Mustachianism as Libertarian or Progressive OR a Little of both??

[PeachFuzzInVA]

I have a question for everyone involved in this thread:

Is it ok to initiate force against another human being?

[Annamal]

I have a question for everyone involved in this thread:

Is it ok to initiate force against another human being?

That's a question so broad as to be almost meaningless, for example pushing someone out of the way of falling masonry is definitely initiating force against them as is snatching up a todler before it runs into a busy street.

[austin]

I have a question for everyone involved in this thread:

Is it ok to initiate force against another human being?

Yes. Better to avoid it, though. Why?

[Bob W]

"The sovereign CSA!"  Ha!

Sounds like we have a Neo-Confederate in Libertarian's clothing....

What are your thought's on the voting right's act Mr Werner?

You may want to bone up on your history regarding the lawful withdrawal of the southern states from the "Federation."   

This thread has mentioned the use of government force and guns in oppressing the people.   I really can't think of a more oppressive act than killing 25% of the adult male population of the independent CSA.   

I mentioned this to point out that the government does and will use guns against people very often.   Property seizure, bank account seizure, imminent domain and blatant disregard for constitutional rights are activities the government engages in thousands of times per day.   And yes this is all done with the threat of prison at the barrel of a gun. 
 
The government has not right to your property.  Period.  Just because 51% of my neighbors get together and vote to take my property does not make it right.   

[scrnplyr]

This is a great topic because as much as MMM tries to avoid spilling the beans on his personal politics, it's clear that he veers a certain way - any 1st year poly sci major can spot the earmarks a mile away. I fully understand why he chooses not to force his politics to the forefront of the MMM persona since it would clearly distract from the excellent goals he has laid out and cause many potential followers to analyze MMM from a purely political paradigm. Having said that, in the real world politics are ever-present and I can see how both parties would find much of what he says antithetical to their core beliefs and policies.

Having said that, I believe there are some inherent contradictions in the socialist/liberal economic model vs. the MMM philosophy.  The first and foremost contradiction is holding people accountable for their economic behavior and decisions. Liberal gov't does not act frugally and does not (usually) impose sanctions for bad economic behavior. The American welfare system is a prime example where bad behavior and bad decisions are actually rewarded and incentivized.  I am happy to state that I have been a lifelong Democrat and yet I disagree with most of what the Dem party allows to happen in terms of social/economic policy when they are in power - esp in terms of trying to help people advance economically. Without admitting that success is 95% the responsibility of the individual and NOT the state, the DEMS are simply lying to the majority of people who now expect the gov't to provide them with "success". I disagree with 98% of Republican social policy, but agree with most of their economic outlook as relates to individuals and small business.

Dems tend not to hold people accountable and use gov't policy to act as a income determiner or worse an income redistributor.  Repubs tend to criticize ANY social welfare, but embrace corporate welfare as "good for the economy". In truth both parties seem to have no real interest in helping people achieve real economic success. 

If there was a 3rd party that would combine the best of both of the 2 major parties, I would join in a second. I sometimes vote Libertarian because at the end of the day, they pretty much espouse what I believe.  The problem as we all know, is that most Americans and most corporations are too afraid of change to trust a 3rd party esp one so radical as to actually trust people to do the right thing for themselves.

[austin]

I really can't think of a more oppressive act than killing 25% of the adult male population of the independent CSA. 

What about chattal slavery. You know, the institution the indepedent CSA was fighting to protect.

[davef]

Really? No love for Conservatives as in "conserve?"

One of the labels I like best is "Crunchy conservative" or "Crunchy con" for short and I identify with that, although it's nearly impossible for me to find fault with libertarian ideals.

One of the "tenets" of "conservatives" in the US is religion. Many of us (on this website) are Atheist/Agnostic. Also, please don't take this as an attack, but many times when Christians use the word "Family", they mean it almost as an explicit attack on accepting homosexuality.

A quick google search shows that that is likely the case for Rod Dreher.

No way. I myself am fiscally conservative, and lean right on political issues because I believe in individual accountability. I am not religious, Im Agnostic.
I get sick and tired of hearing about the meadia hyped link between conservatives and religion. That is as ignorant as linking being a Democrat  to being a minority. True, the majotiy of religious people may be republican, much like the majority of minorites seem to be  democratic. But that doesn't mean most progressives are minorities OR most republicans are religious.

