Global Warming

13331 Responses




Global Warming has come to be a hotly contested issue. Are there valid concerns that we should consider, or is Global Warming just the latest manufactured crisis to cash in on the public’s fears and generate new support for global governance, global carbon taxes and other oppressive policies?

On November 20, 2008 Ron Paul said in a New York Times / Freakonomics interview:

“I try to look at global warming the same way I look at all other serious issues: as objectively and open-minded as possible. There is clear evidence that the temperatures in some parts of the globe are rising, but temperatures are cooling in other parts. The average surface temperature had risen for several decades, but it fell back substantially in the past few years.

Clearly there is something afoot. The question is: Is the upward fluctuation in temperature man-made or part of a natural phenomenon. Geological records indicate that in the 12th century, Earth experienced a warming period during which Greenland was literally green and served as rich farmland for Nordic peoples. There was then a mini ice age, the polar ice caps grew, and the once-thriving population of Greenland was virtually wiped out.

It is clear that the earth experiences natural cycles in temperature. However, science shows that human activity probably does play a role in stimulating the current fluctuations.

The question is: how much? Rather than taking a “sky is falling” approach, I think there are common-sense steps we can take to cut emissions and preserve our environment. I am, after all, a conservative and seek to conserve not just American traditions and our Constitution, but our natural resources as well.

We should start by ending subsidies for oil companies. And we should never, ever go to war to protect our perceived oil interests. If oil were allowed to rise to its natural price, there would be tremendous market incentives to find alternate sources of energy. At the same time, I can’t support government “investment” in alternative sources either, for this is not investment at all.

Government cannot invest, it can only redistribute resources. Just look at the mess government created with ethanol. Congress decided that we needed more biofuels, and the best choice was ethanol from corn. So we subsidized corn farmers at the expense of others, and investment in other types of renewables was crowded out.

Now it turns out that corn ethanol is inefficient, and it actually takes more energy to produce the fuel than you get when you burn it. The most efficient ethanol may come from hemp, but hemp production is illegal and there has been little progress on hemp ethanol. And on top of that, corn is now going into our gas tanks instead of onto our tables or feeding our livestock or dairy cows; so food prices have been driven up. This is what happens when we allow government to make choices instead of the market; I hope we avoid those mistakes moving forward.”

After additional consideration and analysis and shortly before the release of the Climategate emails in late 2009, Ron Paul identified the artificial panic around Global Warming as an elaborate hoax:

“The greatest hoax I think that has been around for many, many years if not hundreds of years has been this hoax on [...] global warming.” – Ron Paul on Fox Business, Nov. 4, 2009

“[The Copenhagen treaty on climate change] can’t help the economy. It has to hurt the economy and it can’t possibly help the environment because they’re totally off track on that. It might turn out to be one of the biggest hoaxes of all history, this whole global warming terrorism that they’ve been using, but we’ll have to just wait and see, but it cannot be helpful. It’s going to hurt everybody.” – Ron Paul on the Alex Jones Show, Nov. 5, 2009

For an environmental insider’s view on the “Green Agenda” and its background and motivations check out The Green Agenda. Also read Lew Rockwell’s Anti-Environmentalist Manifesto.

Likes(0)Dislikes(0)
2675 comments
Allan from Skye
Allan from Skye

Tucci,the technology I,m talking about is not related to water flowing from cold to hot zones or anything along those lines.

It is a technology first pioneered by a german inventor in the warm sea off cuba in the twenties whereby he managed to generate 20kilowatts on abarge moored in the sea.

The way this works is that some inital feeder energy is used to produce a partial vaccuum in which sea water boils and produces steam which drives a turbine and produces electricity thus.

The steam then condenses and produces copius quantities of fresh water as a by product.

I mentioned this in previous post but nobody picked up on it.

Obviously,its not something for nothing since its simply recycling the suns heat ,as is every type of energy except geothermal and nuclear,but it does mean that any extra heat we may get from global warming becomes a benefit instead of an environmental holocost.

Thereby allowing us to continue with fossil fuels until atomic fusion ,or something as yet undiscovered comes along.

This technology is already used to an extent on board liquid gas carrying ships so it is quote mainstream in the sense of being practical as opposed to speculative.

Allan from Skye
Allan from Skye

One could look on any increase in sea temperature and atmospheric co2 as a resource,given that we have the technology to convert heat in the tropical sea into electricity and fresh water,ie as an opportunity for participants in free markets to make profits and provide purposefull work for people or you could look at it as an impending disaster requiring global governance by monopolistic forces.

The questions are,which approach is likely to work quickest and most efficiently with the least suffering and death for mankind and which side will extract the most wealth out of the process,whichever alternative we choose,the monopolistic forces or the participants in the free market.

We also need proper anti trust measures including the outlawing of corporations unduly influencing law making to protect their market share by lobbying ,bribery etc,to prevent the monopolistic forces from subverting the free market by preventing competition.

Guest one5467
Guest one5467

Tucci78 is way off base. First of all, even Paul concedes that if GW is "natural cycles", he admits mankind alsobhas an effect. What he fails to understand is that a two degree global rise in temperature would be devastating. Mankind IS having an impact and is bending the temperature upward. W therefor need to do things to reduce human induced GW - things like not using oil as Paul said, but also limit coal. We must invest in alternatives now!
As for President Obama's birth certificate, if you don't believe the State of Hawaii,fine- let's see your long forb bc and see if we ask any questions about yours....

