RT, let me state for the record that I have seen this tactic from jab before, that I recognize his hostilely-worded leading question as an attempt to get into a fight, and that I have no intention of indulging him. Thus, I gave him the answer he was looking for so that he can sit back and feel smugly superior to the libertarians that he so hates.
If you don’t know me well enough by now to know that his characterization is not even close to my actual opinion, I don’t know what to say.
Well, the reason I didn’t know what to think was that, on the one hand, I think I do know you pretty well by now, and I can’t see you putting principles ahead of people. But OTOH, I have to agree with jab1 that that reasonably sets out the implications of your previously stated position.
So you see how that kinda leaves me not knowing what to think.
Wait a second, here, RT – I’m really offended by the idea that what jab said is an accurate characterization of what I said.
Given statements that you have made in the past concerning taking up arms on behalf of the United States government, and that you feel it would be wrong for you to do so because you have pledged your life to Christ and it is not yours to give up, how would you feel if I asked you, “Are you saying you would actually allow governments hostile to United States interests and mores to simply have their way and wreak havoc and misery on the world, rather than adopt a philosophical position you oppose and do the thing that could preserve freedom for all of us?”
You’d think it was utter horseshit, enough to gag a maggot off a shitwagon, and you’d be right to do so. Both because it was a question which exaggerated the premise and because it’s patently offensive to you as a person.
My position is that, given that there can be multiple approaches to solving any particular problem, I prefer the noncoercive ones and the ones that give government the smallest reasonable role. Cripes, I just typed a couple of hundred words up there about the type of problem-solving that I would be interested in seeing, as well as about a government that would be more responsive to its citizens interests. Was it invisible or something?
If you really, honestly think that jab’s statement, as written, is an accurate characterization of anything that I have said, then either you have gone bonkers or I need to take a remedial English course.
Addendum: It should also be noted that there is a universe of difference between asking whether I personally would adopt another political philosophy and whether I would abide by the policies of a government empowered by and operating under that philosophy. The answer to the former is, “No,” and the answer to the latter is, “Yes.”
I’m gonna write that one down.
“Mr. President?”
“Howdy, Karl! Geez, what do you think of these new Leggos? Bit too complicated, don’t you think…”
“Perhaps, sir. Mr. President, its about this “global warming” thing…”
“The American people don’t care about that. The American people don’t trust a bunch of bureaucrats. The American people don’t…”
“Well, sir, it might be wise to do a bit of image control on this…”
“Karl, you telling me to shut up again? You know I hate it when…”
“No, Mr. President, not at all, just a slightly different approach. Try to follow me here, sir. Now, you know, enviromental wackos are always talking about the Earth…”
“Yeah, sure, Al Gore wrote a whole damn book about it! Hell, I didn’t even read one, and I’m here and he’s in Knoxville, Mississippi, 'cause the American people…”
"Try to stay focused here, Mr. President. You know sometimes people use the name “Terra” when refering to “Earth…”
“I know all about Spanish, Karl.”
“Yes, sir. Quite. At any rate, people devoted to Stalin are called “Stalinists”. People devoted to Marx are called Marxists…”
The President furrows his brow, deeply absorbed in connecting the dots. His face lights up in the unfamiliar expression of comprehension.
“So people devoted to “Terra” are “terra-ists!” Terrists! You think the American people will buy that one?”
“You’re here, aren’t you, sir?”
Well, it was, in a sense. I was responding to where things stood after jab’s post and your response, and since I’d read the first page, I figured I pretty much knew where you were coming from. I hadn’t read your response to samclem, and wasn’t expecting you to say anything like what was in there.
::sigh:: Regarding the language of libertarianism, I’m conditioned by two and a half years of debating with Lib and others of a similar philosophy. When a libertarian tells me he doesn’t want the government telling him what to do, I don’t just assume that means he doesn’t want the government telling him exactly what to do - I assume it means he doesn’t even want the government using tax dollars to give incentives for certain behaviors and disincentives for others.
IOW, I apparently need the remedial reading course. I went off half-cocked, having not read all you’d written, and assuming you were saying something other than what you were in the parts I read. Mea culpa.
Ok RJ, the threat of human extinction? Hee Hee. You wouldn’t happen to have, you know, a cite for that particular “threat”, would ya?
You must have this forum confused with Great Debates, milroyj – cites around here just get in the way of the random cussing and venting. 
But I’ll give you an apt quote, howzat?
(Ian Stewart, Jack Cohen and Terry Pratchett, “The Science of Discworld”)
And if the noncoercive ones don’t work…?
Take a hint, jab.
I’m not against telecommuting. But my understanding is that a study (reported in Scientific American?) indicated that its effectiveness in addressing traffic congestion was rather limited. I do not remember why. I conclude from that its impact on CO2 emissions would also be rather limited.
More generally, I don’t see how forcing people to pay for the damage that they do to the environment is “coercive” any more than making them pay for labor, capital or materials is. The beauty of emissions taxes is that the individuals can still decide how to spend their money - if they want to buy a big truck, that’s still ok. But they will have to pay for the damage that they inflict on others.
Most will choose to adapt in the way they best see fit.
Furthermore, I don’t see how passing “another law” conflicts with the Constitution. But, I’ll chalk the latter up to haste.
Oh, I know cites are not commonly required in the Pit, but your assertion about the extinction of the human race seemed a bit over the top.
As for your quote, I believe it’s from authors of “science-FICTION”.
C’mon, even December does better than that! 
Well, if you want a nightmare scenerio, imagine what would happen if the Gulf Stream were disrupted.
We could have average temperatures rising in the world, while the UK and Europe suffers from a cold, wet death.
Ian Stewart is a professor of mathematics at University of Warwick. Jack Cohen is a reproductive biologist at Warwick University. As far as I know, neither of them have written science fiction of any sort.
Terry Pratchett is, of course, reknown for his Discworld series of fantasdy novels, though he has dabbled in sci-fi previously.
And being a science-fiction writer doesn’t mean the writer isn’t scientifically savvy, of course. Or have you forgotten Isaac Asimov already?
Now I’m insulted!