I believe like the liberatarians:
All people should have equal rights, but the government only makes things worse through afirmative actions and the stalled equal pay through equal work act (which would have destroyed America because it was so poorly written).
In full disclusure within reason from the federal government, Audit the FED!
I believe our foreign policy should be severely curtailed and we should help where requested and where practicable abroad. No more CIA.
I believe that limits of one americans citizen's freedoms should no no bounds excpet the limits of the freedoms of another, and laws put in place to preserve such.


Like Democrats:
I believe in the sparation of church and state
I believe the subsities for big oil needs to go away, but as should the subsidies for all excpet research on clean energy.
I'm ok with gay marriage but am not a big fan that they are teaching kids about it in 1st grade.
I'm ok with abortion, though I agree no one (or company) should ever be forced to pay or provide abortions if they are not.
I'm all for stricter laws in certain area of business, but they need to make sense in the grand scheme of things. The common sense rule has not been applied.
I believe in immigration reform, but not amnesty. If you are over 18, serve 4 years in the service. thats the price of citizenship. Obviously everyone isnt cut out for the battlefield, but there are plenty of support positions avaiable and we could come up with many more. If you are under 18 and did not come over with somone who is there should be a path involving good grades and 0 convictions. I dont mean no felonies, I mean carving your name in a park bench gets you deported.
I'm all for import tarriffs on ANY country that does not have equivelant Labor standards, Occupational safety standards, minimum wages, and environmental laws. Put business on a level playing field. Note: Obana said he would do this in 2008 and in 2012 when he was up for election both times. He has not even proposed a law to that effect.
I'm all for a national health care system, but I believe the current system is very poor.

Like republicans
I believe those who lost their homes in the most recent down turn over leveraged themselves, took a gamble and lost. They did it to themselves and it is not the duty of the government to bail them out.
I believe those that built their house below sea level in flood plains, or in hurricane prone areas, without protection or insurance also took a gamble and lost and it is not the duty of the government to bail them out.
I believe regulation can stifel innovation. Ive seen it first hand in my work. Regulations need to be propagated by regulators that understand the blowback potential of laws they promugate.
I believe english is our national language, and it should remain that way. If you come here from another country you can bring your culture, and your traditions, but you will be expected to assimilate into our society, and that means you have to learn some things, including english. Do not expect us to cater to your language, or enforce your law, or permit your religious docerine if it violates our law, e.g. honor killings.

I just wish for once we could get a middle of the road candidate!     

[ThriftyD]

Dems tend not to hold people accountable and use gov't policy to act as a income determiner or worse an income redistributor.  Repubs tend to criticize ANY social welfare, but embrace corporate welfare as "good for the economy". In truth both parties seem to have no real interest in helping people achieve real economic success. 

If there was a 3rd party that would combine the best of both of the 2 major parties, I would join in a second. I sometimes vote Libertarian because at the end of the day, they pretty much espouse what I believe.  The problem as we all know, is that most Americans and most corporations are too afraid of change to trust a 3rd party esp one so radical as to actually trust people to do the right thing for themselves.

Well said, scrnplyr.  Crony capitalism and corporate bailouts also don't hold people (or corporations) accountable in the same way welfare often doesn't hold people accountable. 

I admit, back in '08, the young and foolish me was on board with the bailouts, reasoning, "well...if we don't bail them out, our entire economy will tank and we'll all be screwed!"  Now, my mindset is...let companies, banks, etc be successful based on their own merits: quality services, quality product, quality employee/environmental/community practices.  Success shouldn't hinge on who's got the deepest pockets to pay the best lobbyists or who's got a buddy or former executive now in congress. 

Political policies implemented to prop up jobs or economic sectors that normally are against our greater best interest or that would otherwise fall to the wayside  impede on efficient free markets.  Companies and sectors that benefit from military activity (i.e. the Military Industrial Complex) are great examples.  Sadly and maybe not intentionally, executives and employees that work in for companies in this sector (Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Oshkosh Truck etc) rely on global conflict to ensure that military widgets continue to get produced.  War causes more stress, anger, destruction and more monetary cost to countries than anything else but it sure pays well. 
   

[scrnplyr]

THRIFTY,

my thoughts exactly.  I remember back in 08 thinking I would lose a lot of money if so and so bank were to default or the car industry failed and the ripples would ruin my investments and my financial goals etc etc. and then one day I thought - F it...if we are truly a capitalist economy (I know we're a mixed model, but theoretically) then let the chips fall where they may. I WANT these corporate dead woods to crumble and move out of the way for new economic models and new products. 