Allan from Skye
Allan from Skye

with reference to the dumbed down nature of some of the people emerging from the state education system in these times as witnessed by the howling frustrated rage of the illiterate/inarticulate/lacking in basic vocabulary/unemployable consumers unable to contribute to reasoned debate after spending twenty years or so in"educational"establishments perhaps it might be pertinent to consider whether

The primary purpose of the education of the masses is indoctrination into the aims and objectives of the state and to divert the young minds away from reasoning for themselves and towards belief in received wisdom .

However,if anyone shows exceptional promise they are either put under the chemical cosh or whisked off to some dreaming spires where their ability to reason can be put to use by the state without infecting the masses with their ability to reason.

THis would be the wolf in sheeps clothing mentality of the Spartan/Platonic/Totalitarian/Fabian approach.

Remember the wolf is always in nice cuddly sheeps clothing just ilke the watermelon is green on the outside but red in tooth and claw on the inside.

Generally speaking though,the aims of private education could be said to be virtue and excellence whereever that should lead.

Allan from Skye
Allan from Skye

In Soviet Russia,scientists who found the politically wrong results were executed.Based on the name of the State scientist who presided over this situation Lysenko the term Lysenkoism was coined.

Lysenkoism is used colloquially to.describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias often related to social or political objectives.

The term neolysenkoism is used to describe this phenomenon in the field of AGW

Allan from Skye
Allan from Skye

shaman. Credit where credit is due.Tucci78 is obviously a highly intelligent and well read individual who appears capable of joined up thinking which is quite a rare attribute in my experience.

Ad hominem remarks and insults seem unlikely to make any impact on either him or I or the reasoned discussion in progress.

Unless of course we do have afull breakdown of civilisation and find ourselves living in a clearing in the forest,in which scenario it would probably be wise to use less abusive language.

Abba4abba
Abba4abba

I propose that we simply drop a massive ice cube in the ocean each year to counteract the effects of global warming. Problem solved.

Shaman4
Shaman4

Tucci doesn't believe in GW. Nor does he believe in Obama's birth cert. Allan from Skye thinks Tucci78 is the love of his life. Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution. It's a match made in all american heaven. Bunch of idiots.

Allan from Skye
Allan from Skye

Hey Tucci,back on the subject of AGW,carbon trading global governance etc I just saw a pretty interesting video on you tube called the money masters.If you havnt already seen it,its definitely worth a look.It explains a lot of the historical backdrop to all this and offers a really cool solution.

Allan from Skye
Allan from Skye

Hi Maria,I take it you think we should just relax and leave it all to the experts.I dont think thats what this forum was set up for.I would be outside enjoying the earth if it hadnt been blowing a 50mph northerly gale with lashing rain and sleet for the last three days and nights with darkness coming at 5pm .As for being with a woman, that doesnt necessarily preclude having an intelligent conversation allthough admittedly such women are a bit harder to find.

maria s
maria s

How many pages have duchi78 and Allan filled up here? You guys could actually have a life if you tried getting out and living. Appreciate the earth, it's beauty, your connection to it..find someone to be with maybe. Good for the soul. you guys are up in your own heads too much and you are going insane.

Allan from Skye
Allan from Skye

Tucci,I read that at the turn of the century in Britain seven eigths of the working families in Britain were adequatley provided with their healthcare and unemployment insurance by friendly mutual societies which were generally very well and efficiently run,but the system of compulsary iniversal national insurance killed them all off when it was introduced.

So,are you off the opinion that voluntary charitable giving would take up the slack of the one eigth and that we wouldnt have beggars and footpads running amok?

Allan from Skye
Allan from Skye

As usual tucci ,you make perfect sense.I do ,however think that it may be necessary to provide some kind of provision for those who,through bad luck,ill health,bad genes,or abandonment,old age arent able to fend for themselves and are not taken care of by the good samaritains amongst us.I think that number of people would be relatively small in a free-ish society with family values.

We would however,need to ensure that it wasnt funded by means of a Mandatory universal national insurance since that would increase the ammount of people becoming dependant on it.

Allan from Skye
Allan from Skye

INteresting Friedlon Personally I,m not an anarchist.We dont need to be completely free,just freeer than everyone else withlimited government with properly funded institutions that work well.

Its like the salt in my porridge its not a case of no salt or a kilo of salt but the right ammount of salt.

Without the institutions we wouldnt be able to protect liberty and property and enforce contracts.

Perhaps scandinavia does have something to offer.I must go tjere and learn more about it.

Markets and banking also need regulating effectively.

Allan from Skye
Allan from Skye

Further to Keynsianism,the industrial decline started in the fifties but it wasnt until we went off the gold standard completely in1971 that a supercharged version of Kensianism was deployed.

I suspect that Keynes would have been appalled that his name was associated with what came after 1971.

Allan from Skye
Allan from Skye

Freidlon7 I too care about the old weak and elderly in the world.T e argument is about the best mechanism for providing the wealth which can then be spent as part of a balanced budget

Ultimately,Keynesian economics is the management of decline and the spending of wealth over a long period of time,but the problem is once its spent its gone and theres nothing left but debt which must be paid back with no means of production to facilitate this.

Its a bit like harvesting the orchard by cutting down the trees,its a lot easier to pick the apples and you get lots of firewood without going to look for it but once its gone theres no more apples for 10 years.

