Anyone feel queasy when they realize they voted for Bush?

[_Tarski]

For example, the basis of global warming is at bottom quantum mechanical. To understand the subtleties that make all the difference one must go to this level.

As Bugs Bunny said, "Quantum mechanical? So its Quantum Mechanical!"

Ya, all that supposed reading about this and you don't know that? Absorption and emission of photons generated by the sun and then reemitted by the earth is the premier quantum mechanical phenomenon. The QM structure of the various molecular orbitals is at the root of why some gases are greenhouse gases and some are not. Of course, that's only the begin of how QM plays a role.
Then the is the statistics and probability that Coggins does not know either.

Look folks, lets get real. I tell Coggins that I agree with the majority position on global warming. I do so in part because I understand how science works and recognize that it is rational for an educated observer to bet on the side of essentially all the major scientific societies.
I do not do this because political precommitments. I fully recognize the existence of exaggerators on some issues (there is always such on both sides). I formulated a 3 part statement that I have never met a scientist that disagreed with (some said it was too conservative).
I fully realize that consensus may change substantially on an outside chance. We cannot just assume that!

What is Coggins "cool rational response"? Well, he finds one or two minority opinions in a sea of consensus on the major points. Then he declares these folks to be right! All without any scientific training. Nay, he does it on the basis of his political theories!

Also, his political theories are so powerful that they allow him to conclude that because I agree with a majority on a scientific issue, and that I care about the environment, that I am a elitist Leninist ideologue who spews Dawkinseque spittle.
That's right! He concludes that I am a communist! What a political philosopher he is indeed. LOL

Please tell me that there is no one that takes him seriously.

Mark my words Tarski, in just a few more years AGW will be gone .

In a few years, you will be gone, worm food. But your grandchildren won't be. But what do you care?
Opinions about GW may change but if they change in your favor it will be the sheerest of chance. You are not basing your opinion on science or on majority expert opinion. That's irrational for a layperson.

I base my opinion tentatively and cautiously on the opinions of those who know the most in the field and in some measure on my own scientific training. That is rational.

For the record. I am not a Leninist or an ideologue. Those are lies or at best the faulty deductions of a politically fevered mind. In fact, I am barely left of center in this conservative Bible thumping country.

[_Coggins7]

What school of political philosophy do you subscribe to? What major thinkers have influenced you?

I consider myself a Libertarian Conservative. Now this animal is not as strange as it may sound. William Buckley has used both terms in tandem to describe himself for many years. Fundamentally, I'm a classical liberal, and in my own idiosyncratic way, this means I'm conservative on social and cultural issues as well as economic, but in the economic sphere, I actually lean a little farther toward the libertarian perception of things, than even many conservatives in the general population. I don't know that this is true, but the label seems to work for me.

For example, I've changed my mind on certain issues in the recent past, based on the study of both libertarian and conservative perspectives. For example, I used to follow people like George Gilder on the immigration debate, and was for essentially unrestricted immigration. My position now is completely obverse to this. I despise illegal drugs and the illegal drug trade, and I was once strongly for the war on drugs. My position now is ambiguous. I'm not at all sure legalization would solve the problems many staunch libertarians think it would, On the other hand, it may be a better trade off than the present war on drugs. The historical example of Prohibition is key here. Indeed, some of my change of mind here has resulted from my study of environmentalism and the alternative free market solutions to environmental problems.

The loss of species such as the Elephant, White Rhino, and Silverback Gorilla are a function of the "tragedy of the commons"; the result of the widespread application of Western environmetnalist ideology to the problems of endangered species.

The Western approach, taking its cue from traditional environmentalism, is an anti-market, command and control, top down regulation approach that always takes the form of removing the species from human use and "protecting" it by making it off limits to human exploitation. Contact with the species or exploitation of it for human needs is made illegal. The species becomes now both rare and, like illegal cocaine, vastly more valuable than ever before. Poaching becomes rife, and the people around the species, having no ownership or stake in its survival, stand by as it declines or even assists in that decline, to try to get as much out of the limited stock as possible before its all gone.