The thing that's still great about our economy is there are enough people and good ideas out there that they will spring anew after a fire has wiped out the dead wood.

I just don't understand why our gov't refuses to use a common sense approach to helping people succeed.  The irony of crony capitalism and crony socialism and good old fashioned vote buying/entitlements is that most of the people who support and espouse those policies DID NOT USE THEM TO SUCCEED. They worked hard and succeeded on their own and yet they don't trust
the average person to do the same.  I'll never understand that.

[prof61820]

Is it ok to initiate force against another human being?

Yes, of course.  Otherwise you're arguing that we should have just let Hitler (and slave owners) do their thing...

[prof61820]

P.S. Apparently there would be slavery in a Libertarian world...who knew

Ahh yes, why the heck would we want the government meddling in the property rights of individuals?

[milesdividendmd]

"The sovereign CSA!"  Ha!

Sounds like we have a Neo-Confederate in Libertarian's clothing....

What are your thought's on the voting right's act Mr Werner?

You may want to bone up on your history regarding the lawful withdrawal of the southern states from the "Federation."   

This thread has mentioned the use of government force and guns in oppressing the people.   I really can't think of a more oppressive act than killing 25% of the adult male population of the independent CSA.   

I mentioned this to point out that the government does and will use guns against people very often.   Property seizure, bank account seizure, imminent domain and blatant disregard for constitutional rights are activities the government engages in thousands of times per day.   And yes this is all done with the threat of prison at the barrel of a gun. 
 
The government has not right to your property.  Period.  Just because 51% of my neighbors get together and vote to take my property does not make it right.   

Your point is that the government uses force or the threat thereof to enforce its laws?

Would this not be true of a libertarian government (or any form of government short of anarchy?)

For that matter, how was slavery enforced in your beloved "sovereign" confederate states of America?  We're the enslved enticed to stay with milk, cookies, and southern hospitality?

[Beric01]

Really? No love for Conservatives as in "conserve?"

One of the labels I like best is "Crunchy conservative" or "Crunchy con" for short and I identify with that, although it's nearly impossible for me to find fault with libertarian ideals.

One of the "tenets" of "conservatives" in the US is religion. Many of us (on this website) are Atheist/Agnostic. Also, please don't take this as an attack, but many times when Christians use the word "Family", they mean it almost as an explicit attack on accepting homosexuality.

A quick google search shows that that is likely the case for Rod Dreher.

No way. I myself am fiscally conservative, and lean right on political issues because I believe in individual accountability. I am not religious, Im Agnostic.
I get sick and tired of hearing about the meadia hyped link between conservatives and religion. That is as ignorant as linking being a Democrat  to being a minority. True, the majotiy of religious people may be republican, much like the majority of minorites seem to be  democratic. But that doesn't mean most progressives are minorities OR most republicans are religious.

I believe like the liberatarians:
All people should have equal rights, but the government only makes things worse through afirmative actions and the stalled equal pay through equal work act (which would have destroyed America because it was so poorly written).
In full disclusure within reason from the federal government, Audit the FED!
I believe our foreign policy should be severely curtailed and we should help where requested and where practicable abroad. No more CIA.
I believe that limits of one americans citizen's freedoms should no no bounds excpet the limits of the freedoms of another, and laws put in place to preserve such.


Like Democrats:
I believe in the sparation of church and state
I believe the subsities for big oil needs to go away, but as should the subsidies for all excpet research on clean energy.
I'm ok with gay marriage but am not a big fan that they are teaching kids about it in 1st grade.
I'm ok with abortion, though I agree no one (or company) should ever be forced to pay or provide abortions if they are not.
I'm all for stricter laws in certain area of business, but they need to make sense in the grand scheme of things. The common sense rule has not been applied.
I believe in immigration reform, but not amnesty. If you are over 18, serve 4 years in the service. thats the price of citizenship. Obviously everyone isnt cut out for the battlefield, but there are plenty of support positions avaiable and we could come up with many more. If you are under 18 and did not come over with somone who is there should be a path involving good grades and 0 convictions. I dont mean no felonies, I mean carving your name in a park bench gets you deported.
I'm all for import tarriffs on ANY country that does not have equivelant Labor standards, Occupational safety standards, minimum wages, and environmental laws. Put business on a level playing field. Note: Obana said he would do this in 2008 and in 2012 when he was up for election both times. He has not even proposed a law to that effect.
I'm all for a national health care system, but I believe the current system is very poor.