In the fifties,Scotland was producing 39% of the worlds shipping but constant strikes,ships well over estimates and beyond delivery dates and rising overheads drove the entire industry abroad.

However ,Finland has a very successfull shipbuilding industry and one of the highest standards of living and social provision in spite of being a tiny freezing dark country.

Now,in G lasgow the descendants of the men who came down from their crofts in the highlands and islands to build the worlds ships live in deprevation,heroin,single mothers,drink and unemployment with a life expectancy for men of 55.So Keynsianism didnt work very well for them.

Allan from Skye
Allan from Skye

Friedlon7 Sweden,Norway and Denmark do sound like they are worth checking out.If only they werent so damn cold!

The huge imbalances in pay between executives and workers getting much worse over the past 15 years or so is not because of free markets.Its because of monopolistic chrony capitalism in bed with government with a direct line to the artificially cheap tap of funny money from the completely unaccountable federal reserve.

The regulations that have been brought in have been brought in to protect the corporations from competition from the wee people.

Its privatisation of the profits and socialisation of the losses.

Its monopolies without accountability.

These are all things that were illegal in the USA until the early part of the 20th century when the monopolist industrialist/bankers got their hands on the levers of power and started to spend americas wealth using the people as collateral and corrupting Americas democracy.

Until then,people were flocking to America from Scandinavia.

I bet they would flock the other way now if they could.

Allan from Skye
Allan from Skye

Experience counts2 Have you checked out www.petitionproject.org yet?You may change your mind about Ron Paul being delusional once you have.

Friedlon7
Friedlon7

You can tell a conservative and a liberal by a brief look at lifestyles. A person who drives a Volvo is almost 100% not going to be Rep voter. A person who has holidayed in the jungles of south America is almost 100% going to be a liberal. A conservative likes to go the same restaurant and almost always orders the same thing, a liberal will try a new restaurant and is more likely to try a new dish. These are facts that political researchers use to determine the whereabouts of the small per cent of undeciders - roughly and only about 40to50 thousand Americans. they know this by observing shopping habits. Where does this come from?? Evolutionary science believes that in tribes we had two types of person. Those adventurous types who liked to go over the next hill or into the cave or eat the unfamiliar berry. Sometimes they discovered something advantageous to the group, sometimes they got killed by a bear. The other more conservative type argued that the group should consolidate what it had and not move on or try the new berries. Sometimes this meant they didn't bump into the stronger tribe over the hill or didn't all die from the poison berries. Both types were essential to the survival of the group as a whole. Now there's been created this fake war between ourselves which is actually generated and propagated by mass media who represent two factions of the same business interests with very little difference between them. USA is a two party dictatorship with Obama continuing the Bush admin's programme - as far as foreign policy, bail outs, corporatism, extension of executive powers. In the 50/60's with high taxes and lot's of government projects the US saw the biggest migration of people from working class to middle class in the HISTORY of mankind. In the last 30 years of neo-liberal ideology(right wing) you have seen the exact opposite with the destruction of the middle class and the vast enrichment of the super rich. So ask yourself what is the sign of a countries success? Economy? Well then Chinese cummunism is the best nowadays. Liberty? with the Bush laws and Obama's it's not the US. It's socialist scandanavian countries - lowest crime rates, more equality, best education, health AND (this is very important) in equal societies there is more patents per head of capita - that is more entrepreneurship, business start ups etc. This may not be the American way and that's fine but don't call other people fascists or liberal ideologues just cause they have another way of doing things that works great for them. In Sweden CEO of a company earns 13 times the average worker. In US it's 500 times -think about it? Remember propaganda works best when you don't think it's happening. Fox/Beck and all that crap are dividing the nation. Liberals/conservatives each other survive. TALK, don't scream. DEBATE don't fight.

Allan from Skye
Allan from Skye

in an american context a conservative could be one who seeks to preserve the constitution of the US whilst being a radical both against the status quo of the Obama administration and the republican party as it stood prior to this nomination process.

Allan from Skye
Allan from Skye

dictionary definition.Conservative =one who desires to preserve the institutions of his country against change and progress.

Allan from Skye
Allan from Skye

My understanding is that a conservative wishes to conserve the status quo and a radical wishes to change it.Period

Allan from Skye
Allan from Skye

Agreed If I might clarify what I said about right wing ideology.In the dictionary it says that right wing means conservative because tje conservatives sat on tje right side of the president and the radicals on the left.

Therefor what the ideology of the conservatives is depends on the ideology of the president and the government hence the term neocon.

In Nazi germany a conservative would sit on the right of hitler and the seats on the left would be empty but equally in Soviet Russia a conservative would sit on the right of Stalin tjere also the left hamd seats would be empty (so to.speak)Same again in Communist China a conservative would have been one 40 years ago who believed in collectivism but now would believe in letting multinationals operate in their country(perhaps similar in a way)

So,the ideology of conservatism changes with history and the text books are out of date.

Just look at the way the traditional conservative values of ron Paul are considered to be radical and a threat to the neocon republican party.

I hope that has clarified things a bit.

Allan from Skye
Allan from Skye

The use of heated and abusive language by participants on this forum suggests to me that belief systems are being threatened.In situations like this it appears to me that belief is inversely proportional to knowledge and the heated nature of the writings indicates a lack of knowledge more than anything else.However, I do think that if a group of people want to remove soveriegnty from the nations of the world they had better first have good scientific data to prove firstly that the planet is needing saved because of our actions and secondly that the united nations,carbon trading ,taxing etc is the only mechanism that can do this,thirdly they need to prove that the UN will have the wherewithal and technology to deliver this potentially mammoth task which by the way could have very nasty unintended consequences for the human race

It seems to me that the history of collective initiatives in this regard so far would indicate that none of these assertions are proved and that we should therefor keep our soveriegnty intact as the constitution intended.and as most of the people in the world actually prefer.

