Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

If we can't agree on the same facts, then the air is poison

Page 3 of 3 [ 36 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3

Previous topic | Next topic

beneficii
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2005
Age: 41
Gender: Female
Posts: 7,245

17 Nov 2019, 11:32 pm

Antrax wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Antrax wrote:
beneficii wrote:

That's why governments need a leash, and they have one in Western countries, generally. When the people are holding the leash, then the government becomes a tool of the people, which is something that I don't think libertarians give enough value to. Raising taxes is done not because the government wants to impose, but because that's what the people wanted to do.


The more powerful a government, the more likely it is to break that leash. Taxation concentrates power in the governments hands. Democratic control of that power does not prevent tyranny of the majority. If you had an all-powerful government that did everything by direct democratic decision, it would mean that 51% of the people would have all the power. It would still reflect "the will of the people" and be tyrannical at the same time.


How does this respond to my point?


How does it not? Seems like a pretty direct response to me.

Governments need a leash -> Governments can break that leash if they become too powerful

Taxation is will of the people -> Will of the people can be tyrannical if the government is too powerful, and taxation concentrates power in the hands of the government.


No it doesn't. Taxation is generally immediately appropriated or held in a rainy day fund. It's not applied as profit.

In other Western countries, where money in politics tends to face heavy restrictions, their institutions do tend to be accountable to the people.


_________________
"You have a responsibility to consider all sides of a problem and a responsibility to make a judgment and a responsibility to care for all involved." --Ian Danskin


LoveNotHate
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Oct 2013
Gender: Female
Posts: 6,195
Location: USA

18 Nov 2019, 12:16 am

I don't trust any "facts".

I am such a hopeless case, that I don't even believe math is real, (factual), so "1+1=2" is a fiction.

A narrative that some come to falsely believe about reality.

In college I had a physics professor that would say, I am from Missouri, the SHOW ME state, don't tell me you discovered something, SHOW ME.

For example, the global warming crowed won't SHOW us their GPS temperature measurements.


_________________
After a failure, the easiest thing to do is to blame someone else.


Antrax
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Feb 2019
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,639
Location: west coast

18 Nov 2019, 12:44 am

beneficii wrote:
Antrax wrote:
beneficii wrote:
Antrax wrote:
beneficii wrote:

That's why governments need a leash, and they have one in Western countries, generally. When the people are holding the leash, then the government becomes a tool of the people, which is something that I don't think libertarians give enough value to. Raising taxes is done not because the government wants to impose, but because that's what the people wanted to do.


The more powerful a government, the more likely it is to break that leash. Taxation concentrates power in the governments hands. Democratic control of that power does not prevent tyranny of the majority. If you had an all-powerful government that did everything by direct democratic decision, it would mean that 51% of the people would have all the power. It would still reflect "the will of the people" and be tyrannical at the same time.


How does this respond to my point?


How does it not? Seems like a pretty direct response to me.

Governments need a leash -> Governments can break that leash if they become too powerful

Taxation is will of the people -> Will of the people can be tyrannical if the government is too powerful, and taxation concentrates power in the hands of the government.


No it doesn't. Taxation is generally immediately appropriated or held in a rainy day fund. It's not applied as profit.

In other Western countries, where money in politics tends to face heavy restrictions, their institutions do tend to be accountable to the people.


Let me see if I can explain this. Taxation is required for government activities. The more activities a government carries out, the larger and more powerful it is. A government that taxes 40% of the countries wealth and employs 40% of the population has significantly more power over the people than a government that taxes 10% of the countries wealth and employs 2% of the countries people.

As for accountability to the people. I'm pretty sure a majority of Americans in the south supported slavery. I'm pretty sure a majority of Americans supported removing Indian nations from the frontier. I'm pretty sure a majority of Americans supported Japanese Internment camps. A tyranny of the majority is still a tyranny.


_________________
"Ignorance may be bliss, but knowledge is power."


The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 30
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

20 Nov 2019, 8:49 am

LoveNotHate wrote:

For example, the global warming crowed won't SHOW us their GPS temperature measurements.

I've lost count of the number of times you've said this and the number of times I've then showed them to you:
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/
https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/

These are surface-level measurements dating back 150 years. The Global Positioning System does not measure temperature. However, some satellites measure radiance which can be used to determine temperature.

University of Alabama:
https://www.nsstc.uah.edu/climate/

Remote Sensing Systems:
http://images.remss.com/msu/msu_time_series.html

In your defence, I don't think I've linked you these before and I've never seen anyone else do it.

Personally, I think surface level data is better for several reasons:

1) We have a much larger dataset (150 years instead of 40 years)

2) The data are easier to understand (I have had some training and I don't understand exactly how they get from radiance to temperature, so the public have no chance; the two datasets I've posted above use slightly different methodologies so even scientists can't agree)

3) Because the data require less processing, and are collected using equipment we understand more completel,y they are less likely to be wrong. There was a bit of a scandal a few years ago when it turned out the RSS had systematically been understating the extent of warming because they hadn't factored in orbital decay: https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-corre ... since-1998

4) Humans live at the surface, not in the atmosphere. Satellites indirectly measure the temperature of the atmosphere. Thermometers measure the temperature at the surface. Therefore, thermometers are more immediately relevant to humans than satellites.