Like republicans
I believe those who lost their homes in the most recent down turn over leveraged themselves, took a gamble and lost. They did it to themselves and it is not the duty of the government to bail them out.
I believe those that built their house below sea level in flood plains, or in hurricane prone areas, without protection or insurance also took a gamble and lost and it is not the duty of the government to bail them out.
I believe regulation can stifel innovation. Ive seen it first hand in my work. Regulations need to be propagated by regulators that understand the blowback potential of laws they promugate.
I believe english is our national language, and it should remain that way. If you come here from another country you can bring your culture, and your traditions, but you will be expected to assimilate into our society, and that means you have to learn some things, including english. Do not expect us to cater to your language, or enforce your law, or permit your religious docerine if it violates our law, e.g. honor killings.

I just wish for once we could get a middle of the road candidate!   

I'm an agnostic conservative, and I like a lot of what you're saying, though I'm definitely more right of center. I agree with you on many of your topics though.

• I would argue that have no subsidies of any kind on energy is not a position of either party, though it makes perfect sense. I'm for ending all subsidies of any kind and letting the market take over.
• Gay Marriage - I think the government should get out of marriage completely at this point. IMO the original point of marriage benefits, although imperfect, was to encourage people to reproduce in order to ensure a growing population. There's really no need for that now, so I just let's end government-sanctioned marriage.
• Abortion: it ends a human life, which I cannot justify except when concerning the life of the mother. That's not a religious statement (I'm agnostic), it's a statement of science (abortion indeed ends a human life) and human morality (we shouldn't end human lives).
• Immigration: here is my entirely frank, if a bit radical position that would have no chance politically: I think we need to kick every illegal immigrant out, regardless of age. I then think we need to drastically improve our legal immigration system. People are breaking laws and entering, one because it's really easy (we need better enforcement), and two because it's so hard to get in legally. If we do any sort of amnesty whatsoever, people will continue to think that breaking into the US and getting free education and healthcare paid for by taxpayers is completely acceptable. I'm strongly pro-immigrant - pro legal immigrant. I live in Silicon Valley, which wouldn't even exist without immigration. But lawbreakers deserve no benefits from the government.

[ThriftyD]

^Right on, davef and Beric01!

[GuitarStv]

• I would argue that have no subsidies of any kind on energy is not a position of either party, though it makes perfect sense. I'm for ending all subsidies of any kind and letting the market take over.

We subsidize many types of energy (coal for example) by not charging the full price of the long term environmental damage that is done by using it.  The market doesn't account for this damage because the effects are hard to quantify and will appear far down the road.  How do you propose accounting for this hidden subsidy?

[davef]

• I would argue that have no subsidies of any kind on energy is not a position of either party, though it makes perfect sense. I'm for ending all subsidies of any kind and letting the market take over.

We subsidize many types of energy (coal for example) by not charging the full price of the long term environmental damage that is done by using it.  The market doesn't account for this damage because the effects are hard to quantify and will appear far down the road.  How do you propose accounting for this hidden subsidy?

That is not a subsidy but a failure to regulate. I would propose we regulate. If the facts are there.

[Beric01]

• I would argue that have no subsidies of any kind on energy is not a position of either party, though it makes perfect sense. I'm for ending all subsidies of any kind and letting the market take over.

We subsidize many types of energy (coal for example) by not charging the full price of the long term environmental damage that is done by using it.  The market doesn't account for this damage because the effects are hard to quantify and will appear far down the road.  How do you propose accounting for this hidden subsidy?

Doesn't everything have a hidden subsidy then? Even the most environmentally friendly products use some materials/transportation what is not environmentally friendly. Are you accounting all those costs into the item's price? Soon you have an entire bureaucracy assessing the "ultimate environmental cost" on every single thing, and to what purpose? Those resources could be going to R&D to make more environmentally friendly products instead. I'm for some reasonable restrictions on the environmental damage people can cause. I'm not for taxing everything you don't like and giving subsidies to everything you do. It's called playing favorites, and encourages political corruption.

The problem right now is we give subsidies to both oil and electric cars. That ultimately comes out of taxpayers' pockets, meaning they have less money to spend, but have cheaper oil and electric cars. Yet we're simultaneously paying for a bureaucracy. It's counterproductive. Let the market decide when it's time to move on from gasoline.

