Anthropogenic Negative Climate Change (ANCC)

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip:

Agreeing in the sense that I am more understanding of your position now, and I imagine many here are.....it has been a very productive exchange. It has helped that we each feel the other is well-intentioned, though misguided.

It is another thing entirely as to whether your "Theoretical Libertarianism" could ever be successfully implemented "at ground zero".

IMHO, DM has more chance!

So, given this thread, I think Pargat (I know he is not your favourite poster) has a good question:

Major Greenhouse Gas Emitters [CO2, Methane, Nitrous Oxide] -

It is argued that their criminal pollution causes damage/harm to humans, animals and the planet.

1, How does the Natural Law analyze this "criminal charge"?
2. Is the "Except in fair competition" exemption somehow applicable here?

Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

Hi Dilip:

It seems that you are setting up The Natural Law as overriding the will of the majority, when it "harms" the rights of the minority......am I right on this?

If so, then it is acting like a Constitution, it seems to me.

I think I now get your position on "majority rule", and how you "Improve" Democracy by an overriding Natural Law to guard against the excesses of the majority.

Let me know if I am still missing something.

Bob A

I think we are starting to agree on some things!

[Bob Armstrong]

Hi Dilip:

It seems that you are setting up The Natural Law as overriding the will of the majority, when it "harms" the rights of the minority......am I right on this?

If so, then it is acting like a Constitution, it seems to me.

I think I now get your position on "majority rule", and how you "Improve" Democracy by an overriding Natural Law to guard against the excesses of the majority.

Let me know if I am still missing something.

Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

If it is not "Democracy", then it is some version of "Authoritarian" rule.

Bob A

No, the 'democracy' of 50.1% trampling over the desires of 49.9% can be improved with enforcement of the Natural Law, with which 100% agree, and which gives the 'circles within circles' all the freedom to fulfil their wishes within the enforcement of the Natural Law...

[Bob Armstrong]

The "Notwithstanding" Clause is, I believe, uniquely Canadian....it was a compromise forced on the federal government by the provinces to get the Charter of Rights and Freedoms passed.

Normally, the Constitution of most countries will protect the rights of the lions (The Minority) against Majority Rule (Both the majority itself, and its government - The Wolves).

Uniquely in Canada, a province can force this protection down to the provincial level, where it is somewhat vulnerable.

The Canadian "Notwithstanding" Clause is no argument against "Democracy/One person-one vote/Rule by the Majority". And good luck on your very valid campaign to get rid of the "Notwithstanding" Clause......not going to happen......

If it is not "Democracy", then it is some version of "Authoritarian" rule.

Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

I read Post # 1955 again - I got what I got, and have the same problem with your version of Libertarianism.

You have a definite problem with rule by majority after a vote....seems it may stem from some belief that the majority are inferior, and cannot be trusted to govern.

I'll move on..........

Bob A

So it is all right for the DM majority wolves to use the 'notwithstanding' clause to exterminate the lions, despite the courts saying it is unconstitutional? That is what today's democracy threatens us with, and hence there is a lot we can improve it by... Libertarianism with enforcement of the Natural Law is democracy in perfection!

[Bob Armstrong]

The Greenhouse Gas "Egg Shell" Around Earth

Trapping Heat in Earth's Soil, Oceans, Air & Atmosphere




"Three greenhouse gases, three all-time highs

	By David Gelles

The extreme weather. The melting glaciers. The weirdly warm oceans. They’re all the product of global warming, which is being driven by the release of the three most important heat-trapping gases: carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide.

And according to a new study from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, emissions of those three greenhouse gases continued to surge last year to historic highs.

Global average carbon dioxide concentrations jumped last year, “extending the highest sustained rate of CO2 increases” in NOAA’s 65 years of record-keeping. Methane and nitrous oxide levels also rose sharply last year. All this despite a wave of global policy measures and economic incentives designed to wean the world off fossil fuels.

These weren’t just one-off anomalies. In each case, the rising emissions continued a long-term trend.

https://messaging-custom-newsletters...d396a4debfd6ce

Bob A (Anthropogenicist)

[Bob Armstrong]

I read Post # 1955 again - I got what I got, and have the same problem with your version of Libertarianism.

You have a definite problem with rule by majority after a vote....seems it may stem from some belief that the majority are inferior, and cannot be trusted to govern.

I'll move on..........

Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

Dilip:

I am unclear..........


Bob A

Read the post #1955 fully, and you will be very, very, clear!
(It seems, though, you are afraid of becoming clear, lest you realize the nonsense DM really is...)

[Bob Armstrong]

Dilip:

I am unclear..........

