What do conservative policy intellectuals think about climate change?

On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 7:03:08 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:

The point of the article was that communists (from a communists country)
had influence on the politics of the party in question.

That's the Daily Mail's intention but they were wrong.

They aren't wrong, unless you really believe that communists, socialists, and assorted other "left-leaners" aren't influencing the platform of Labour.

I never suggested stopping them. However, you had earlier called for
"concerted action." That would require you to give up your car, so that
your carbon footprint could match the majority of those who have no
personal car in the first place.

Concerted action like this. Put up taxes on fuel. It works all over Europe.
That's why cars driven in Europe are, on average, so much more fuel
efficient.

That isn't "concerted action," it's a regressive tax on the poor and middle class. The rich and privileged continue to drive as much as they would in the absence of the tax. They'll seek loopholes, pass on the costs, raise their own fees.

The taxes aren't even working very well since vehicle use, ownership and CO2 footprints in Europe are well above the world average, which itself is "too high" by definition.

Try again.

wrote:
On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 7:03:08 AM UTC-4, Mike Collins wrote:
wsnell01 wrote:

The point of the article was that communists (from a communists country)
had influence on the politics of the party in question.

That's the Daily Mail's intention but they were wrong.

They aren't wrong, unless you really believe that communists, socialists,
and assorted other "left-leaners" aren't influencing the platform of Labour.

I never suggested stopping them. However, you had earlier called for
"concerted action." That would require you to give up your car, so that
your carbon footprint could match the majority of those who have no
personal car in the first place.

Concerted action like this. Put up taxes on fuel. It works all over Europe.
That's why cars driven in Europe are, on average, so much more fuel
efficient.

That isn't "concerted action," it's a regressive tax on the poor and
middle class. The rich and privileged continue to drive as much as they
would in the absence of the tax. They'll seek loopholes, pass on the
costs, raise their own fees.

The taxes aren't even working very well since vehicle use, ownership and
CO2 footprints in Europe are well above the world average, which itself
is "too high" by definition.

Try again.

They are well below the average of your country and high fuel prices are
the main cause. Just look what happened to car buying patterns in the USA
at the time of the last big petrol price rise.

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 01:17:41 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Since you have NO concept of natural rights, it would certainly require a "lot of effort," perhaps an infinite amount, on his part to define justice and explain it to you.

But I have an excellent understanding of rights, which is all I
require.

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 00:28:11 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

So you are in favor of using government taxes, laws and regulations to create unequal circumstances?

A fuel tax that would force most people out of driving is fine with you, so long as YOU can still afford the tax or can at least find a loop hole?

Clueless.

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 01:10:57 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

Your "goal" was to get to the centerline of the eclipse, whereas someone else's goal is to get to work or class by driving instead of walking. Your policies would make the latter unaffordable for many, while having essentially no effect on the former (for you.)

You either think that AGW is a problem or you don't. Which is it? Your actions say it isn't.

Clueless.

If you lack the wits to engage in a logical discussion, you can't
expect a response.

On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 9:07:53 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson wrote:

But I have an excellent understanding of rights, which is all I
require.

That puzzles me, since if you abandon natural rights, all that is left are legal
rights. Which are whatever the government of the day happens to decide to give
you. Thus, questions of intrinsic right and wrong, of moral absolutes, of genuine
justice, and so on become meaningless.

One can speak of the common sentiments of humanity, but then that inherently
assumes that as those sentiments become more articulated, and are better
examined for logical contradictions, they will approach the Platonic ideal
called natural rights.

John Savard

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 11:35:02 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:

But I have an excellent understanding of rights, which is all I
require.

That puzzles me, since if you abandon natural rights, all that is left are legal
rights. Which are whatever the government of the day happens to decide to give
you. Thus, questions of intrinsic right and wrong, of moral absolutes, of genuine
justice, and so on become meaningless.

Well, I do consider the notion of "intrinsic" right, wrong, morality,
justice, and so forth to be meaningless. I recognize these things as
human inventions, which seems a far more powerful position for
defining and defending them than any necessarily arbitrary "natural"
explanation. If we pretend these things are natural, we give up our
power to use reason to define them, and we simply fall back on
arbitrary standards that nobody can agree on, because so little dogma
is shared between cultures or subcultures.

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 05:32:22 -0700 (PDT), wrote:
That isn't "concerted action," it's a regressive tax on the poor
and middle class. The rich and privileged continue to drive as much
as they would in the absence of the tax. They'll seek loopholes,
pass on the costs, raise their own fees.

Or, much simpler, they just pay the costs because they can easily
afford it. Why bother trying to avoid a, to you, small cost when you
can earn much more money by doing something much more profitable
during that time?

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 11:35:02 -0700 (PDT), Quadibloc
wrote:
On Friday, April 17, 2015 at 9:07:53 AM UTC-6, Chris L Peterson
wrote:


But I have an excellent understanding of rights, which is all I
require.

That puzzles me, since if you abandon natural rights, all that is
left are legal
rights. Which are whatever the government of the day happens to
decide to give
you. Thus, questions of intrinsic right and wrong, of moral
absolutes, of genuine
justice, and so on become meaningless.

No it doesn't became meaningless if humans assign a meaning to them.
A governments can only give you human rights, not "natural" rights.
Only nature could give you the latter, but how could that happen?
That would require the Earth to have some kind of mind to determine
whether someones natural rights was violated or not. Do you really
believers the Earth has such a mind? Or perhaps you believe in some
god that makes such decisions?

One can speak of the common sentiments of humanity, but then that
inherently
assumes that as those sentiments become more articulated, and are
better
examined for logical contradictions, they will approach the
Platonic ideal
called natural rights.

Plato was a dreamer which held back accent Greek science for a long
time. For instance, he tried to keep knowledge about the dodecahedron
secret because he considered it divine.

On Fri, 17 Apr 2015 12:46:12 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
Well, I do consider the notion of "intrinsic" right, wrong,
morality,
justice, and so forth to be meaningless. I recognize these things as
human inventions, which seems a far more powerful position for
defining and defending them than any necessarily arbitrary "natural"
explanation.

Human inventions aren't necessarily meaningless. They have meaning to
us humans.