Something else that bothers me is all of the restrictions on using US natural resources. First let me tell you I bike everywhere, and couldn't care less about the cost of gas. But when we refuse to let oil be extracted from US sources, and instead import that oil from other countries which have less environmental restrictions and therefore can extract it cheaper, we're ultimately doing more damage to the environment, it just happens to not be the US environment. Wouldn't you trust American petroleum engineers to do a better job than those from OPEC countries?

[scrnplyr]

I assume all you libertarians are watching STOSSEL and THE INDEPENDENTS on Faux Newz. I usually hate most if not all TV news media, but both these shows do a good job of trying to tell the truth and give a new twist to old problems.

On a good day Jon Stewart also walks a fairly libertarian line although he obviously IDs himself as a lib - I think he's more in line with the old JFKennedy style democrat (which is to say liberal republican).

[GuitarStv]

• I would argue that have no subsidies of any kind on energy is not a position of either party, though it makes perfect sense. I'm for ending all subsidies of any kind and letting the market take over.

We subsidize many types of energy (coal for example) by not charging the full price of the long term environmental damage that is done by using it.  The market doesn't account for this damage because the effects are hard to quantify and will appear far down the road.  How do you propose accounting for this hidden subsidy?

Doesn't everything have a hidden subsidy then? Even the most environmentally friendly products use some materials/transportation what is not environmentally friendly. Are you accounting all those costs into the item's price? Soon you have an entire bureaucracy assessing the "ultimate environmental cost" on every single thing, and to what purpose? Those resources could be going to R&D to make more environmentally friendly products instead. I'm for some reasonable restrictions on the environmental damage people can cause. I'm not for taxing everything you don't like and giving subsidies to everything you do. It's called playing favorites, and encourages political corruption.

The problem right now is we give subsidies to both oil and electric cars. That ultimately comes out of taxpayers' pockets, meaning they have less money to spend, but have cheaper oil and electric cars. Yet we're simultaneously paying for a bureaucracy. It's counterproductive. Let the market decide when it's time to move on from gasoline.

Something else that bothers me is all of the restrictions on using US natural resources. First let me tell you I bike everywhere, and couldn't care less about the cost of gas. But when we refuse to let oil be extracted from US sources, and instead import that oil from other countries which have less environmental restrictions and therefore can extract it cheaper, we're ultimately doing more damage to the environment, it just happens to not be the US environment. Wouldn't you trust American petroleum engineers to do a better job than those from OPEC countries?

Yes, many things would be subject to this hidden subsidy.  I think you're missing the point though . . . letting the free market decide everything is inherently going to be really bad for the environment.  Businesses make descisions to report quarterly profit.  They don't care at all about long term consequences, and thus the unchecked free market is inherently short sighted . . . and bad for people in the long run.

Problems like climate change, poisoning of ecosystems, species extinction are cumulative and slow to show their danger . . . but they are persistent and there is no real fix for them.  Once greenhouse gasses have been released they form a positive feedback loop (greenhouse gasses - warmer temperature - more water vapour in atmosphere - acts as another greenhouse gas - warmer temperature)  for hundreds of years that continue to push temperatures higher, even if release of the gasses is completely stopped world wide by industry.  A few species of plant and animal going extinct is of no significance to people world wide . . . but if enough of the right species go extinct it becomes a very big problem (say a new virus comes along that wipes out the most commonly grown strains of wheat, typically we would look at nature to find a slightly different strain of wheat with immunity to the virus to plant . . . but with limited biodiversity there is less likelihood of finding an alternative.)

My point is, the free market can't react in time to these problems because they don't have dramatic effect on the bottom dollar until a tipping point has been reached.  That's why things like small subsidies for renewable energy and green initiatives can make a lot of sense.

[CDP45]

• I would argue that have no subsidies of any kind on energy is not a position of either party, though it makes perfect sense. I'm for ending all subsidies of any kind and letting the market take over.

We subsidize many types of energy (coal for example) by not charging the full price of the long term environmental damage that is done by using it.  The market doesn't account for this damage because the effects are hard to quantify and will appear far down the road.  How do you propose accounting for this hidden subsidy?

