Global Warming? are humans to blame?

Slack-jawed?
Now who is joking?
Lock-jawed is more like it.

 

Marx was not a scientist -- not a 'social scientist' as his fellow travelers like to call him, or any other kind. He was a 2nd or 3d-rate philosopher, who added nothing worthwhile to the field. Somehow it's become Politically Incorrect to point that out, but it's true anyway.

It's rather silly of you to accuse me of blindly hating anyone who's anti-capitalist. As a union member and elected official, I'm hardly a capitalist lapdog.... but I don't want to destroy the system; I want to rein it in and keep it from getting too lopsided. A hard row to hoe I know, but a safer and more intelligent one than trying to destroy it and start over, leaving my children to sort out the mess.

Nor am I impressed or tempted, when you tell me I'd benefit from a Marxist seizure and redistribution of property and assets. I'd also 'benefit' if someone robbed a bank or burglarized my well-to-do neighbor, and offered to share the ill-gotten loot with me if I became a co-conspirator.

Why aren't I tempted? Because after the bank (that had some of my money in it) was empty and my neighbor's possessions had been sold, I'd be the next target -- because I have more than my neighbor on the other side.

Not going to start down that road. I've read enough history to know what happened in Russia, when envious people started taking down anyone better off than themselves. And you might keep in mind that if genuine Marxists ever took over your neighborhood, they'd seize your property and distribute it among your workers -- no matter how well you've been paying them.

If you're anywhere near as open-minded as you want me to be, try reading this:

http://www.libertarian.co.uk/lapubs/socin/socin013.pdf

 

If they had confiscated the land from previous owners so they could give it to the soldiers, it would have made Australia more than just 'socialist.' But I seriously doubt that's what happened.

That's another silly question, by the way. Australia is more socialist than a lot of countries. And you're throwing the question at someone who doesn't automatically think socialism is always a dirty word....

 

Hi troy,
Many suggest that it was stolen... "Terra Nullius" was a convenient invention to facilitate British Law and settler ownership... Except the Australian Aboriginals did not consider possession and control of the land as western views determine ,,, more like custodianship and a duty of care toward the lands and waters... - sort of "Leave nothing but your footprints"... Even that ideal is stuffed up in the confusion that followed attempts at "assimilation" and the progress of settlement by 'Westerners' and everyone else seeking space on this wide brown land...

My bad again - I am a bit of a confused socialist/libertarian...

 

Well, if you follow back far enough trying to sort out who the legitimate owners of the land are, you're bound to go crazy. For example, those who advocate giving land back to the Indians here in the US tend toward awkward pauses when you ask which Indians should get it -- the Indians who controlled it at the time it was taken from them by the whites, or the Indians they took control of it from... and so ad infinitum.

Here in the American southwest, we have proponents of 'Aztlan.' They'd like to see the land returned to the descendants of the Aztec Empire. There are a couple of problems with that. First of all, by the time the siege of Mexico City by the Spaniards and 100,000 Indian allies was over, there weren't enough Aztecs left to cast a musical with; they died almost to the last man.

And why did the Spaniards have 100,000 Indian allies? Because the Aztecs were bloody conquerors who were squeezing Mexico dry for corn, cotton and human sacrifice. As the Spaniards marched towards Mexico City, the countryside rose up and marched with them. Of course, swapping the Spaniards in for the Aztecs didn't turn out to be much of an improvement. But at least the locals were no longer being rounded up to have their hearts cut out and offered to the gods, and their arms and legs roasted for Aztec business lunches....

For the purposes of discussing the case mentioned by Masrapido of Australian veterans receiving land from the government, I'll define 'previous owners' as those commonly recognized by that government and its legal system at the time.

 

Oh well, in that era "Terra Nullius" was the "operational consideration"... It was only very recently, at a guess around 1975?, that one Mr Eddie Mabo won a high court case, by proving with sufficient force that peaceful land tenure by the Torres Strait Islanders could be proven and demonstrated to the satisfaction of the full bench...

 

Yep- the law of the land as it stood for all time: take it if you can....

To hold territory took strength.
Moral questions spring up but plenty of past their prime waning societies were swept from their holdings by the up and comings. Or even swept away in their prime by a stronger neighbor.
A required component of social evolution?

Have things changed?
Will only see cultural invasions hence forth which leave the old tenants to keep the floors clean?

Isn't this one of the founding tenets of the United Nations?
Leave everyone to play in their own yard- in spite of their capacity to defend themselves...?