Tucci78
Tucci78

@Allan from Skye - "...given that we have the technology to convert heat in the tropical sea into electricity and fresh water...."

The questions I have about this supposedly "something-for-nothing" gain of energy pertain chiefly to:

(1) is there really "any increase in sea temperature" of any significance anywhere in the tropics?

(2) is there sufficient energy density in that putative "increase in sea temperature" to make harvesting its potential economically practicable even were it there?

(3) because harvesting that heat energy must employ pumping up from the depths cold water so that we have a ballast into which that heat energy can flow (remember, energy can only be harvested from a "flow"), what will be the energy cost of getting significantly cold water from the deeper waters up to the warm surface, and what will be the ecological effects of this transfer?

Might could be the ecological effects wouldn't be so bad. The colder waters of the deeps are almost always richer in nutrients, particularly when one compares those waters against the beautiful, crystal-clear. effectively nutrient-bereft warm surface waters in the tropics, but we've got to bear in mind that when any change is induced anywhere in the ocean ecosystems, we've got the Law of Unintended Consequences working.

What happens down in the deep-water ecosystems when those nutrients are pulled up and out? What happens in the shallows when those nutrients get dumped there?

Remember the effects we've seen in both fresh and salt water as the results of farming fertilizer run-off, effluents from wastewater treatment plants, perfectly clean but warmer-than-natural cooling water discharges from coal-fired and nuclear power generating plants? Heck, just think about the phosphates dissolved in treated wastewater as the result of stuff like laundry detergents.

The Watermelons will howl their hysterical rage to the skies, and might could be that they'll actually have some justification.

As for intrinsically corrupt and stupid government thugs doing the "anti trust measures" dance....

Oh, you so do NOT want to get me started about that.

Tucci78
Tucci78

@Guest one5467 - "Tucci78 is way off base. First of all, even Paul concedes that if GW is "natural cycles", he admits mankind also has an effect. What he fails to understand is that a two degree global rise in temperature would be devastating."

Then the Medieval Warm and Roman Warm climate optima, during which the global average temperature rises were each far in excess of the "We're All Gonna Die" rise about which you stupidly squeal ("two degree") were periods of "devastating" adverse climate effects.

Oh, wait a minute. They weren't. They were, in fact, periods during which the levels of human prosperity - as measured by agricultural productivity, population growth, and the reduction of death rates due to epidemic diseases - were higher than those prevailing before or after.

The fact that human activity can and does have local and regional effect upon many prevailing climate conditions is not disputed. However, the extent to which GLOBAL climate change can be (or has ever been) altered by way of anthropogenic carbon dioxide (aCO2) released into the atmosphere to effect statistically significant "trapping" of insolation heat energy that's not quickly re-radiated out into extraterrestrial space is completely without EVIDENCE.

And that's what I keep hitting. If you, putzie, have access to any EVIDENCE that the "greenhouse" effect of aCO2 has any such effect to any significant extent whatsoever (or that we could possibly achieve global average temperature rises approaching even those prevailing during the lesser Roman Warm, much less the much higher averages encountered sustainedly during the greater Medieval Warm Period), reach into your smelly ass, yank it out, and SHOW THAT EVIDENCE.

Oh, yeah. Ditto for the records supposedly held by the government of the State of Hawaii regarding the happy fiction of Odumbo's birth anyplace other than in his native Mombasa.

When that "Oops, there it was!" long-form birth certificate (for example) is put into the hands of a panel of trained, experienced, certified forensic documents examiners prepared to testify under oath in a court of law as to their provenance and validity, THEN we will speak about evidence, and not matters of "Liberal" fascist religious bullshit.

Tucci78
Tucci78

@Abba4abba - "I propose that we simply drop a massive ice cube in the ocean each year to counteract the effects of global warming. Problem solved."

Straightforward and, in its way, undeniably elegant.

May I add to this proposal the suggestion that we chuck in a Greenland-sized orange slice and a paper umbrella about as wide across as Australia?

Neither shaking nor stirring, please. Those sediments in the subduction zones especially shouldn't be agitated to muddy up the cocktail.

Tucci78
Tucci78

@Shaman4 - "Tucci doesn't believe in GW. Nor does he believe in Obama's birth cert."

Since when has either issue - the crippled conjecture of anthropogenic global warming (AGW, not "GW") or Barry Soebarkah's qualification to have stood for election to the office he criminally usurps at the present time - been matters that anybody is supposed to "believe" in?

Are these matters of fact subject to confirmation by way of EVIDENCE, or are they article of religious faith?

"Shaman4," you've chosen your handle perfectly. You're a witch-doctor dancing about, chanting and flinging guano all over the place in your ritual dick-beating, invoking nothing more than pure fantasy from start to finish.

In both matters, I've simply stated that no EVIDENCE has been produced in support.

None to prove the validity of the AGW contention, and none to prove your Mombasa Messiah's claim to have been born anywhere other than in Kenya Colony.

Or, for that matter, to have gained U.S. citizenship after having become a citizen of the Republic of Indonesia when he'd been adopted by Lolo Soetoro as a child.

