Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (211832)	7/12/2007 8:42:14 PM
From: TimF	Respond to of 794042

Maybe this will clarify it. I think its impossible for a hard line doctrinaire libertarian to support the Kyoto accords. I think its unlikely for a more moderate libertarian to do so, but you can support an unlibertarian idea, and still be generally libertarian. Also the cause behind Kyoto, while typically supported by non-libertarians isn't inherently anti-libertarian (even if the method proposed for dealing with it isn't a very libertarian one at all) For the sake of argument, and only for a moment, assume the following theory is true - "human caused emission of CO2 is causing global warming that will get worse and lead to an extraordinarily massive disaster within the next several decades to a century if we don't drastically cut back these emissions fairly soon" If you believe that the large scale emissions of CO2 could be considered to in effect be an initiation of force. Libertarian principles are not adverse to preventing or punishing initating force against others. Of course the theory is dubious. Also the Kyoto treaty method for dealing with the issue is one that would seem to promote state regulation and control. I suppose a country could meet its standards without such control, but typically such controls are assumed, and obviously they would have to be imposed in some countries if the standards where to be met. But a "good libertarian" who fully bought in to the theory, could support Kyoto and still be a libertarian. Generally being libertarian to me is less about what specific programs you support or oppose, and more about the principles you use to determine what programs to support. If the principles are trying to limit government and reduce the initiation of force or fraud by government (also by others, but libertarianism is more focused on limiting government), then I'd usually say your a libertarian. Of course if you say you support such principles, but you always come down on the statist side of the issue, then I'd suspect you really don't support such principles. Also even if you do truly support the ideas in principles in general terms, but on issue after issue you don't think they work well I wouldn't call you a libertarian. But "libertarian" doesn't imply that you will always on every issue support the side that proposes less government intervention, only that you would tend to do so. "Libertarian" is a rather broad idea. At least its one very broad idea, rather then a number of different ideas tied together (like "conservative") or an even more diverse group of ideas some of which are in direct opposition (like "liberal"). Take "liberal" as meaning "on the left", "social-democrat" and such, rather than the older meaning thats closer to libertarian. You can still be a liberal if you support a tax cut. Take "conservative" to mean "social/moral/religious conservative". You can still support legal contraception, separation of church and state, and even things like legalization of prostitution or drugs and still be a conservative. Its about the general trend of what you support. Its not a case where one "violation" of the general principle means you get kicked out and can't reasonably call yourself a "liberal" a "conservative" or a "libertarian"