Well, that's a strawman. We were comparing plants, animals, and humans. Plants and animals don't cause climatic changes. Though plants might, I suppose.
We were talking about nature. You introduced nature into the discussion, not me.
You used the word first, you define it.
Any time you have two or more people, it's called a "group." People often organize themselves when in such a group. Some individual(s) may assume the role of "leader," while others might be "followers."
I asked you which specific group, not for a definition of a group.
I didn't say they couldn't. But if they want to participate in a group they often must give up some degree of self-direction as a condition of group participation.
So then you are saying that people who don't want to participate in the group don't have to surrender any self-direction. Correct?
That they engage in behavior harmful to each other? People pollute. Other people are harmed by it. Are you disputing this?
That's not what you asserted. You claimed that large groups pollute, and that meant we needed regulation. Two different things. This is the second time in your response you have avoided answering about what you have written.
No, I can't show how regulation is necessary to prevent harmful behaviors. I cannot think of another way to achieve that end, but that does not mean one does not exist. Do you happen to know a way?
Property rights. I have addressed it.
Lots of ways, I'd imagine. There are people that study this stuff for a living.
This is the 3rd time in your response you have backed away from a word or position you introduced.
How can you make claims about harm if you can't define what harm is?
Again, that's up to people whose job it is to figure that out.
You used the term, so it seems to me it is your job to know what you are talking about. Would you agree?
And? Prosperity can coexist with proper pollution controls.
What would be proper?
Can you substantiate that?
I think this one was a bad one to ask me to substantiate, unless you want to argue that pharmaceuticals are not manufactured chemically.
They could be treated to be less harmful before being released to the environment. In some cases, less harmful raw materials or methods of manufacturing could be used.
That increases the cost to the consumer. The consumer ends up paying for the more environmentally friendly goods, one way or another.
That has been my point throughout. If you want better goods, you have to pay for them, because regulation raises costs and keeps consumer prices high. The big joke of regulation on the lay citizen is that he agitates for more government interference, and he pays for every nickel of it PLUS lining the pockets of political class.
It would be cheaper if he would just use the market, but he's educated by a government run public school system that tells him that the market and competition are bad, government and their monopolies are good and necessary.
Who decides what "progress" is? In the commonly accepted view of progress, it can be. The residents of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were certainly harmed by progress.
Only if you consider aggression, in this case mass murder and property destruction, to be progress. I do not.
Then you might want to check your economic ideas.
Recourse against an indeterminate number of unknown individuals? Not possible.
Back to this again. How do you know you're being polluted, if you don't know what is polluting you?
This is the second time today you have offered an argument based on a contradiction, which means it is illogical, which means it is incoherent.
Can you substantiate that? What government? The US government? All governments?
All government qua government.
Can you address my question of what, besides regulation, can prevent pollution?
For the third time, property rights.
I support the point of view that people have a say in the use of land in their community, regardless of ownership, and for an authority in the community to consider all sides before permitting or denying the planned use.
So you're for communism. Because that is essentially what communism is. A system without property rights, where everyone and no one owns anything, and authority is based on some sort of collective bureaucracy.
It's economic chaos. It cannot work as intended, and yields poor results wherever implemented. But hey, it sure sounds good!
