What a Way to Go: Life at the End of Empire

[EthanAllen]

I think that "peak credit" will put an end to the suburban McMansion lifestyle much sooner than peak oil would have...

You are describing a cyclical bubble phenomena that is created by humans. Peak oil is bumping up against natural limits.

[jaqeboy]

Just on the globar warming aspect of this movie, I have found a contrary view on this site: http://www.globalwarmingglobalgovernance.com/

[CNHT]

Just on the globar warming aspect of this movie, I have found a contrary view on this site: http://www.globalwarmingglobalgovernance.com/

This movie expresses the same view that I hold --- the 'environment' is being used to gain political control over the lives of the people. It's part of the push for worldwide equalization of the economy, via world socialism under some sort of newly written manifesto...to replace the Constitution. Certainly we have enough intelligent 'libertarians' who can think of a way to preserve the resources without having to resort to this.

[EthanAllen]

Certainly we have enough intelligent 'libertarians' who can think of a way to preserve the resources without having to resort to this.

Like?

[dalebert]

Certainly we have enough intelligent 'libertarians' who can think of a way to preserve the resources without having to resort to this.

Like?

John Stossel did a great piece where he showed clips from some school where the teacher was doing a thought experiment with the kids showing how resources were preserved when the kids had ownership vs public property. She put X amount of chocolate candies in a cup in groups of about 5 or so kids and passed it around and told each kid they could take however many they wanted, keeping in mind that after each pass, the number of candies left would be tripled for the next pass. The cup was always empty at the end of one pass as each student made a run on scarce resources before others could get them. She gave each student their own cup of candies and did the same experiment, and there was always several candies left in the cup.

[EthanAllen]

Certainly we have enough intelligent 'libertarians' who can think of a way to preserve the resources without having to resort to this.

Like?

John Stossel did a great piece where he showed clips from some school where the teacher was doing a thought experiment with the kids showing how resources were preserved when the kids had ownership vs public property. She put X amount of chocolate candies in a cup in groups of about 5 or so kids and passed it around and told each kid they could take however many they wanted, keeping in mind that after each pass, the number of candies left would be tripled for the next pass. The cup was always empty at the end of one pass as each student made a run on scarce resources before others could get them. She gave each student their own cup of candies and did the same experiment, and there was always several candies left in the cup.

As usual, you are presenting a false duality just as the neo-classicals have by conflating land with capital by using the term "public property" which actually has two distinct meanings.

Why don't you first define "public property" so that we know what you mean?

So is "public property" collective ownership a joint right or ownership in common an individual equal right?

[Friday]

Belching moose contribute to global warming:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070822/sc_afp/sciencenorwayclimate

I can see it now; civil disobedience on the Kangamangas Highway to protect our ornery, antlered fellow Granite Staters from extermination by the UN! 

"Ye can take our lives, but ye'll never take... our moooooooooooooose!" 

[dalebert]

So is "public property" collective ownership a joint right or ownership in common an individual equal right?

I don't believe in either of those concepts just as I don't believe in intellectual property. They are all contrivances designed to serve certain agendas. To say everyone owns something in "a certain way" is the same as saying nobody owns it and human nature shows that no one is going to assume proper stewardship of it.

Why don't you first define "public property" so that we know what you mean?

In this case, the context of my use of the fictional concept describes exactly what I mean. When each student had exclusive access to a portion of a certain resource, they conserved it and used it sparingly. In the case of sharing a resource, they attempted to get as much as they could for themselves before others used it up.

[EthanAllen]

I don't believe in either of those concepts just as I don't believe in intellectual property.

Does that mean you don't believe in common rights like freedom of speech either?

How about common right of ways?

What is the specific reason you don't believe in IP?

To say everyone owns something in "a certain way" is the same as saying nobody owns it and human nature shows that no one is going to assume proper stewardship of it.

Common rights are individual equal rights. Man consciously leaves a state of nature where might makes right and forms a self-governance authority to insure that their rights are upheld by a monopoly on force over a particular area.

Locke's proviso is all that is necessary to assure that sustainable stewardship is achieved and common assets are preserved for future generations.

When each student had exclusive access to a portion of a certain resource, they conserved it and used it sparingly. In the case of sharing a resource, they attempted to get as much as they could for themselves before others used it up.

The prisoner's dilemma game is fundamental to certain theories of human cooperation and trust. On the assumption that the prisoner's dilemma can model transactions between two people requiring trust, cooperative behavior in populations may be modeled by a multi-player, iterated, version of the game. One can therefore reach the utopian-sounding conclusion that within this scenario selfish individuals for their own selfish good will tend to be nice and forgiving and non-envious.

[J’raxis 270145]

There is an "intellectual property" thread ongoing over here, and at the FSP forum, too.

[dalebert]

Man consciously leaves a state of nature where might makes right and forms a self-governance authority to insure that their rights are upheld by a monopoly on force over a particular area.

Most of your post is based on ignoring things I've already answered either here or in long long boring repetitive threads from long ago, but I will point out that a monopoly on force IS might makes right. If you don't have 100% explicit consent from every individual, then force is used to impose the will of the majority on individuals. There can not be a "self-governance authority" because those two words are oxymorons. When you establish an authority to enforce what you believe to be right on others, you are rejecting the notion of self-governance.

[EthanAllen]

I will point out that a monopoly on force IS might makes right.

No, what makes a might makes right unjust is it's arbitrary nature. In our case we have a constitution that lays out what "natural rights" we all have prior to the formation of governance as legitimate authority (self-governance) which is then given a monopoly on force which is not arbitrary.

When you establish an authority to enforce what you believe to be right on others, you are rejecting the notion of self-governance.

Governance as legitimate authority is narrowly constituted to protect life, liberty and labor-based property (self-ownership) as our natural rights. You consent or agree to attempt to change the rules within legal or extra-legal, non-violent means or you leave.

[dalebert]

You're starting a minarchy vs. anarchy topic and hijacking the thread. There are plenty of those over at the FTL boards.

[Insurgent]

If they're trying to scare someone into giving up their freedom to a regional or world government under which they'll live in oppressed tyranny forever, then yes, that's a big problem, and they're absolutely stupid to do so.

I don't get that sense from this movie or discussions about it.

There are two points I want to make:

First, there is going to be a global economic collapse, and unless you get hit by a bus fairly soon, you're going to live to see it. Now there are two ways to deal with such a collapse: The first is to give up and take on the yoke of a tyrannical world government, such as the one the UN wants to build. The other is to move back toward local control of local affairs and more freedom for individuals generally. It's the latter that I've seen most of these people advocate, when they can get the concepts clear in their heads.

Second, there are more important things than money. I'd rather be poor and have my wife and children -- for I know I can make the best of whatever circumstances I find us in -- than be rich and alone.

To bring this topic back around, I've been meaning to recognize Beavis for this thoughtful post from a couple days ago. +1 

I concur; I don't get that sense about this movie, either or I wouldn't be advocating for it. It's available now on DVD, by the way at http://www.whatawaytogomovie.com/purchase-the-dvd

[CNHT]

The CFR is getting smarter and smarter and hoping you'll have a short memory about the cooling crisis they were scare-mongering about in the 1970's

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yoa0abqEpnk