Are they willing to let the world burn?

I am referring to economic rent: a return obtained by legally depriving others of access to economic opportunity that would otherwise be accessible. That can only be got through privilege: a legal entitlement to benefit from the abrogation of others' rights without making just compensation.

It's not a voluntary contract. It's a contract obtained under duress, because the tenant's liberty to use the land was forcibly stripped from him without his consent or just compensation. You could with equal "logic" claim that when Crusoe points his musket at Friday and tells him to either get to work or get back in the water, it is a "voluntary" contract.

I'm confident you have. Almost all of us benefit from one privilege or another, one way or another.

They've only been "agreed upon" under duress, by people who have been forcibly stripped of their options without just compensation. See above.

They thought they would get rich through privilege. Guaranteed.

 

Well, you have some idiosyncratic ideas which I am utterly unable to understand despite my best efforts.

 

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it.” -- Upton Sinclair

 

Yes

Proven false

And you’ve never had nor will you ever have a right to property that I own. I will quote easily stop you from taking it.

I’m pointing out neither of you have a right to my property, and I will easily stop either of you from taking it.

 

And then again it is difficult to get a man to understand crackpot ideas.

Your whole notion rests upon some moral code and moral codes are subject to evolution: survival of the fittest.

Yours is the weak kitten of the bunch and is rightly denied sustenance.

 

I have quoted Nobel laureates endorsing my ideas.

Indeed. I'm counting on it.

Nope. China has been proving you wrong for 40 years, as Hong Kong did for 100 years before that, and continues doing so at this very moment.

 

No, I have an absolute right to anyone's property that consists of my rights.

As slave owners stopped the abolitionists from taking their property....?

Ooooo, you're such a tough guy, aren't you? What a joke.

 

Refuted this already. You have never had a right to property that belongs to someone else.

Comparing owning a human to owning land is retarded.

No, just pointing out that if you try and take property that I own, I will easily and swiftly stop you from doing so.

 

No, you know you have never even offered any sort of factual or logical argument.

Everyone has a right to take other's "property" when that "property" consists of their RIGHTS, as slave deeds and land deeds do.

No, I have proved to you that it is absolutely valid and correct because in both cases, what is owned is other's rights. The only difference is that owning a slave means owning all of one person's rights, while owning land means owning one of all people's rights. It is self-evident even to the cognitively challenged (might include you) that owning other people rights is indisputably comparable to owning other people's rights, no matter what form that ownership of others' rights takes.

Ah, no. If I were interested in taking your property, no, you would most certainly and indisputably not be able to stop me. That is obvious: it is why we have police forces instead of everyone relying on self-defense. Duh. You are just posturing like a schoolyard bully. It's puerile and amusing, but that's about all.

 

Fact.

Not even attempted.

Everyone has a right to their rights, even if other people claim to own them.

I have proved they are, and you know it

No it isn't. It is just an empty and childish boast from a literally little man who can't think of any more constructive way to reassure himself of his masculinity. It's sad, really.

No. If I wanted to take your property, you would not be able to stop me, mainly because I am so much smarter than you that I would easily outmaneuver you. That is why we have police forces instead of relying on self-defense. Only a delusional child would imagine he could defend his own property without government's help.

It's obvious. Sorry.

<yawn> I've probably got about 50 IQ points on you (that will be obvious to readers), and you are the one whose mental abilities and position are so weak you have to resort to empty and puerile dick waving to reassure yourself that you are a man.

 

you know your nonsense has been refuted. Land parcels and human beings are in no way comparable and doing so is just silly. Never, at any time, have you ever had a right to property that I own. I will quite easily and swiftly stop you from taking it if you ever tried. you can't address reality, so you resort to pathetic personal attacks. It's amusing.

 

You know it is not nonsense, and hasn't been refuted. You have never even attempted to refute it, because that would require identifying contrary facts or logic, which you haven't and can't.

Which is why you made it up. I didn't compare land parcels to human beings. I compared owning other people's rights to liberty to owning other people's rights to liberty. You know that. You just have to pretend you do not know it, because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.

