No.15964
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_emissions_scandal
How is the state responsable of this?
How would the free market fix this?
How is suing VW going to fix the environmental damage?
How does it feel knowing that a collective organization of VW as a company would have stopped this?
keep in mind VW is not the company who did this
No.15974
Global warming isn't a real thing and emission bullshit is retarded.
While I am all for large cities doing this sort of restrictions, given that more cars in a confined space results in less than breathable air, that doesn't make it any less stupid on the grand scale.
Anyway, to answer your questions:
State's responsible for being a useless pile of shit that couldn't find these cheats immediately, as well as for making the idiot laws in the first place that they had to cheat.
Free market would've left them alone, maybe sold some cars to hippies but otherwise not bothered.
There is none
It wouldn't've. VW cheats for its own self interest, and so would the "collective organization" running it. Again, for their own self interests.
No.15978
>Global warming isn't a real thing and emission bullshit is retarded.
HAHAHAHAHAH
is this the best you can come up with /liberty/?
No.15985
>>15978
It's the direct, non-bs truth.
BTW, if you try and concentrate, you'd see that 99% of the time, every /liberty/ poster is very calm and gives proper responses while you sperg out and post /pol/ tier shitposts where you ignore the context and say le /liberty/ BTFO xddddd
No.15991
>>15985
no it isnt
let see:
>global warming
irrelevant because the air pollution resulting from this is quantifiable, grasp at straws harder
>state was responsible for testing this
>hurr durr without a state we wouldn't have this problems
>free market wouldnt solve anything because VW has sold cars after the dieselgate scandal
>"private courts" wont solve anything, because they would have no authority
>the collective has to deal with pollution, rich CEOs and shareholders live in the caribbean or New Zealand where the this does not affect them
feel free to come up with an argument of how capitalism would fix this
>brotip, you can't this is capitalism at its finest
No.15994
>irrelevant because the air pollution resulting from this is quantifiable, grasp at straws harder
meh. no.
>state was responsible for testing this
>hurr durr without a state we wouldn't have this problems
yup
>free market wouldnt solve anything because VW has sold cars after the dieselgate scandal
wat
>"private courts" wont solve anything, because they would have no authority
>goalposts
>moving em
>the collective has to deal with pollution, rich CEOs and shareholders live in the caribbean or New Zealand where the this does not affect them
imblying people couldn't sue em
>feel free to come up with an argument of how capitalism would fix this
wouldn't have been a problem in a capitalist society at all. Plus, if it was kind of transitioning economy or something, then people would move out from those areas. There'd be a huge scope for purifying the air in that area, and probably some company would come and do it.
>brotip, you can't this is capitalism at its finest
no, this is shitposting at it's finest.
>inb4 lol courts don't have authority
no. They do.
btw not ancap
No.15995
>>15994
>meh. no.
great argument
it has been quantified that the excess of harmful gases could be responsable of quite a number of deaths
http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/29/vw-excess-emissions-linked-to-60-us-deaths-study.html
of course these are estimates based on bigger figures, but its stupid to disagree that pollution is bad
>yup
prove it
>wat
thats basically what anacaps always say
>companies would go bankrupt because people would stop buying their products
there are people who dont understand this problem or fanboy VW cars and dont care about this, or simply can't resist the deals VWoffered them
>imblying people couldn't sue em
oh yes, people have already sued them, doesnt fix the harm they caused
>wouldn't have been a problem in a capitalist society at all.
>pollution is not a problem at all in a capitalist society
>then people would move out from those areas.
what if people dont have the capital to move out of those areas and build a new house?
>There'd be a huge scope for purifying the air in that area, and probably some company would come and do it.
who is going to pay for it, the citizens? because libertarians/anacaps belive the state shouldnt have that much power
citizens have to pay to fix a corporation's fuck up?
>no, this is shitposting at it's finest.
>facts are shitposting
No.15997
>>15995
>facts are shitposts
>arbitrary assumptions are somehow facts
>arbitrary conditions fhat do not play in sync with each other should be able to BTFO capitalism!!
Go read a book, any book that is pro-capitalism.
No.15999
>>15997
lel
crapitalists BTFO
No.16001
>>15999
wat
You understand that capitalism isn't some shallow shit like collectivist or communist bs , right? It requires a firm base and that take s a lot of time to explain, and writing all that for you would be a waste of my time.
