@rphb
[ No that is not what diviation means, it means that reality can fall in either direction of what is predicted, and we constantly see how these models exaggerates the effect. ]
Quite the opposite on both accounts.
[And ultimately this is not a scientific issue it is a moral and political issue.]
It is all of the three.
[ What thou art claiming is that ye know better what is good for us, than we do. And that we do not have the right to say “no”.]
I am saying that climate scientists know best. Consensus of the IPCC.
[True free trade does not need to be organized, that is just an individual entrepreneur that chooses to import a good from abroad and the state not restricting him. It does not require law or treaties of any kind.]
Yeah, free market of weapons-grade plutonium and uranium.
Because of the invisible hand of the "free market".
[A free trade organization on the other hand is all about creating a common market, it is about handing over sovereignty to a supranational organization that then dictates policies to the members.]
At present, perhaps.
But the new free trade organisations can be virtualised and virtueized.
[ The European Union is the most advanced form of a free trade organization. It does not promote free trade, it promotes servitude, and it actively discourages trade with external parties, like for instance the Russian Federation.]
Are you worried about Russia? Or Norway?
You have been giving off confusing vibes.
[As I said, true free trade requires no treaty, true free trade is laissez-faire.]
Impossible.
Any contract would have to be "signed" with the attendance of a 3rd neutral party. Without WTO or any other international trade organisation, there would be no 3rd party, meaning that it would become impossible to seek arbitration. And any arbitration would have to rest on common rules agreed beforehand in a common international treaty.
[Thou want to embargo people that don’t want to play along, to punish them. Tell me what did thou think of Brexit?]
UK is still part of the WTO. And might join EFTA. So UK will be fine.
[To make it clear, the political spectrum have two dimensions.]
A 2-dimensional political map can concentrate on at most 2 questions.
One new tax and one tax benefit and that's it.
The real political map consists of thousands of dimensions. Which in turn means that one would need more parties than there are molecules on the Earth. Which in turn means that any party system limits and obfuscates decisionmaking and thus is not democratic.
[The key tenet about socialism is collectivism, that the group is more important than the individual. That is the defining difference between a socialist and a liberalist.]
Perhaps. But the key unifying theme is that both socialism and liberalism as practiced by the Establishment are not democracies. Representative democracy is an oxymoron.
That is not punishment.
The states that do not participate in an international contract on trade do not take part in it.
[As I said these who believe in democracy, must accept national sovereignty, that all people have the right to decide for themselves, and that their decisions might not always align with thine wishes.]
Sure. But accepting does not necessarily mean accepting doing business without a contract.
Perhaps you would like to sell me your house and I will give a word that I will pay money for it.
A word. Not a contract. Not even THE word. And not MY word. I will give you a random word.
0
@rphb
[ No that is not what diviation means, it means that reality can fall in either direction of what is predicted, and we constantly see how these models exaggerates the effect. ]
Quite the opposite on both accounts.
[And ultimately this is not a scientific issue it is a moral and political issue.]
It is all of the three.
[ What thou art claiming is that ye know better what is good for us, than we do. And that we do not have the right to say “no”.]
I am saying that climate scientists know best. Consensus of the IPCC.
[True free trade does not need to be organized, that is just an individual entrepreneur that chooses to import a good from abroad and the state not restricting him. It does not require law or treaties of any kind.]
Yeah, free market of weapons-grade plutonium and uranium.
Because of the invisible hand of the "free market".
[A free trade organization on the other hand is all about creating a common market, it is about handing over sovereignty to a supranational organization that then dictates policies to the members.]
At present, perhaps.
But the new free trade organisations can be virtualised and virtueized.
[ The European Union is the most advanced form of a free trade organization. It does not promote free trade, it promotes servitude, and it actively discourages trade with external parties, like for instance the Russian Federation.]
Are you worried about Russia? Or Norway?
You have been giving off confusing vibes.
[As I said, true free trade requires no treaty, true free trade is laissez-faire.]
Impossible.
Any contract would have to be "signed" with the attendance of a 3rd neutral party. Without WTO or any other international trade organisation, there would be no 3rd party, meaning that it would become impossible to seek arbitration. And any arbitration would have to rest on common rules agreed beforehand in a common international treaty.
[Thou want to embargo people that don’t want to play along, to punish them. Tell me what did thou think of Brexit?]
UK is still part of the WTO. And might join EFTA. So UK will be fine.
[To make it clear, the political spectrum have two dimensions.]
A 2-dimensional political map can concentrate on at most 2 questions.
One new tax and one tax benefit and that's it.
The real political map consists of thousands of dimensions. Which in turn means that one would need more parties than there are molecules on the Earth. Which in turn means that any party system limits and obfuscates decisionmaking and thus is not democratic.
[The key tenet about socialism is collectivism, that the group is more important than the individual. That is the defining difference between a socialist and a liberalist.]
Perhaps. But the key unifying theme is that both socialism and liberalism as practiced by the Establishment are not democracies. Representative democracy is an oxymoron.
That is not punishment.
The states that do not participate in an international contract on trade do not take part in it.
[As I said these who believe in democracy, must accept national sovereignty, that all people have the right to decide for themselves, and that their decisions might not always align with thine wishes.]
Sure. But accepting does not necessarily mean accepting doing business without a contract.
Perhaps you would like to sell me your house and I will give a word that I will pay money for it.
A word. Not a contract. Not even THE word. And not MY word. I will give you a random word.