As I'd observed, nothing as yet provided by our TelePrompTer-in-chief to any controlling legal authority in the whole of this "natural born citizen" whoop-te-do is sufficient to get your Kenyan Keynesian a driver's license in most of the several states in our republic.

Tucci78
Tucci78

@Allan from Skye "I just saw a pretty interesting video on you tube called the money masters."

I regret to say that I've not yet been able to find the video on YouTube, save for a presentation which appears to be concerned with the financial machinations of the banksters generally, emphasis upon the issue of fiat currency ("legal counterfeiting") in the degradation of the functionality of the media of exchange.

In the process of searching, however, I found some good material on *The American Thinker* Web site, including the following:

"Since the Enlightenment scientific progress has relied upon publication of logical and empirical "proofs" for new theories and theorems. This practice serves to disseminate the new knowledge generated, resulting in peer review. [ERROR! Peer review as it is presently understood is the term for a formal component of the editorial process in scientific publishing.] Specialists in the field have the most interest in reading particular publications; they potentially have the most to gain from the new learning, and they will likely have the most relevant things to say in response. Honest scholars seek the truth and are happy when an error in the record is corrected. However it is not necessarily known a priori who is the most expert among the readership, or who will deliver the best, most cogent replies that might either concur or differ with a proposed new theory. Therefore true scientists seek the widest possible audience for their work. In an intellectual process akin to crowd-sourcing, the most reliable, truthful theories emerge over time."

(See Jerome J. Schmitt, http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/01/al_gores_last_theorem.html dated January 22, 2012)

Despite my quibble above (regarding "peer review"), Mr. Schmitt's articles for *The American Thinker* on the subject of global climate change seem to be well-considered and worth one's time. I regret to have failed fully to appreciate the value of this site when considering this particular issue until today.

Shaman4
Shaman4

@maria s Tucci doesn't believe in GW. Nor does he believe in Obama's birth cert. Allan from Skye thinks Tucci78 is the love of his life. Ron Paul doesn't believe in evolution. It's a match made in all american heaven. Bunch of idiots.

Tucci78
Tucci78

@maria s - "How many pages have duchi78 and Allan filled up here?" ....and similar pointless yammering completely off the topic of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) fraud and the defense of individual human rights otherwise.

Tsk. When such idiotic attempts at distraction are made in an online forum such as this one, they appear only because these blithering dolts are pounding their empty heads against the bricks in screaming frustration at their own inability to participate in such discourse to any purpose other than demonstrating their own stupidity and viciousness.

Some months ago, I read a comment to the effect that when they encounter writers and speakers able to present effectively online, the "Liberals" desperately want these opponents to JUST SHUT UP!

By contrast, when those of us who defend the U.S. Constitution and the value of individual human rights encounter these "Liberals," we're simply delighted to have them keep speaking.

As a matter of fact, we tend reliably (though not politely) to encourage them to keep on shoving their feet into their mouths.

I suspect that with proper respect for her potential, "maria s" should be showing symptoms of an athlete's foot infection of her duodenum pretty goddam soon.

Tucci78
Tucci78

@Allan from Skye - "So,are you off the opinion that voluntary charitable giving would take up the slack of the one eigth and that we wouldnt have beggars and footpads running amok?"

Not at all. I don't expect "voluntary charitable giving" to do much of anything except assuage the consciences of those who give.

Moreover, I am emphatically NOT relying upon charitable giving to provide any services as good as could be gotten by people doing for themselves. Remember, charitable undertakings have very poor intrinsic negative feedback mechanisms.

Ever seen the Disney movie of Eleanor Porter's novel *Pollyanna* (1960)? One of the plot elements is the charitable undertakings aggressively managed by the upper-class ladies of the town in which the story is set. Many of those receiving the charitable gifts - including such dubious goodies as calf's-foot jelly - were unsatisfied because the ladies' donations seldom or never addressed the recipients' needs or desires.

But charitable giving - both anonymous and identified, local or nationwide - has BETTER and more efficiently applied feedback mechanisms than do politically-mandated government "welfare" programs. This means that voluntary charity is intrinsically less wasteful and perverse.

Inasmuch as politician-managed taxpayer-mulcting programs to provide the people in the one-eighth of whom you speak with "their healthcare and unemployment insurance" are by comparison much less effective and much more costly in terms of administrative overhead and bureaucratic inertia, voluntary charitable giving is vastly preferable, and should no longer be degraded and diminished by government thuggery.

Curious as hell that we're having this discussion on the "Global Warming" thread, isn't it?

SKull
SKull

@Allan from Skye

I think the main thing must be that the health care is not sponsored through taxation since this just breeds self-perpetuating bureaucracies. According to the hippocratic oath doctors are in any case supposed to do a tenth of their work for free to relieve the poor, which almost no doctors do today. This might in itself be a good start to provide healthcare for the unfortunates.

But in a larger perspective a nation can create whatever money is necessary to maintain essential infrastructure and social services, as long as it`s supported by production. There is no real reason why healthcare and education for example has to be so darned expensive as it is in the states or as centralized as it is in most of Europe. That it is so is more an expression of social control from the top rather than natural market adjustments.

Whether centralized and state run or private and decentralized both can be set up to prevent the poor from getting healthcare and education or to facilitate it. I think this is the real issue and what needs fixing.