Everyone has a right to their rights, even if other people think they own them.

That is an empty, childish boast that you indulge in in order to reassure yourself of your questionable masculinity. It's rather sad, actually.

The reality, of which you and everyone else reading this thread are perfectly well aware, is that you would be completely powerless to stop me from taking your property if I wanted to take it, which is why we have governments and police forces instead of relying on everyone to defend their own rights by force. All readers are also well aware that you are the one who has insistently tried to make this issue personal by your absurd and empty boasting of your ability to, well, what? Best me in personal combat? What a childish thing to even think, let alone say.

 

you know your nonsense has been refuted. Land parcels and human beings are in no way comparable and doing so is just silly. Never, at any time, have you ever had a right to property that I own. I will quite easily and swiftly stop you from taking it if you ever tried. you can't address reality, so you resort to pathetic personal attacks. It's amusing.

 

<yawn> You know it is not nonsense, and hasn't been refuted, because Nobel laureates in economics agree with it. You have never even attempted to refute it, because that would require identifying contrary facts or logic, which you haven't and can't.

<yawn> Which is why you made it up. I didn't compare land parcels to human beings. I compared owning other people's rights to liberty through slave deeds to owning other people's rights to liberty through land deeds, two situations that are indisputably comparable, and which I have proved multiple times are not only comparable, not only similar, but equivalent. You know that. Of course you do. You just have to pretend you do not know it, because you have already realized that it proves your beliefs are false and evil.

<yawn> Everyone always has a right to their rights, even if other people mistakenly think they own them.

<yawn> That is an empty, childish, dick-waving boast that you indulge in in order to reassure yourself of your masculinity. It's rather sad, actually. You know that when the end of your unjust privilege arrives -- and it inevitably will, just as it did for slave owners -- you will submit meekly in order to avoid the risk of a physical conflict with the community that you know you cannot win.

<yawn> The reality, of which you and everyone else reading this thread are perfectly well aware, is that you would be completely powerless to stop me from taking your property if I wanted to take it, which is why we have governments and police forces instead of relying on everyone to defend their own rights by force.

<yawn> All readers are also well aware that you are the one who has insistently tried to make this issue personal by your absurd and empty boasting of your ability to, well, what? Best me in personal combat? What a childish thing to even think, let alone say.

 

New Evidence That the Ancient Climate Was Warmer than Today’s
2 hours ago

Charles Rotter

Two recently published studies confirm that the climate thousands of years ago was as warm or warmer than today’s – a fact disputed by some believers in the narrative of…

 

Still, if technology is advancing to the point of running the globe on sun and wind backed by pumped-hydro and other storage types , what's not to like about that?

Hint: the BIS said (last year at Davos, in a slightly panicked mood); "central banks might have to buy** the fossil fuel industry" (if man-made atmospheric CO2 IS causing increasingly catastrophic financial outcomes, for global insurance and pension funds etc).

**buy, using the infinite currency-issuing capacity of central banks, a point which the BIS should know something about...

But my point is, regardless of the climate scientists' predictions, why wouldn't we want to run the planet on free (once the infrastructure is built) , limitless, clean 'fuel'?

 

The short version is: because it can't be done.

 

Except it is not free and it is not clean . All of the hardware needed to convert the sun's energy into a usable product costs money, pollutes, and has a short life span.

 

Can the world run on renewables? Yes, says Stanford. - Big Think

• Study presents roadmaps for 139 countries to go 100 percent renewable.
• Authors suggested it was a much more aggressive strategy than the Paris agreement.
• Researchers found that it's possible with current technology and capabilites to go full renewable by 2050.

Oh...and it can be done without higher electricity charges during the transition, and hence 'free' ever after (except for maintenance 'costs'), since the BIS can create the funds 'ex nihilo', given the resources, know-how and labor exist...


BIS: "central banks might have to buy the fossil fuel industry...."