 

Paying taxes

Isn't it so that the so called socialist european countries as refered to in this forum are the one who pay taxes and solve their environmental problems.
While the USA has 440.000.000.000.000 USdollar debt and don't want to pay for anything?

IPCC is highly regarded as very scientific and even they where on the optimist side about the ice cap melting. During the Kyoto, Kopenhagen and all other UN conferences, the USA as only did not want to step into the next step of technology to know as sustainable technology.

Hydrogen economy and hybrids as intermediar drive when on the power plants the neccesarry emission reduction can be taken?

Simply make proccesses more effective?

No no no it was was all banned when the us didn't sign Kyoto and the following meetings. The Netherlands are still on target when it comes to Kyoto.

The US: After us the deluge Somebody else have to pay for the problems we make. In the mean time: can we lend more money than any other country in the world. We do not want to give our high wealthy standard for someone else. No no no that is socialism!

The reality is that it is bad management to lend so much and to pollute so much.

 

Paying taxes

Isn't it so that the so called socialist european countries as refered to in this forum are the one who pay taxes and solve their environmental problems.
While the USA has 440.000.000.000.000 USdollar debt and don't want to pay for anything?

IPCC is highly regarded as very scientific and even they where on the optimist side about the ice cap melting. During the Kyoto, Kopenhagen and all other UN conferences, the USA as only did not want to step into the next step of technology to know as sustainable technology.

Hydrogen economy and hybrids as intermediar drive when on the power plants the neccesarry emission reduction can be taken?

Simply make proccesses more effective?

No no no it was was all banned when the us didn't sign Kyoto and the following meetings. The Netherlands are still on target when it comes to Kyoto.

The US: "After us the deluge" Somebody else have to pay for the problems we make. In the mean time: can we lend more money than any other country in the world. We do not want to give our high wealthy standard for someone else. No no no that is socialism!

The reality is that it is bad management to lend and pollute so much.

 

Kyoto Accord is a scam and it deserves no serious waste of brain matter.

 

Sorry but wrong, as usual. Just because you think that Marx was not a scientist, that does not make it universal truth.

The opposite is true.

Also, you cannot possibly benefit from a burglar. Seems you cannot grasp the concept of a thief: they do NOT share their loot by default. How did you decide that you could benefit from a thief is somewhat an interesting thought.

But not much...

I did read the pdf. You should really get some perspective in life and look for support arguments in a more academic environment. A website that sells horror and horror sci-fi books to finance its' existence is hardly an authority on Marx.

Just a food for thought: Marx gets a whole academic year of coverage on a number of prestigious European universities covering social and economic sciences, such as Sorbonne, while whatshisname Adams something (purported o be a "father" of modern capitalism) hardly gets a mentioning nowadays, just as the keynesians.

That for me is a more realistic indicator of the importance in academic and scientific circles than some obscure small time horror novels selling website.

And let me close on this note: no one is saying that Marx is perfect. No respectable scientist will recognise any of his/her peers as such. In science nothing is perfect and everything is subject to constant revision.

If it weren't for capitalists and dictators, creating myths around a man, Marx would be just another name in modern socio-economic science.

 

You must know well many marxists around you, I gather.

How come it's the capitalists doing exactly what you say Marxists would do...?

I mean, who screwed usanian economy? Who screwed European economy? Who screwed South American economies? Who is buying the land on a massive scale, paying peanuts to small farmers, building micro apartments and charging people millions while building them for peanuts? Who is invading foreign countries simply because they have a small nixon down in their pink panties and think that big tanks or fast planes can compensate for it? Who is favouring globalisation in commerce and building 4 metres fencestretching hundreds of kilometres between usa and Mexico to stop people from looking for work in a "better" world? Who is manipulating unemployed people by giving them mortgages to buy homes and then throwing them back on the street, getting themselves richer in the process?

Capitalists.

And you fear Marxists?

:?:

 

the news of the last few weeks has been inundated with articles concerning the effects of global warming on the economy, environment, society. Kinda hard for even the blind to not see the light these days.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14945773

 

I'll start worrying when my government starts building fences to keep people in, rather than to keep people out.

The US has its problems. But people from all over your part of the world are still voting with their feet, trying to leave there and come here by any means possible -- legal or illegal. And I haven't noticed any big crowds heading the other direction....

 

On a bumber sticker (jeep)
"GLOBAL WARMING" - > - "INCREASED WATER LEVELS" - > - "MORE PLACES TO FISH" - > - "BRING IT ON"