Tucci78
Tucci78

@Allan from Skye - "I do ,however think that it may be necessary to provide some kind of provision for those who,through bad luck,ill health,bad genes,or abandonment, old age aren't able to fend for themselves and are not taken care of by the good Samaritans amongst us.I think that number of people would be relatively small in a free-ish society with family values."

That last isn't necessarily so. However, it should be understood that voluntary eleemosynary efforts to provide EXTRAFAMILIAL - even completely anonymous - supports and other services tend more reliably to develop as normative political efforts are either withdrawn or never intrude upon society in the first place.

First, it must be understood that when politicians and other government thugs divert spending power from the private sector to politically "sweet" objectively charitable undertakings (Medicare, Medicaid, AFDC, the Woman-Infants-&-Children Program, Social Security, disability insurance, unemployment insurance, etc.), citizens in the private sector of society - the productive sector, mark you - are deprived of the use of that spending power, meaning that there is reduction in (a) savings which create liquid capital for borrowing, (b) discretionary spending, which creates demand-driven market activity, and (c) charitable giving.

Diminishing ANY of these activities - even charitable giving - is pernicious.

Second, it is easy to note that people tend reliably to feel MUCH less inclined to undertake charitable giving and even voluntary charitable services if they perceive government to be functioning in that role.

Remember Dickens' *A Christmas Carol*? Good old Scrooge bitching: "Are there no prisons? ... And the Union workhouses. ...Are they still in operation? ... Those who are badly off must go there."

Per one commenter's note (see http://mises.org/daily/573):

"As Scrooge observes, he supports those institutions with his taxes. Already forced to help those who can't or won't help themselves, it is not unreasonable for him to balk at volunteering additional funds for their extra comfort."

So we see that by plundering the productive sector of our society, the mock-"charity" of the politicians does magnified damages.

First, they destroy the means by which economic growth may take place.

Second, they destroy the incentive for the private citizen to take such responsibilities on his own shoulders.

Tucci78
Tucci78

@Allan from Skye - "Markets and banking also need regulating effectively."

No disagreement there. What, however, gives you to believe that the officers of civil government are CAPABLE of "regulating effectively" - indeed, of "regulating" at all - those functions of markets including banking?

Keep in mind at all times that the only necessary (indeed, the only legitimate) functions of government can be summed up as "breaking things and killing people." Put more politely, it's what the 18th Century political philosophers termed "the police power," by virtue of which the officers of government pose a reasonable deterrent force to oppose those who violation of individual human rights within those governments' jurisdictions.

Not only is every other legitimate action of lawful government undertaken only in service to that essential function, but it is the police power which underlies ALL government action, legitimate or not.

Put plainly, the officers of the government are accorded a functional monopoly on the management of retaliatory deadly force. You do what Officer Friendly tells you to do or - to whatever extent you offer resistance - kindly Officer Friendly will kill you.

That simple.

Now, explain please just HOW any honest human being benefits by having the government thugs who "break things and kill people" meddle in the voluntary interactions of folks as they truck and barter in the marketplace?

(Banking, by the way, is simply another subdivision of "markets," in which specific types of spending power allocations are undertaken. Historically - as today - banking is only "regulated" by government goons in order to debauch the circulating media of exchange by way of issuing fiat currency or otherwise thieving away the valuta of innocent victims trying to participate in the financial marketplace.)

The megalomaniacs of government have almost never any expertise in (or understanding of) voluntary marketplace functions. Their only legitimate role in the markets - and in the rest of society - is to pose a credible threat of retaliation against theft, fraud, and the violation of contractual obligations. They are not supposed to intervene normatively to force upon the market participants outcomes which the government assholes consider politically "sweet."

The market otherwise very satisfactorily regulates itself according to negative feedback mechanisms as described by the laws of economics.

Friedlon7
Friedlon7

@Allan from Skye But he isn't!! From there on we had the slow takeover of Friedmanite neo liberalism. remember it was Greenspan since Reagan more than a quarter of a century ago!!! He's no Keynesian is he. I think we'll just never get anywhere once people use this kind of rewriting of history. Thatcher closed the ship building industry, the coal mining and the steel industry in GB. The labour movement get blamed but they would wouldn't they. Anyway there's really only one way to end this argument once and for all and that is to ACTUALLY try the free market as it has never been tried before and therefore we don't know if it will work or not despite your predictions. The fact remains the wealthiest american citizen lived in the very early 70's and it looks like it will be a long long long time before he returns. More likely he'll have to move to Bejing to get there. It would be an interestin social experiment in how to run a country but I fear for you. Still with the likes of FOX news so set against Ron Paul you haven't much of a hope. Good luck tho....

