eyes of the law, corporations are legal persons (who can have immortal life, immunity from imprisonment, and the wealth of nations)...we need authority over those paper 'individuals' lest we become their subjects

And no consequences for planting fields full of the stuff and crops don't need to be rotated...

There is no law against growing and processing hemp in Canada anymore. So far as I know anybody without a record can apply, then have it er.

Manitoba is in fact the largest hemp producer in Canada and we are just waiting for the world to come on down and buy our products.... Only thing is a pair of hemp jeans goes for about $80 when cotton jeans can be had for $20.

What turns hemp into ethanol? Electricity or gas?

Or you just leave hemp in the field and the sun does all the work?

I know the government lied about corn.... We saw the consequence of subsidizing corn for ethanol... prices went up for corn and the poor in Mexico suffered.... no one saw that consequence coming.... Even at that, it was reported that when all the costs are added up, it was simply cheaper to burn processed oil rather than processed corn.

Anyway, I'm sure the first thing a hemp farmer would do is become self-sufficient in fuel..... a farmer with a free source of energy would soon be putting anyone paying for fossil fuels out of business.

Are there laws forbidding turning hemp into fuel?

Yes, sure. Nobody said otherwise, and that is no reason to rule anything out either. Everything in science is a PROBABILITY. There is no such thing as 100% confidence. The real problem is in using secondary resources, especially in a scientific descussion. They include both the biases of the researchers, as well as of the journalist. The result is non-additive...so when you have 2 biases combined the information becomes exponentially clouded.



A very poor argument bro....I would say that it's not the scientists that "give" us addiction, or any other "hooey"...it's the people who use the work of scientists, or pay them, to do wrong that are the problem.




This argument has been countered over and over and over again. I'm sure that if the present climate change was just like any other historical climate change, the scientists who work on this stuff would have came to that conclusion by now....there is obviously something unusual going on.



In regards to central planning, sure I care what an economist like Reisman says. But this is a debate over a scientific topic...not central planning.



kinda...ya...but that doesn't mean an economist can tell you whether or not anthropogenic climate change is real.



They've been sounding them for decades. The first OBVIOUS thing to do would be to stop arguing with them....start with yourself first....re-evaluate your NEEDS and WANTS. If you do your part you'll probably influence others around you. Use less, eat local, eat in season, alternative transportation, writing government, influence your workplace, and the list goes on.



You've gotta be kidding me! Nobody growing anything but organic?? Hardly...it's the opposite....GMO's are spreading throughout the world. The reason why you don't notice it is because Monsanto and others Corps rallied together to fight against legislature that would have made labeling GMO's mandatory...thanks to that there's no way of know just how much of our food is GMO. This surprises me Chris, considering the thread "The world According to Monsanto" in which you were so active in. You don't seem to have much knowledge concerning the state of global food crops bro.



Because I have no clue what "pure Interventionism" is...or that there even is such a thing. You're the only one talking about "interventionism" anyways.



No, that statement is incorrect...I think you need to look up "pure communism".

"Stateless communism is the ideal, post-socialist stage of society which Karl Marx predicted would inevitably follow the historical stages of capitalism and socialism."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stateless_communism




Nope, but this has the same problem that the idea of "laissez-faire" capitalism can solve the problem of climate change. How do you account for the harm I do to future generations? How do you draw connections between one action and another when there may be large spatial and temporal gaps between the two?



So tell me...how did Napoleon aquire that land? The french certainly weren't native to North America were they?

You're confused Chris. Since when does "environmentalism" mean "conservatism"??

That's genius Chris...by the same logic one could assert that there is a conncection between murder rates and ice-cream purchase rates....since both rise with higher temperatures.



That's not the issue...what's done is done...and what was done was a positive step for humanity. What the issue is, is hanging on to old technology (the fuel driven combustion engine) by force via the work of Big Buisness and others. The issue is smothering more efficient technologies for profit.



I'm sorry Chris, but you can't just pull correlations out of your ass. How about all the people under the age of 30 who are getting cancer, at higher rates than ever.

Huh? It's the opposite if anything. It's because the international bankers and corporations used their power to convolute a law that sought to assure newly free'd black slaves of their rights, in order for corporations to gain legal status as a person.

None of this solves the problem of "what if I shit in your yard, but you don't notice till there's no way to trace it back to me"....which would compare to the usual case.



Huh..putting who out of buisness? Other farmers? Well, no....because a farmer who uses his land to grow his own fuel loses that land to growing crops for profit. So explain how a hemp farmer puts a corn farmer out of buisness again?

That's all called central planning, social engineering and regimentation.

Why not let the empowered people chose what form of fuel they prefer instead of dictating what must be?

Sounds like the people who run Exxon have no children so they don't worry about future generations or killing their own children, the cold hearted bastards eh!

We don't need laws, we need leaders like Obama to convince people .... that I can support.... but laws that tell people what they must use to clean their homes or to cook their foods, I can't see those kinds of laws doing any better than the laws that are now in place to support corporations.



On the contrary.... Finding the source of pollution proves to be easy and measurable too. There is no general commons in the Libertarian world.... it's all privately owned by persons since there will be no incorporation laws.


I'm all for separation of the government from the economy... no incorporation laws or special privileges for anybody!

The government simply keeps us from killing each other... whatever economic dealing we have with each other ought to concern only those persons involved in the business transaction.



When you are filling up your car, turning up the thermostat and buy plastic products with your hard earned money, that is all voluntary and none of it is forced on anybody!

Once more convince people to abstain from voluntarily purchasing those product and more importantly offer them pollution free alternative and the world will beat a path to your door.....
Then you become like billionaire T. Boone Pickens and you can promote whatever form of energy all your money will buy!



Private property right which the government or you personally protect. If Exxon shits on you, then you shit on Exxon's owners property and that is that, Smith and Wesson making everybody equal.

In a state of anarchy, it is the criminals and the bullies that get shot first. How long you suppose the Hell's Angels would last in a lawless world? No longer than a day because the peace lover would gather to put the criminals in their graves tout suite.

The executives of Exxon would be afraid to fart on your property let alone come by to pollute it. If Exxon became the Hell's Angles.... they would be the first to be put in their graves in a lawless society too. You survive by minding your own business and keeping your hands to yourself in a lawless society.



Nope.... all you need is the silver tongue of a Barrack Obama to come along and convince people that your way is better! And Obama started with a lot less money than just about everybody else running for President.... the people believed and filled his coffers with $5, $10 or whatever they could afford.... a lot of corporations supported Obama too.....




Simple enough.... remove any special privileges the law grants corporations and that is that.... It is the consumers who will thereafter decide who gets rich and who goes broke, who pollutes and who doesn't and everything else by voting with their dollars on every product and service humanity will dream of offering each other to improve our standard of living.

And none of it's new...you don't think large corporations acting with help from government to control the market is a form of "central planning"? Well what is then!




Well, what makes you think a lot of them DON'T have children...I don't think execs and CEO's are winning the award for top parents. There's also ignorance...what if they think like you...that what they do will not negatively effect future generations?



HAHAHA...ya..right...again I'm surprised Chris, for a guy who listens to Ron Paul, you sure seem to miss the mark. Tell me, what are Dr. Paul's thoughts on Obama? Is it that he's the same old thing maybe?



Obama is nothing new...he's had a SHIT LOAD of money for some time now...you're being fooled Chris. You've been missing Dr. Paul's message. You are right about corporations supporting Obama though...the same ones support both Obama and McCain...doesn't that seem kind of odd?