@rphb
[I am saying that even if we were to accept the premise of that, as ludicrous as it may be, a better solution then extensive global regulation would be to simply end central banking and fiat currency.]
That would only slow the increase of cumulative emissions.
Even 1/1000 of the current rate of emissions is too much.
[Things like overpopulation is not a problem because it is self-corrective. If there is more individual of a species in a region of a species then it is able to support, they start to fight each other for the scares resources and the weak ones die. ]
Well, yes.
I didn't realize that nature in your part of the world is so bad already that you have trouble imagining how such population correction takes place. Think of birds who forgot to fly to the south caught in -30C winter. The heat (from still open water bodies) and food sources are scarce.
Such correction in human population would have to be at least 10-fold. Basically you are betting on the collapse of the civilisation so that there is not enough knowledge to run the current fossil energy infrastructure any more, not even at 1/1000 of the current rate. Because if there is enough knowledge and enough smart individuals, then without regulations they will continue to emit CO2 from fossil fuels.
[And yes there are things that are limited in supply and oil might very well be one of them, but we won’t keep using oil until there is no more oil at all, only until it is no longer economically feasible. Price solves everything, when it becomes more expensive than the best alternative, we will use the alternative. ]
The market only works optimally if market prices contain all the (indirect) costs. If some costs are not in the prices, then the market would be suboptimal, to put it mildly. We need regulations to sustain our environment even if the CO2 emissions problem were to be miraculously solved. We need the "precautionary principle".
[I agree that subsidies are bad, I don’t like subsidies, I am a minarchist, I want the minimal state, the only legitimate functions of the state is to enforce legal contracts and protect us from violence.]
State regulations are a legal part of a social contract between the state citizens, assuming that the regulations have been decided via direct democracy.
[And regarding environmental regulation, there should be rules against pollution, because pollution damages others property, but it is the sovereign right of each nation-state to determine the details. ]
Well, that needs to change, in that pollution emission taxes have to be globally the same. And the only way to do that is via WTO. In fact, all the pro-globalisation trade deals (WTO, CIPA, NAFTA, etc.) without globally unified pollution taxes are an act of genocide of not only the human species, but of other species as well. Globalisation of trade without globalisation of pollution taxes is pure Machiavellian evil.
[I don’t even know what that means, relativist have no values.]
An absolutist might try to wipe out the human species to protect other species.
A relativist plays a game with other relativists on how many species each can wipe out on this planet and on other planets and on how many profits can be made from it.
[Absolutist don’t have to be Good, a Muslim terrorist is Absolutely evil, but a relativist aren’t even able to comprehend him. A relativist thinks that Muslims can just be integrated into western societies, as a hedonist, he thinks that everyone is a hedonist.]
I think the other way around.
An absolutist believes in "universal human values" to help everyone, including billions and billions of muslims. An Absolutist might be a person of pure heart, who starts to feed stray cats and pidgeons. And eventually she has 200 cats in her apartment and she is out of money and maybe the cats finally will prey on her.
A Relativist observes that muslims behave differently than others, use different strategies than others and observes that in some circumstances their strategies work against some other strategies. A relativist does not hold onto its own strategy at all costs and adapts, if possible.
I have given good and bad examples for both relativists and absolutists.
For me, the only absolutist value is the right of living beings to make choices - which in case of a human society (state citizens) means the right to directly participate in direct democracy. From that, the society itself has to be relatively stable - meaning most of the citizens have to be natives, meaning having many centuries (preferably millennia) of ancestry in that country. Everything else is relative. But society can (and should) limit the possible choices of individuals. Individual citizens are / form the society.
History has shown that societies lose cohesion once they grow above 10 million, the sweetspot of a civilisation is 3-5 million citizens. Sweden is experiencing that now. Funnily so did Chechoslovakians.
0
@rphb
[I am saying that even if we were to accept the premise of that, as ludicrous as it may be, a better solution then extensive global regulation would be to simply end central banking and fiat currency.]
That would only slow the increase of cumulative emissions.
Even 1/1000 of the current rate of emissions is too much.
[Things like overpopulation is not a problem because it is self-corrective. If there is more individual of a species in a region of a species then it is able to support, they start to fight each other for the scares resources and the weak ones die. ]
Well, yes.
I didn't realize that nature in your part of the world is so bad already that you have trouble imagining how such population correction takes place. Think of birds who forgot to fly to the south caught in -30C winter. The heat (from still open water bodies) and food sources are scarce.
Such correction in human population would have to be at least 10-fold. Basically you are betting on the collapse of the civilisation so that there is not enough knowledge to run the current fossil energy infrastructure any more, not even at 1/1000 of the current rate. Because if there is enough knowledge and enough smart individuals, then without regulations they will continue to emit CO2 from fossil fuels.
[And yes there are things that are limited in supply and oil might very well be one of them, but we won’t keep using oil until there is no more oil at all, only until it is no longer economically feasible. Price solves everything, when it becomes more expensive than the best alternative, we will use the alternative. ]
The market only works optimally if market prices contain all the (indirect) costs. If some costs are not in the prices, then the market would be suboptimal, to put it mildly. We need regulations to sustain our environment even if the CO2 emissions problem were to be miraculously solved. We need the "precautionary principle".
[I agree that subsidies are bad, I don’t like subsidies, I am a minarchist, I want the minimal state, the only legitimate functions of the state is to enforce legal contracts and protect us from violence.]
State regulations are a legal part of a social contract between the state citizens, assuming that the regulations have been decided via direct democracy.
[And regarding environmental regulation, there should be rules against pollution, because pollution damages others property, but it is the sovereign right of each nation-state to determine the details. ]
Well, that needs to change, in that pollution emission taxes have to be globally the same. And the only way to do that is via WTO. In fact, all the pro-globalisation trade deals (WTO, CIPA, NAFTA, etc.) without globally unified pollution taxes are an act of genocide of not only the human species, but of other species as well. Globalisation of trade without globalisation of pollution taxes is pure Machiavellian evil.
[I don’t even know what that means, relativist have no values.]
An absolutist might try to wipe out the human species to protect other species.
A relativist plays a game with other relativists on how many species each can wipe out on this planet and on other planets and on how many profits can be made from it.
[Absolutist don’t have to be Good, a Muslim terrorist is Absolutely evil, but a relativist aren’t even able to comprehend him. A relativist thinks that Muslims can just be integrated into western societies, as a hedonist, he thinks that everyone is a hedonist.]
I think the other way around.
An absolutist believes in "universal human values" to help everyone, including billions and billions of muslims. An Absolutist might be a person of pure heart, who starts to feed stray cats and pidgeons. And eventually she has 200 cats in her apartment and she is out of money and maybe the cats finally will prey on her.
A Relativist observes that muslims behave differently than others, use different strategies than others and observes that in some circumstances their strategies work against some other strategies. A relativist does not hold onto its own strategy at all costs and adapts, if possible.
I have given good and bad examples for both relativists and absolutists.
For me, the only absolutist value is the right of living beings to make choices - which in case of a human society (state citizens) means the right to directly participate in direct democracy. From that, the society itself has to be relatively stable - meaning most of the citizens have to be natives, meaning having many centuries (preferably millennia) of ancestry in that country. Everything else is relative. But society can (and should) limit the possible choices of individuals. Individual citizens are / form the society.
History has shown that societies lose cohesion once they grow above 10 million, the sweetspot of a civilisation is 3-5 million citizens. Sweden is experiencing that now. Funnily so did Chechoslovakians.