Doesn't everything have a hidden subsidy then? Even the most environmentally friendly products use some materials/transportation what is not environmentally friendly. Are you accounting all those costs into the item's price? Soon you have an entire bureaucracy assessing the "ultimate environmental cost" on every single thing, and to what purpose? Those resources could be going to R&D to make more environmentally friendly products instead. I'm for some reasonable restrictions on the environmental damage people can cause. I'm not for taxing everything you don't like and giving subsidies to everything you do. It's called playing favorites, and encourages political corruption.

The problem right now is we give subsidies to both oil and electric cars. That ultimately comes out of taxpayers' pockets, meaning they have less money to spend, but have cheaper oil and electric cars. Yet we're simultaneously paying for a bureaucracy. It's counterproductive. Let the market decide when it's time to move on from gasoline.

Something else that bothers me is all of the restrictions on using US natural resources. First let me tell you I bike everywhere, and couldn't care less about the cost of gas. But when we refuse to let oil be extracted from US sources, and instead import that oil from other countries which have less environmental restrictions and therefore can extract it cheaper, we're ultimately doing more damage to the environment, it just happens to not be the US environment. Wouldn't you trust American petroleum engineers to do a better job than those from OPEC countries?

Yes, many things would be subject to this hidden subsidy.  I think you're missing the point though . . . letting the free market decide everything is inherently going to be really bad for the environment.  Businesses make descisions to report quarterly profit.  They don't care at all about long term consequences, and thus the unchecked free market is inherently short sighted . . . and bad for people in the long run.

Problems like climate change, poisoning of ecosystems, species extinction are cumulative and slow to show their danger . . . but they are persistent and there is no real fix for them.  Once greenhouse gasses have been released they form a positive feedback loop (greenhouse gasses - warmer temperature - more water vapour in atmosphere - acts as another greenhouse gas - warmer temperature)  for hundreds of years that continue to push temperatures higher, even if release of the gasses is completely stopped world wide by industry.  A few species of plant and animal going extinct is of no significance to people world wide . . . but if enough of the right species go extinct it becomes a very big problem (say a new virus comes along that wipes out the most commonly grown strains of wheat, typically we would look at nature to find a slightly different strain of wheat with immunity to the virus to plant . . . but with limited biodiversity there is less likelihood of finding an alternative.)

My point is, the free market can't react in time to these problems because they don't have dramatic effect on the bottom dollar until a tipping point has been reached.  That's why things like small subsidies for renewable energy and green initiatives can make a lot of sense.

Right, and the governments of China, India, and Brazil really give a flip about the environment...

[GuitarStv]

Right, and the governments of China, India, and Brazil really give a flip about the environment...

There are child molesters in the world.  It's impossible to protect all children.  By the reasoning you've given, not only should we not try to protect those kids . . . but we should actively be involved in their molestation.  It's not a line of reasoning that I can get on board with myself.

[davef]

Right, and the governments of China, India, and Brazil really give a flip about the environment...

There are child molesters in the world.  It's impossible to protect all children.  By the reasoning you've given, not only should we not try to protect those kids . . . but we should actively be involved in their molestation.  It's not a line of reasoning that I can get on board with myself.

By your reasoning we should give our children to known child molesters because we ourselves have the potential to molest our own kids if left unsupervised. It's not a line of reasoning that I can get on board with myself.

[GuitarStv]

?

Maybe I wasn't clear in what I was typing.  Either:

1.  What CDP typed was given as a reason to avoid doing anything to improve the environment . . . which is some bad reasoning.  (Saying that bad stuff exists, therefore there's no point in doing anything good is a nonsensical argument.  Bad things will always exist was my point, that doesn't mean you need to be a part of them.)

or

2.  CDP wasn't actually addressing the topic under discussion.

I assumed 1, but may have been mistaken.

By your reasoning we should give our children to known child molesters because we ourselves have the potential to molest our own kids if left unsupervised. It's not a line of reasoning that I can get on board with myself.

I'm not following your analogy.  How is providing a minor incentive to markets to further development into beneficial technology like giving children to child molesters?

[Eric]

No, it's gotta be your bull.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5LN23qErZDM

[davef]

The fact is, our environmental regulations end up doing MORE damage to the the earth. We cant generate electricity here with clean coal, natural gas or nuclear because the regulations are becoming so excessive and we cant even get permits to build or retrofit. So what happens? Solar? wind? hardly, they are less than 2% of our nations enegy. Look at california. We buy now much of California's eneregy from Mexico. It is generated in outragously dirty coal plants within view of the US/Mexico border. Much more of California's energy comes from Canada, and incurs MASSIVE losses along the way. In California they pump water up to a few mountain lakes all night and run that same water through the hydroelectric dam all day. Its a net loss (of course) but it allows California to meet its renewable enregy goals.  That's right California is happer to create 2-3 times as much pollution per watt globally, as long as it is less localy. It should be seen as the least ecologically friendly state in the US.