The solution is to give the people who live with and have probably been harvesting the endangered species for centuries a stake in its survival. This involves ownership, free markets, and incentives to protect and increase the stock of the species. Environmentalists in the West oppose this on principle, however, and will fight vociferously to keep such species protected by the state. It began to dawn on me some few years ago, that if this is true for alcohol, animals, and other things in the commons, its probably true for drugs of various kinds as well. There are still other things to consider beyond this, of course, but the point is I've been influenced by both conservative and libertarian ideas.

As to my major intellectual mentors, a small smattering would probably be, in no particular order, William Buckley, Russel Kirk, F.A. Hayek, Ludwig Von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, Allen Bloom, Robert Bork, Balynt Vasyoni, C.S.Lewis, G.K.Chesterton, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Alan Keys, George Will, Fredrick Bastiat, Christopher Lasch, George Orwell, George Gilder, Ayn Rand, Fung Yu Lan, Jean Kirkpatrick, Gertrude Himmelfarb, many of the Founders, and, well, you get the picture.

[_Tarski]

What school of political philosophy do you subscribe to? What major thinkers have influenced you?

I consider myself a Libertarian Conservative. Now this animal is not as strange as it may sound. William Buckley has used both terms in tandem to describe himself for many years. Fundamentally, I'm a classical liberal, and in my own idiosyncratic way, this means I'm conservative on social and cultural issues as well as economic, but in the economic sphere, I actually lean a little farther toward the libertarian perception of things, than even many conservatives in the general population. I don't know that this is true, but the label seems to work for me.

For example, I've changed my mind on certain issues in the recent past, based on the study of both libertarian and conservative perspectives. For example, I used to follow people like George Gilder on the immigration debate, and was for essentially unrestricted immigration. My position now is completely obverse to this. I despise illegal drugs and the illegal drug trade, and I was once strongly for the war on drugs. My position now is ambiguous. I'm not at all sure legalization would solve the problems many staunch libertarians think it would, On the other hand, it may be a better trade off than the present war on drugs. The historical example of Prohibition is key here. Indeed, some of my change of mind here has resulted from my study of environmentalism and the alternative free market solutions to environmental problems.

The loss of species such as the Elephant, White Rhino, and Silverback Gorilla are a function of the "tragedy of the commons"; the result of the widespread application of Western environmetnalist ideology to the problems of endangered species.

The Western approach, taking its cue from traditional environmentalism, is an anti-market, command and control, top down regulation approach that always takes the form of removing the species from human use and "protecting" it by making it off limits to human exploitation. Contact with the species or exploitation of it for human needs is made illegal. The species becomes now both rare and, like illegal cocaine, vastly more valuable than ever before. Poaching becomes rife, and the people around the species, having no ownership or stake in its survival, stands by as it declines or even assists in that decline, to try to get as much out of the limited stock as possible before its all gone.

The solution is to give the people who live with and have probably been harvesting the endangered species for centuries a stake in its survival. This involves ownership, free markets, and incentives to protect and increase the stock of the species. Environmentalists in the West oppose this on principle, however, and will fight vociferously to keep such species protected by the state. It began to dawn on me some few years ago, that if this is true for alcohol, animals, and other things in the commons, its probably true for drugs of various kinds as well. There are still other things to consider beyond this, of course, but the point is I've been influenced by both conservative and libertarian ideas.

As to my major intellectual mentors, a small smattering would probably be, in no particular order, William Buckley, Russel Kirk, F.A. Hayek, Ludwig Von Mises, Henry Hazlitt, Allen Bloom, Robert Bork, Balynt Vasyoni, C.S.Lewis, G.K.Chesterton, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Alan Keys, George Will, Fredrick Bastiat, Christopher Lasch, George Orwell, George Gilder, Ayn Rand, Fung Yu Lan, Jean Kirkpatrick, Gertrude Himmelfarb, many of the Founders, and, well, you get the picture.

Translation: The free market is God and cures all ills and inequities. It is the greatest good. The environment is inexhaustible.
All else follows.

[_barrelomonkeys]

What a political philosopher he is indeed. LOL

Please tell me that there is no one that takes him seriously.

Hi Tarski. I believe Coggins is a political philosopher. He has apparently absorbed quite a bit from political philosophers and incorporated some of these thoughts into his own schema. It appears to me that he views almost all things through his political lens.