 

Sorry, but the scientific community was unimpressed.
Landmark 100 Percent Renewable Energy Study Flawed, Say ...
blogs.scientificamerican.com › plugged-in › landmark-..
Jun 23, 2017 — On Monday, the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) published a scathing critique of Stanford Professor Mark Jacobson's analysis, which claims a full transition of all sectors of the U.S. energy system to wind, water, and solar power by 2050 is “technically and economically feasible with ...

Then Jacobson went to court, but he ultimately dropped his suit.

Mark Jacobson Drops Lawsuit Against Critics of His 100 ...
www.greentechmedia.com › articles › read › mark-jaco...
Feb 26, 2018 — Jacobson's 100 percent renewables plan uses hydropower as a clean, flexible resource to backstop the days when wind and solar don't produce ...

 

"Costs money?"

Wrong. That's just neoliberal monetary free market ideology.


BIS: "central banks might have to buy the fossil fuel industry"...ie with their unlimited currency-issuing capacity. No doubt you will have to get your head around that...contact the BIS, who know a thing or two about the capacities of central banks.

Oh..and the BIS can organize compensation for your stranded assets and bankrupted insurance/pension funds based on the fossil industry...which I suspect is your REAL concern in all this...

"Pollutes?" And the fossil fuel industry doesn't?? Of course once the green infrastructure is in place, pollution falls infinitely in comparison to the existing fossil fuel industry.

"Short life span"? A recycling industry will deal with the life span issue.

 

"The Stanford researcher didn’t get what he demanded, but says he “brought the false claims to light.”

Meanwhile the speed of technological change is working in renewables' favor. Your fossil industry is in its death throes...

 

He can say whatever he likes, but the bottom line remains that he was certain to lose, and look bad doing it.
We'll still be using fossil fuels a century from now.

 

You don't seem to understand what the BIS is saying here, which is that central banks would issue money to the fossil fuel industry's wealthy owners to preserve their wealth and power in the event that their fossil fuel assets became worthless. The owners would then use that money to take equivalent power and income from society in return for nothing.

I think it is you who should get your head around what the BIS actually means by that.

"Compensation" meaning purchasing power to take over the rest of the economy.

Such claims are absurd, and without basis in fact.

You seem to think recycling is magic. It is not. It costs money, and it pollutes.

 

How, or where, on earth did you get that interpretation of the BIS statement?

You have only noticed the (necessary) compensation part of the BIS statement; the funding of the transition itself is the more significant part of the statement.

This guy, who thinks he knows a whole lot about money creation in central banks, or rather states it shouldn't be allowed, doesn't agree with you. (link below)

Central Banks And Climate: A Case Of Mission Creep | NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT (wordpress.com)

"Central banks are rushing headlong into climate policy. This is a mistake. It will destroy central banks’ independence, their ability to fulfill their main missions to control inflation and stem financial crises, and people’s faith in their impartiality and technical competence. And it won’t help the climate.

In making this argument, I do not claim that climate change is fake or unimportant. None of the following comments reflect any argument with scientific fact. (I favor a uniform carbon tax in return for essentially no regulation, but this essay is not about carbon policy.)

The question is whether the European Central Bank (ECB), other central banks, or international institutions such as the International Monetary Fund, the Bank for International Settlements, and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development should appoint themselves to take on climate policy—or other important social, environmental, or political causes—without a clear mandate to do so from politically accountable leaders.

The Western world faces a crisis of trust in our institutions, a crisis fed by a not-inaccurate perception that the elites who run such institutions don’t know what they are doing, are politicized, and are going beyond the authority granted by accountable representatives."

[Note my underlined; the current institutional arrangements re central banks have absolutely nothing to do with "democratic mandates" and everything to do with vested interests].

Now as far as his concerns about money printing by central banks are concerned, he is talking garbage....but unlike you, he recognizes that this is exactly what the BIS is saying might be necessary, if climate related events become uninsurable etc

It need not 'cost' money (central banks can fund it, despite the uncomprehending remarks of the clown quoted above); recycling requires research and industrial processes which will be powered by non-polluting energy sources.