I once was on a construction project in california where our trucks were not allowed to use I-5 because an Eagle that lived 4 miles away was supposely bothered by our 2010 clean diesel trucks. Thats right we had to take a 15 mile detour through the city to bypass an Eagles nest that was 4 miles away form the the busiest highway in the country. That same project had about 50 biologists being flown around thousands of hours in helicopters and driving around in trucks to make sure workers didn't step on sensitive grasses in the desert. The people who make these rules have one thing in mind, personal gain. If you look at the big picture. Most environmentalism does more harm than good for the environment.

Have you been to China? I have, The pollution is horrid. When we turn down a process (revoke or deny a permit) because it does not meet what are in many cases impossible standards the process goes to china, where it is performed with restrictions at all. Globally we are increasing the pollution 10 fold by doing so, if global warming is what you are worried about you need to look at the global picture, not the local one, like the narrow minded California crackpots do.

Dont get me wrong, I live in Oregon, I Love the environment and think we need to have reasonable protections in place. But no one in the governemnt is looking at the big picture and applying the common sense test.

[bacchi]

In California they pump water up to a few mountain lakes all night and run that same water through the hydroelectric dam all day. Its a net loss (of course) but it allows California to meet its renewable enregy goals. 

This has nothing to do with meeting renewable goals. It's to use power generated by base plants so that peak plants aren't needed as much.

[davef]

In California they pump water up to a few mountain lakes all night and run that same water through the hydroelectric dam all day. Its a net loss (of course) but it allows California to meet its renewable enregy goals. 

This has nothing to do with meeting renewable goals. It's to use power generated by base plants so that peak plants aren't needed as much.

It accomplishes that too, acting as a capacitor of sorts. But it is incredibly inefficient one.
And California is happy to account for the clean energy generated with out an * to subtract, all of the energy used to pump it up there.

[bacchi]

It accomplishes that too, acting as a capacitor of sorts. But it is incredibly inefficient one.

Yet it's way more efficient than a peaker.

And California is happy to account for the clean energy generated with out an * to subtract, all of the energy used to pump it up there.

I don't know anything about that. Do you have a source?

[Richie Poor]

I'd like to give my opinion regarding the question as to whether mustachianism is libertarian.

I think first we have to figure out if mustachianism is greater than, or can be separated from, MMM himself. If not then only one person can answer that question. My conclusion from reading his works is that he would be ok with a limited government with many libertarian ideals but it would probably have more environmental regulations than many libertarians prefer. It would probably have some sort of small social safety net, perhaps smaller or more different than what progressives prefer and perhaps bigger than some libertarians prefer. Many libertarians wouldn't consider MMM's government libertarian and many progressives wouldn't consider it progressive.

If mustachianism is a more of a philosophy then I suppose it would resemble stoicism. Is stoicism libertarian or progressive? That is a good question I think. Stoicism values reason and logic over emotion. Libertarianism is accused of being emotionless. Some people attribute Adam Smith's "invisible hand" theory as having stoic origins. My guess is that if stoics only concern themselves with that which is under their control then they would probably prefer to have as much as possible under their control. This would align with libertarian personal freedoms.

The case against stoicism aligning with libertarianism? Marcus Aurelius was a stoic and he was an emperor of Rome. To my knowledge he was not against foreign intervention and I have no idea where he stood on legalizing pot.

If anyone solves this problem please let me know.

[davef]

Not specifically, I work in the industry, building 230kv and 500kv power lines all over the US (many of them to bring energy in from canada and mexico but also some to tie renewables to the grid) and see constant propoganda regarding where california stands in regards to its clean energy goals, without ever a *.

[bacchi]

Not specifically, I work in the industry, building 230kv and 500kv power lines all over the US (many of them to bring energy in from canada and mexico but also some to tie renewables to the grid) and see constant propoganda regarding where california stands in regards to its clean energy goals, without ever a *.

So use gas to pump up and count it as renewable on the way down? Yeah, I can see them doing that.

[Radagast]

Moderate progressive libertarianism for the win!!!
Just two platforms:
1) Responsibility
2) Efficiency