Literally go read a book.
No.16002
>>16001
>capitalism isnt shallow
lel
capitalism is purely motivated by profit, it doesnt care about anything else, the subject in OP proves it
Literally BTFO
No.16003
>>16002
>circular reasoning
No.16006
>>16003
you can still try to prove how the subject in the OP was caused by the state and how true capitalism will fix it
No.16007
>>16006
>still replying
sage
No.16014
>>15964
>How is the state responsible of this?
They set the standard in the first place. The same way they're responsible for the Flint water supply. I personally am happy that Volkswagon created such an ingenious system that took a private agency to find it. We need more like it.
>How would the free market fix this?
We'd be driving Renault Kwids (about as efficient as a Prius at only $4,500) while developing nuclear cars and graphene supercapacitor electric cars.
>How is suing VW going to fix the environmental damage?
>Environmental damage
>damage
All the old cars on the road are producing 10x as much pollution as VW. Why aren't you bitching about them? and it won't because it's a governmental lawsuit lol
>How does it feel knowing that a collective organization of VW as a company would have stopped this?
It wouldn't though. Centralized authority is a shit.
No.16015
No.16016
>>16007
stay mad capitalist
>>16014
>we need more corporations that act in such a complete disregard of laws and ecology and whatnot
give me one reason why I should continue reading that shitwreck of a post
No.16017
>>16016
>Corporations
We don't use that word around these parts, brah.
No.16018
>>15991
Replace "rich CEOs" with "political beuracratic elite" and you have the typical results of your lefty "paradise" summed up in your own argument, by the way.
>inb4 "no hierarchy!"
No.16019
>>15995
>it has been quantified that the excess of harmful gases could be responsable of quite a number of deaths
>http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/29/vw-excess-emissions-linked-to-60-us-deaths-study.html
>of course these are estimates based on bigger figures, but its stupid to disagree that pollution is bad
Libertarians, Voluntarists, Minarchists, shit even conservatarians/conservatives follow Common Law.
Do you see this right here? This thing you posted? This falls under common law and is prosecutable.
The EPA leads to more pollution than it stops, and actually sets in place regulations that allow businesses to pollute when they wouldn't under common law because the businesses claim they followed all licensing/regulation. Your governmental agency is the problem.
No.16020
>>16002
>capitalism is purely motivated by profit
Yes, and the entire basis that we work off of is self-interest and profits. Profits are not just "more money." Please go read a book like anon suggested if you want to continue on this line of thought. I'd personally advise something from Mises or Hayek in most cases since Hayek is pretty lefty himself, but in your case I'm gonna recommend something a little earlier in the classical liberalism fields, bro. Marx based a good bit of his theory off of John Locke's initial setup, but fucked it up from there. Labor theory of value is bullshit, and private property is a pragmatic argument based on historical evidence, not one pulled out of our asses.
No.16021
>>16016
Because the centralized laws are corrupt and promote the destruction of the environment, people's livelihoods, etc.
You know that the war on drugs and laws passed because of it keeps industrial hemp from being used en masse to replace dozens of fields, right? Just switching over to Industrial Hemp would virtually stop North American oil mining/fracking overnight, as well as rainforest deforestation. Then you could focus strictly on the pollution aspects instead of having to worry about all the other shit.
No.16022
/liberty/ got completely BTFO here
No.16027
>>16018
>left
>political beuracratic elite
well meme'd lad
>This falls under common law and is prosecutable.
that literally does not matter
the fact is corporation have a complete diregard of common law
>The EPA leads to more pollution than it stops
>Your governmental agency is the problem.
You dont seem to understand
the organization, private or governmental, that determines if corporation can or can't pollute is irrelevant, the problem here is Volkswagen, the private entity, the corporation
VW has absolute no respect for the law, it doesnt matter if the law determines they can pollute within a certain limit or if they cant pollute at all, or again if its a governmental or a private court, the fact is the corporation broke the law and cheated to make people belive they were within the law.
tell me again how a govermental agency is responsable of a private corporation not following law, what you typed is that EPA allows corporations to pollute, and while I agree, doesnt justify VW behaviour.
> Profits are not just "more money."
