@rphb
[At the same time believing in two mutually contradictory positions.
Thou reject national sovereignty, but advocate for democracy.]
There should be no national sovereignty on polluting, just as there should be no national sovereignty on creating black holes on Earth, just because muh sovereignty. Or rather, one could take such national sovereignty, but the rest of the plane would make such a country an international outcast.
[ If a nation is not allowed to rule itself but have to follow the dictates of a global body, then it and not its people are in charge. ]
Those are not dictates. Those would be a social contract, decided by the majority of the citizens of each joining member state. A global social contract backed by local social contracts.
[So who is it, the people or the globalist elite, it cannot be both.]
That depends on whether the state citizens can use direct democracy to vote over joining and/or leaving the global arrangement. But the necessary global cap would be set in by the IPCC.
[I agree that direct democracy as a principle are preferable where it is applicable. But voting needs to be limited to these who have no conflict of interest.
People that are on welfare, that receive more from the government then they get, are in no position to speak of the interest of the nation. The very first condition for being a free man is to carry one’s own weight and being a burden to no one.]
Children and youth are not qualified enough to vote.
But elderly should be allowed to vote, except perhaps prisoners and with a diagnosis of mentally challenged. But the pensioners (or any party, really) always have to consider that the other side (the youth) might go on a general strike or leave to another country. The fat welfare state is going down anyway in the lands of the setting sun (and elsewhere besides the land of the rising sun Japan it never really rose).
[My ideal society is a republic in which every: Native, landed, adult, debt free, man, who have completed his military services with honour should have a vote.]
Well, nowadays one could create a robot (or an army) to do conscription for him.
But jokes aside, your idea has both good and bad sides.
[Likewise property is one of the fundamental rights, and one cannot truly stand guard over it, unless one actually have a stake in it. It is easy for the man who have no property, nor the skills to earn one, to demand that it should be “redistributed” (as if it were ever distributed) away from the more virtues men that earned it.]
While in general I tend to agree with you, notice that land is not really a private property - it is a rent from the society with additional rights on deciding the next owner. Thus any citizen "owns" a slice of the public lands as well as a slice of private lands. It is a circular argument, though. And it would be an additional drain to revalidate the "driving skills" so to speak, unless it would be literally decided based on the "driving skills".
[I am not denying the greenhouse effect. I am just not buying the idea of exponential acceleration of its effect.]
Your mistake is to assume that exponential rise would be the worst case.
Weather and climate systems are semichaotic systems with bifurcations and hysteresis events and other fascinating but nasty phenomena. Any statistically significant trend would underestimate the threats.
[As I have said many times, the Earth is alive, she have a metabolism and is in homeostasis. And she have been alive for a billion years.]
And the Gaia cure for the situation is extinction for humans, all mammal species and possibly all vertebrate species and perhaps to all multicellular life on Earth.
[There are many processes that leads to cooling.]
You can't wish away black body radiation physics.
[And thou art ignoring two very big heat sinks.]
The heat sinks (sea ice and glaciers) are sinking into the ocean.
[The ocean from below that have an incredible capacity to store unneeded heat, and space itself.]
You are not being credible. The climate models can estimate those sinks. Those sinks are already warming up faster than ever before in known geological history.
[As I have said, thou hast this powerful pathetic imagine of a dying world up in thy head, but that is emotional, not logical.]
You should try some self-reflection.
0
@rphb
[At the same time believing in two mutually contradictory positions.
Thou reject national sovereignty, but advocate for democracy.]
There should be no national sovereignty on polluting, just as there should be no national sovereignty on creating black holes on Earth, just because muh sovereignty. Or rather, one could take such national sovereignty, but the rest of the plane would make such a country an international outcast.
[ If a nation is not allowed to rule itself but have to follow the dictates of a global body, then it and not its people are in charge. ]
Those are not dictates. Those would be a social contract, decided by the majority of the citizens of each joining member state. A global social contract backed by local social contracts.
[So who is it, the people or the globalist elite, it cannot be both.]
That depends on whether the state citizens can use direct democracy to vote over joining and/or leaving the global arrangement. But the necessary global cap would be set in by the IPCC.
[I agree that direct democracy as a principle are preferable where it is applicable. But voting needs to be limited to these who have no conflict of interest.
People that are on welfare, that receive more from the government then they get, are in no position to speak of the interest of the nation. The very first condition for being a free man is to carry one’s own weight and being a burden to no one.]
Children and youth are not qualified enough to vote.
But elderly should be allowed to vote, except perhaps prisoners and with a diagnosis of mentally challenged. But the pensioners (or any party, really) always have to consider that the other side (the youth) might go on a general strike or leave to another country. The fat welfare state is going down anyway in the lands of the setting sun (and elsewhere besides the land of the rising sun Japan it never really rose).
[My ideal society is a republic in which every: Native, landed, adult, debt free, man, who have completed his military services with honour should have a vote.]
Well, nowadays one could create a robot (or an army) to do conscription for him.
But jokes aside, your idea has both good and bad sides.
[Likewise property is one of the fundamental rights, and one cannot truly stand guard over it, unless one actually have a stake in it. It is easy for the man who have no property, nor the skills to earn one, to demand that it should be “redistributed” (as if it were ever distributed) away from the more virtues men that earned it.]
While in general I tend to agree with you, notice that land is not really a private property - it is a rent from the society with additional rights on deciding the next owner. Thus any citizen "owns" a slice of the public lands as well as a slice of private lands. It is a circular argument, though. And it would be an additional drain to revalidate the "driving skills" so to speak, unless it would be literally decided based on the "driving skills".
[I am not denying the greenhouse effect. I am just not buying the idea of exponential acceleration of its effect.]
Your mistake is to assume that exponential rise would be the worst case.
Weather and climate systems are semichaotic systems with bifurcations and hysteresis events and other fascinating but nasty phenomena. Any statistically significant trend would underestimate the threats.
[As I have said many times, the Earth is alive, she have a metabolism and is in homeostasis. And she have been alive for a billion years.]
And the Gaia cure for the situation is extinction for humans, all mammal species and possibly all vertebrate species and perhaps to all multicellular life on Earth.
[There are many processes that leads to cooling.]
You can't wish away black body radiation physics.
[And thou art ignoring two very big heat sinks.]
The heat sinks (sea ice and glaciers) are sinking into the ocean.
[The ocean from below that have an incredible capacity to store unneeded heat, and space itself.]
You are not being credible. The climate models can estimate those sinks. Those sinks are already warming up faster than ever before in known geological history.
[As I have said, thou hast this powerful pathetic imagine of a dying world up in thy head, but that is emotional, not logical.]
You should try some self-reflection.