I make no judgment as to whether his philosophy is sound, but it is there nonetheless. I wouldn't call him a political scientist.

[_Coggins7]

Translation: The free market is God and cures all ills and inequities. It is the greatest good. The environment is inexhaustible.
All else follows.

How many here would consider this, based on the names I mentioned here as intellectual influences, to be indicative of a politics "barely to the left" of the Bible thumpers, and, secondarily, intellectually serious?

[_Tarski]

Translation: The free market is God and cures all ills and inequities. It is the greatest good. The environment is inexhaustible.
All else follows.

How many here would consider this, based on the names I mentioned here as intellectual influences, to be indicative of a politics "barely to the left" of the Bible thumpers, and, secondarily, intellectually serious?

Because I don't worship the free market above all else and assume that care of the environment is communism, I must be a radical leftist?
I.e becuase I am not a william f. buckley jr. wanna be, extreme right wing ideologue like Coggins (something even some of the conservatives here have agreed with), I must be a "Lenninist".

Ya, good question. (*wacky*)

By the way, you strategically ignore my questions. Go back the the longer previous posts and answer the questions bolded!

[_Gazelam]

I read your post about living in Brasil. How does the country stay afloat in those conditions?
No wonder you drink.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Translation: The free market is God and cures all ills and inequities. It is the greatest good. The environment is inexhaustible.
All else follows.

How many here would consider this, based on the names I mentioned here as intellectual influences, to be indicative of a politics "barely to the left" of the Bible thumpers, and, secondarily, intellectually serious?

Hi. I feel silly right now. I see both of you as having valid points and have NO idea why I keep responding to this thread. Boredom?

I think Libertarianism does actually have a sort of optimism that is not realistic when it comes to the market. I don't know if your view is tweaked or where you stand on your philosophy but I've known quite a few Libertarians (and was a card carrying member for many years) that are social Darwinists. I think Tarski's view is not so far off when it comes to the public's perception of Libertarianism. I don't see that his reaction is really indicative of him being leftist. I would imagine many Americans that are not extreme believe the government has a role in protecting our endangered species and resources.

[_Tarski]

Translation: The free market is God and cures all ills and inequities. It is the greatest good. The environment is inexhaustible.
All else follows.

How many here would consider this, based on the names I mentioned here as intellectual influences, to be indicative of a politics "barely to the left" of the Bible thumpers, and, secondarily, intellectually serious?

Hi. I feel silly right now. I see both of you as having valid points and have NO idea why I keep responding to this thread. Boredom?

I think Libertarianism does actually have a sort of optimism that is not realistic when it comes to the market. I don't know if your view is tweaked or where you stand on your philosophy but I've known quite a few Libertarians (and was a card carrying member for many years) that are social Darwinists. I think Tarski's view is not so far off when it comes to the public's perception of Libertarianism. I don't see that his reaction is really indicative of him being leftist. I would imagine many Americans that are not extreme believe the government has a role in protecting our endangered species and resources.

Yes, but in fact, no matter what my opinion is about the role of government (have I even stated it?), apparently just my agreeing with the majority of experts on a purely scientific issue is enough to lead Coggins to call me a Leninist. WTF?

My best friend is more or less libertarian (European style). But harming the environment does harm to other people and so violates his basic principles. Since it is an intrinsically global issue, the environment is a special case of sorts. American rightist libertarianism doesn't seem to fully understand the importance and the place of global cooperation or long term social responsibly. Everything is seen as a communist plot of some sort.

[_barrelomonkeys]

Yes, but in fact, no matter what my opinion is about the role of government (have I even stated it?), apparently just my agreeing with the majority of experts on a purely scientific issue is enough to lead Coggins to call me a Leninist. WTF?

My best friend is more or less libertarian (European style). But harming the environment does harm to other people and so violates his basic principles. Since it is an intrinsically global issue, the environment is a special case of sorts. American rightist libertarianism doesn't seem to fully understand the importance and the place of global cooperation or long term social responsibly. Everything is seen as a communist plot of some sort.

I would say the environment as well as children should be special cases in Libertarianism. I agree with you Tarski. You are not a commie and even if you were I'd still call you my friend. :)