Friedlon7
Friedlon7

@Allan from Skye Lol, although New York in winter's no joke, been there. So what you are saying is - there has never been 'free market capitalism'. Well strictly one could argue that and I wouldn't necessarily disagree with you at all so how do we know it'd work? As I said the biggest movement in HUMAN HISTORY of people out of poverty and into the middle classes was under Keynesian economics in the 50's and 60's when the rich were taxed 96%!!!! Even I think that's way too much, right! but it's a fact.... Now the second biggest movement in History is occurring in CHINA, India, Brazil and the opposite is happening in the states. In India, Brazil and obviously China the governments are playing a very hands on role in this development. What does that show us - that capitalism is not necessary for this kind of wealth creation. Take for instance the USSR. At the start of the 1900's it was rated alongside African countries as impoverished, famines, a true 3 rd world country and under communism it went to become the 2nd big world super power. Similarly under Fascism Germany made an amazing economic recovery. So there is more than one way to skin a cat. Nobody tho wants to live under Chinese style or Nazi regime's - right? But we also don't want to live under corporate tyranny and the bail out shows us that is where we are now. In Europe IMF/ECB is running the show, dislodging democratically elected governments in Greece, Spain, Italy and telling the likes of the Irish how to run their budgets. In the states you have the Fed calling the shots. This is not big government as these are independent unelected bodies but I agree that the political class work to facilitate these and big business corporate interests. This is big business. 'Politics is the shadow cast by big business over society'. So logically as an extension of that look at Foz and CNN etc and who they are backing covertly. Certainly not Ron Paul. You won't see Glen Beck calling for an end to foreign intervention. The mass media went along with the bail outs, the wars and in this forums case anti GW propaganda and that proves one thing emphatically. Mass media is the propaganda arm of corporate interests. The ONLY thing they are up in arms about on FOX is health reform!!! Why?? Not because it's fucking socialism - don't make me die laughing pleeeeease!! Fuck me in aforementioned Sweden they pay for the heating in the homes of the elderly during the winter. These are not fascist devils with fucking horns running the country... 'Oh How evil it is for society to give a shit about the elderly!'

Friedlon7
Friedlon7

That's why Ron Paul is such a problem for the mass media but also such a dilemma for the Republican party, because he really does represent 'change' to the status quo and therefore in modern terms represents a radical (that is non-conservative) shift in direction. Obviously the mass media does not want the end the US foreign policy on oil Wars, Israel, military protectionism of the likes of the Saudi royalty in return for massive inputs of Saudi money to Wall street. What you really have to come to terms with is that Obama is also a conservative. To Europeans the idea that he'd be called socialist is beyond a joke. So he wants to make health public. After WWII all of European countries (even the defeated) now enjoy universal health care as an expression of societies values. In other words you are judged by how you treat the least of men. The poor, criminals, the handicapped, the very young and the very old. The US is the only modern state that has not had these things even tho you emerged form the War as the richest country on earth. It's argued that this is the American way - every man for himself. That's fine but those countries who like to share wealth evenly are very successful, peaceful, rich countries in themselves and in lots of ways far more successful than the US. Ron Paul has attracted lot's of democrats, young, disillusioned but also this super fractious element that does not know quite were it sits on his social issues - legalisation of drugs etc. Obama didn't bring in those lwas. Obama didn't bring in the end to habeus corpus. Obama didn't bring in preemptive wars. Obama didn't bring in the right for the president to bypass congress on war. The constitution was descimated by the Republican party under Bush. So what's the logical conclusion to all this. You have a 2 party system that does the same thing - protects corporate interests against the will and well being of the people - YOU NEED NEW PARTIES. The fucking tea party is a corporate front. Big government???? Bush/Rep's tripled your spending and national debt in 8 years - Now THAT's big governement. You'll never solve it unless you stop killing each other over crap you hear on the fucking radio and see on your ridiculous excuses for news broadcasting. At least in the USSR they knew the news was propaganda but you don't. That is why without TOTALLY independent/non funded media you have NO democracy - NONE whatsoever. Just look at the way they are ignoring RON PAUL. Last time they literally laughed at him. Now they are simply ignoring him. Free/balanced/democratic?? WAKE THE FUCK UP USA before the nightmare really starts.

Tucci78
Tucci78

@Allan from Skye - "The use of heated and abusive language by participants on this forum suggests to me that belief systems are being threatened.In situations like this it appears to me that belief is inversely proportional to knowledge and the heated nature of the writings indicates a lack of knowledge more than anything else."

My language in this forum is NEVER "heated." When I deal with these Watermelon lying scum, I do it in the same merry spirit as a small boy out on a sunny morning squashing stinkbugs.

Same kind of stench from these "Liberal" fascists, for that matter.

As for it being allegedly "abusive," that's pure nonsense. They warrant such language, do they not? They've sweated and strained and thieved and lied, they've molested children, impoverished elderly people, done everything they can to destroy the economy of industrialized civilization, precipitated financial panics, triggered the "Arab Spring" uprisings (admittedly not a bad thing in and of itself), defrauded the taxpayers, elected an illegal alien to the U.S. presidency and are trying to repeat the crime, have forced into existence legislature to make the 4th and 5th Amendments to the Constitution null and void, and are in the process of destroying the 1st Amendment (see "SOPA" and "PIPA").

Heavens, I could hang them, drag them still living through the sewers, tar and feather them, shoot them repeatedly, and finish up with a traditional "drawn and quartered" finish, and they'd still be getting off lightly.

The old Imperial Chinese "death of a thousand cuts" really ought to be thrown in there someplace, if only we could figure out how to do it without diminishing the agony and humiliation of the other punishments. Maybe right before the tar-and-feathers treatment?

Please reconsider your opinion of "heated and abusive language," and acknowledge that my conduct here is the very soul of polite restraint and moderation.

guest one5468
guest one5468

@Tucci78@Guest one5467 They weren't two degrees above where we are NOW in the Medieval warming. We are currently at the warmest temperature globally and the most CO2 in the atmosphere then at any time in history. A two degree increase from here would be catastrophic.You talk about regional climate change and then use the Roman Warm as an example - please. The Medieval period was less than .5 of a degree above the background normal, just as in the 1700's it was a half degree below - those kinds of variations are the "normal cycles". We're talking two degrees above normal presently predicted, and may be on our way to three. It sounds so little until you put it in perspective. If I have "evidence of something now above the Roman period" - yes, I do - we're already above that - by almost double and still rising. Think about al the changes in the past, and then triple them - and the speed with which it's changing is the issue.