Under Libertarianism, it will be a system that the worker/everyone can feel represented in. And it will be "the best democracy". The only law to be enforced will be the "Natural Law". [Dilip: Post # 1958]. This much sounds OK [If doable.]

But here comes post # 1955 by Dilip: "Like if a vote was held in the jungle, the numerous wolves outnumbering the lions would win a majority..." Dilip has a real problem with one animal, one vote. To me, this is the definition of "Democracy". And he has a problem with the majority ruling after it wins an election! There is clearly an anti-democracy element to Dilip's version of Libertarianism. So at this point now, it doesn't sound OK [And I surely hope it isn't doable].

It is the Constitution that protects the minority against the majority, and the Government, and protects the rights of the minorities.

Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

I agree Dilip - there are many people on a mission, like you, to displace the "Democratic" form of government, with some type of "Authoritarian" one........

Won't the hard-working taxpayers be surprised if they ever can be convinced to try this option!..........they'd then choose in droves rather to pay a progressive tax, under Democratic Marxism, than lose their human rights.

Bob A

You love to go on a tangent, rather than discuss the points being raised, don't you?... you need to try hard to avoid being a liar lawyer... you know very well, but are refusing to acknowledge it, that enforcing the Natural Law is not authoritarianism.

[Dilip Panjwani]

Legal Confirmation of the Existence of Negative Climate Change (with negative consequences to citizens) - NOT A SCAM!

"STRASBOURG, France (AP) — Europe’s highest human rights court ruled Tuesday (24/4/9) that countries must better protect their people from the consequences of climate change, siding with a group of older Swiss women against their government in a landmark ruling that could have implications across the continent.

....the Swiss case.....sets a legal precedent in the Council of Europe’s 46 member states against which future lawsuits will be judged.

“This is a turning point,” said Corina Heri, an expert in climate change litigation at the University of Zurich.

Although activists have had success with lawsuits in domestic proceedings, this was the first time an international court ruled on climate change — and the first decision confirming that countries have an obligation to protect people from its effects, according to Heri.

She said it would open the door to more legal challenges in the countries that are members of the Council of Europe, which includes the 27 EU nations as well as many others from Britain to Turkey."

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/tops...pe/ar-BB1lmyvo

(Cited by Pargat Perrer in another CT Thread)

Bob A

Too bad Sid was not called upon to enlighten those 'judges'... he would have explained to them quite elaborately that the harm caused by the Swiss authorities enforcing the climate change agenda would be a myriad times higher than what the plaintiffs claimed to have suffered, and the 'compensation' for the plaintiffs would be only a tiny miniscule of the 'compensation' to everyone if the climate change activists had their way...

[Bob Armstrong]

I agree Dilip - there are many people on a mission, like you, to displace the "Democratic" form of government, with some type of "Authoritarian" one........

Won't the hard-working taxpayers be surprised if they ever can be convinced to try this option!..........they'd then choose in droves rather to pay a progressive tax, under Democratic Marxism, than lose their human rights.

Bob A

[Dilip Panjwani]

I fear you are a lone Libertarian, with a policy of anti-democracy, Dilip.

Bob A

O I have a lot of good company, Bob A., unlike you being the only member of your Ontario DM party!
And you love dreaming about using democracy to exploit hard-working taxpayers even more than they are being now, don't you? Highlighting that fact is not being anti-democratic; what you are fearful of acknowledging is that the best democracy is one which everyone can feel represented in, like a system enforcing the Natural Law, instead of trying to enforce a myriad of divisive, stupid laws, only giving lawyers a lot of unnecessary business...

[Bob Armstrong]

Legal Confirmation of the Existence of Negative Climate Change (with negative consequences to citizens) - NOT A SCAM!

"STRASBOURG, France (AP) — Europe’s highest human rights court ruled Tuesday (24/4/9) that countries must better protect their people from the consequences of climate change, siding with a group of older Swiss women against their government in a landmark ruling that could have implications across the continent.

....the Swiss case.....sets a legal precedent in the Council of Europe’s 46 member states against which future lawsuits will be judged.

“This is a turning point,” said Corina Heri, an expert in climate change litigation at the University of Zurich.

Although activists have had success with lawsuits in domestic proceedings, this was the first time an international court ruled on climate change — and the first decision confirming that countries have an obligation to protect people from its effects, according to Heri.

She said it would open the door to more legal challenges in the countries that are members of the Council of Europe, which includes the 27 EU nations as well as many others from Britain to Turkey."

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/money/tops...pe/ar-BB1lmyvo

(Cited by Pargat Perrer in another CT Thread)

Bob A