> Labor theory of value is bullshit, and private property is a pragmatic argument based on historical evidence
lel
>>16021
again we are not discussing if EPA is allowing a private entity to pollute or not, we are discussing that said private entity cannot respect the law that was imposed
how do you expect anyone to belive that VW and other corporations wont break common law or the NAP, when they dont rexpect the law imposed by another entity?
>You know that the war on drugs and laws passed because of it keeps industrial hemp from being used en masse to replace dozens of fields, right? Just switching over to Industrial Hemp would virtually stop North American oil mining/fracking overnight, as well as rainforest deforestation. Then you could focus strictly on the pollution aspects instead of having to worry about all the other shit
literally irrelevant to the VW subject, we can discuss this but first we need to adress how you unironically belive VW wouldnt break any rules under an anacap scenario
>>16022
dubs confirm
No.16032
>>16027
>Again, we are not discussing if the German SS is allowing Jews to be executed or not, we are discussing that private businesses cannot respect the law that was imposed.
What you sound like right now.
No.16033
>>15964
The state isn't responsible. People who aggress against others property through trespass or pollution should be responsible for their actions. The state is only responsible for failing to hit VW harder.
I'm with F.A. Hayek. Laws on pollution should be upheld, so that externalities which go beyond the bounds of someone's property and affect others are countered.
No.16035
No.16037
>>16033
too much common sense, faggot
on /liberty/ one must only talk in abstractions and counterfactuals
eg. blowjobs in speedboats and private nuclear arsenals in my special snowfake fantasy anarchy paradise
No.16038
>>16037
>laws on pollution should respect externalities and common property
>corporations dont even respect EPA laws
>expect them to respect common law set by a private court
common sense pls
No.16041
>>16038
Private court? We're talking about government created courts.
You know that not all libertarians are anarkiddies right? I am pro-state. The state must uphold the law so that property and liberalism are defended, and that lawbreakers are punished when they damage property or person, or are stopped when they threaten such things by releasing pollutants.
No.16042
>>16041
EPA is a governamnetla agency….
again we are not discussing theory, we are discussing praxis, how the court is formed is irrelevant the fact is buisness will try to get away to breaking the law, because the bean counters and shareholders ay charge dont fce any punishment
No.16044
>>16042
If the law is strongly enforced enough then they won't get away. Indeed, they aren't getting away with anymore, because we found the fuck out.
We've literally got them. Tell me again how the law will always fail. If it does, then what exactly could work that doesn't fall under the same limitations to society's ability to punish offenders?
You come in here arguing that anarcho-capitalism would fail because it took the existing state to issue a violation notice and start an investigation, and then when someone agrees with you that the state is necessary from a classical liberal perspective, you start backing off from your point, because it no longer bolsters socialism to use the existing state regulations as a weapon against ancaps.
So we have to abolish private property why exactly? The Soviet Union contributed to the destruction of the Aral Sea, and had an outsized impact in terms of depletion of whale stocks. It's an inherent problem to do with incentives and choosing between alternative uses of things, and slapping a proletarian label on the state and giving it all the power isn't exactly the most pragmatic solution to these kind of issues.
No.16050
>>16016
>>we need more corporations that act in such a complete disregard of laws and ecology and whatnot
Why need law if the State is too incompetent to do anything about it?
No.16060
>>16018
>the roads will be paved with children
Only if they're your children, you subhuman
No.16065
>>15974
>Global warming isn't a real thing
Yes it is, and I challenge you to produce a peer-reviewed article debunking it.
Whoever wrote it needs a Nobel Prize because he just overturned decades of science.
No.16066
>>16065
>>16065
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
There was a great peer-reviewed study on /n/ last week on how the more likely someone is to say "the science is solved," the more likely it is that they are both wrong, and that the science isn't solved.
No.16068
>>16066
That's not an answer to my post. Are you going to provide evidence, or just provide more distractions so that you don't have to?
If you want to say I'm wrong because of confirmation bias, then prove it. Show me that I am wrong.
No.16069
Of course global warming is a thing, but the market will solve it by letting third worldfags drown.
No.16070
>>15974
>Global warming isn't a real thing and emission bullshit is retarded.
AHAHAHAHAHA
No.16071
>>16041
>You know that not all libertarians are anarkiddies right?