Shaman4
Shaman4

@Tucci78@Allan from Skye Hey assholes!. Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack? Newt or Barack?

Shaman4
Shaman4

@Tucci78 Hey fuckwit Looks like old man creationist Paul is disappearing like yesterdays flat earth theory. How does it feel to back a lame duck. You who's Oh so fucking smart. Not even the dumbest nation on earth can go along with your bullshit on that one. Creationism anyone??? Doctor Ron Paul? What to have to do to become a doctor in the states, study scientology for a week??. The late great US of fucking A. Adios amigos...

Allan from Skye
Allan from Skye

@Tucci78 Hi Tucci,I,m so glad that you didnt in fact end it all last night.You had me worried there.It would be a severe loss to us all here back on the forum.I looked up maskirovka on google since you mentioned it and found that it bore a striking similarity to the wolf in sheeps clothing emblem of the Fabians with their gradualistic tortoise that strikes hard when it eventually strikes.

I do find the deception,dishonesty of these orwellian double speak types very distastefull.Have you checked out the Fabians.Two hundred or so of the mp,s of the British Labour Party are members of the Fabian society including Tony Blair,Gordon Brown and the current shadow leader Milliband.

I bet theres lots of them in the USA as well.

Of course the Fabians thought that Stalin was wonderfull and visited Russia in the thirties wide eyed with wonderment at the achievement of it all while millions were dying in slave camps on trumped up charges.

Thats what weve got to look forward to if we dont change course.

Tucci78
Tucci78

@Shaman4@Allan from Skye - Well, at present, your POTUS-With-An-Asterisk isn't even legally named "Barack."

Y'see, among Islamic males in the Republic of Indonesia, custom confers a solitary name, to which may be appended a nickname.

When our Hubshi Halfling was adopted by his stepfather , Soetoro (nickname "Lolo") he was registered as "Soebarkah" (nickname "Barry") and it was under that name he was registered for school and got named on Stanley Ann's passport.

To the best of anybody's knowledge, when he was sent off to live with his Dunham grandparents, he was neither naturalized as a U.S. citizen or had his legal name changed back to "Barack Hussein Obama II."

It's even reasonable to guess that when he made his trips to India and Pakistan as a young man, he did so on his Indonesian passport, under the name "Soebarkah."

People traveling on U.S. passports at that time were not permitted freely to enter and travel in Pakistan as there were diplomatic tensions between our republic and that country. Indonesia being recognized as one of the 57 Muslim nation-states, however, would have had no problem with "Barry" Soebarkah.

Gonna be interesting to get into his college records and see whether he applied for (and got) financial aid as a foreign national, isn't it?

Tucci78
Tucci78

@Shaman4 - "Looks like old man creationist Paul is disappearing like yesterdays flat earth theory."

As Dr. Paul had observed at the close of the South Carolina primary, only 37 delegates have been allocated so far, "something like 1.5 percent," he said. "This is the beginning of a long, hard slog."

Asswipe, you're clearly a "Liberal" fascist with no interest in Dr. Paul's campaign beyond your (well-justified) terror of his ideas on restoring the U.S. Constitution and cutting back the cancerous overgrowth of federal spending.

Why don't you quit this site and go over to one where you can suckle at the crotches of the banksters and socialist shit-disturbers and the other National Socialist Democrat American Party (NSDAP) hacks?

You know where you belong, and so does everybody else reading here, and it's surely not among the partisans of government under the rule of law and the defenders of individual human rights.

Tucci78
Tucci78

@Allan from Skye - "Of course the Fabians thought that Stalin was wonderfull and visited Russia in the thirties wide eyed with wonderment at the achievement of it all while millions were dying in slave camps on trumped up charges."

Oh, heck, yeah, I'm familiar with the history of the Fabian Society, as well as with its sputniki here in these United States.

"I have been over to the future and it works." (Lincoln Steffans, 1921, returning from a visit to the Soviet Union)

"Any report of a famine in Russia is today an exaggeration or malignant propaganda." (Walter Duranty, *The New York Times*, 23 August 1933, reporting on the Holdomor in which Stalin inflicted the deaths of between eleven and thirteen million smallholding family farmers in the Ukraine).

Other prominent contemporary Western "Liberal" deniers of the kulak murders included George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, and H.G. Wells. See http://www.lib.monash.edu.au/exhibitions/communism/com107.html for some wonderful insight into how these leftie-luser scum cuddled up to "Uncle Joe" Stalin at the height of this particular "enlightened" work of socialism.

As I've observed before in this forum, the Watermelon types ("green on the outside, red to the core") continue without exception to show themselves bereft of any education or literacy whatsoever.

If any of them had any kind of informed appreciation not only of how completely bogus is the AGW contention but also how utterly vicious and murderous has been the whole history of socialism as a political movement, I could only think that they would have not only repudiated their idiocies but sought to do penance in efforts to compensate their victims for all the damages they and their co-conspirators have done.

That they have not done so is an indication that our "Liberal" fascists have the same morality and mindset as any other bunch of serial rapists and murderers, and therefore recommend treating them as enemies of the public peace everywhere and in every way they show themselves.