R E T A R D E D
kill yourself
No.16073
OP here, just realized I typed it wrong
>keep in mind VW is not the ONLY company who did this
Ford, Peugeot , Renault, Nissan, Hyundai, Citroen, Fiat, Volvo BMW, Mercedes and Jeep were also cheating
>>16044
>then what exactly could work that doesn't fall under the same limitations to society's ability to punish offenders?
worker control of the means of production, because workers are the consumers and citizens that have to cope up with this bullshit
>existing state regulations as a weapon against ancaps.
but the existing state regulation does not work, first because it lets coprorations pollute, something that would be drastically reduced on communism, because communism does not put the profits first, and second because there would be no secret meeting made by ssareholders regarding this type of behaviour
>>16050
We need to get rid of private porperty, not the state, its pretty obvious who is at fault here
No.16078
>>16018
That first image is the most cucked thing I've ever seen. I'd really like to know what in the world your vision of "voluntary hierarchy" is.
No.16085
>>15974
I wonder why nobody takes you clowns seriously?
The VW scandal wasn't even about climate change, it was about localised air pollution. Stupid shit.
No.16090
>>16071
So you really think that every libertarian is an ancap? And you're calling me retarded?
No.16092
Daily reminder that even if global warming isn't real, we need emission control laws unless you want to end up like Beijing, having to check the app on your phone to know whether you need to wear a respirator outside and live in hermetically sealed buildings.
No.16095
>>16027
Aight, lemme crack open this third oatmeal stout after a long day of satisfying work for profit, and get to typin'.
>the problem here is Volkswagen, the private entity, the corporation VW has absolute no respect for the law
>"Every actual State is corrupt. Good men must not obey laws too well." —Ralph Waldo Emerson
The law was corrupt in the first place, so I don't give a fuck if they violated the law in the first place, much in the same way that American Patriots didn't give a fuck that they were violating British law.
>how do you expect anyone to belive that VW and other corporations wont break common law or the NAP, when they dont rexpect the law imposed by another entity?
When laws are moral, people will follow them. When laws are immoral, people will not follow them and should not follow them. The actions that lead to this situation were immoral laws in the first place. Classical Liberalism was born out of illegal shit because morals outweighed the law.
A speed limit is not a morally just law, and thus we (you I assume, I, and various other people) violate it daily, same with drug laws. I guess since people violate drug laws and speed limits, they can't be trusted to follow the rulings of a court either under your own logic. What is your viable alternative solution?
No.16096
>>16042
>how the court is formed is irrelevant the fact is buisness will try to get away to breaking the law, because the bean counters and shareholders ay charge dont fce any punishment
Businesses are just groups of people working together for profit. If the business is trying to break the law, you can bet your pastey white ass that people would break the law as well.
No.16097
>>16092
China has all the benefits of a capitalist system without any of the benefits of private property. Of course Beijing is gonna have air pollution problems- especially when the state is up in that shit fucking with property rights (making it not capitalist by definition) in order to try and increase economic output.
No.16111
>>16095
>people follow moral laws
no. It's not all rainbows and sunshine out there.
Define "moral". No christian bs pls
No.16128
>>16095
>When laws are moral
How is a law against pollution immoral?
No.16134
>>16095
>The law was corrupt in the first place
citation needed
>moral and immoral laws
well spooked my friend
VW and other corporations broke the law, solely for profit, this is the fact here, stop
>>16096
literally irrelevant
No.16140
>>16095
> When laws are moral
Every law is moral, morality comes from the State.
No.16157
>>16140
The shitposting is getting out of control.
No.16206
>>16157
Why don't you hire some private moderators to fix it?
No.16213
>>16095
>When laws are moral, people will follow them.
Hahaha no. Humans are oppurtunists and will break laws when it benefits them and they think they can get away with it.
>A speed limit is not a morally just law
I, too, look forward to the day when ayncraps speed through my villiage at 70mph and turn schoolchildren into raspberry jam.
No.16226
>>16213
>Hahaha no. Humans are oppurtunists and will break laws when it benefits them and they think they can get away with it.
Go look up Game Theory and the prisoner's dilemma. There's this thing called "tit for tat" that tends to be followed in virtually all functional societies.
>I, too, look forward to the day when ayncraps speed through my villiage at 70mph and turn schoolchildren into raspberry jam.
And I, too, look forward to the day when you realize the untold number of cocks that spew fourth from the depths of your distended throat.
No.16229
>>15974
>leftists claim companies will happily flout the law for their own profit to the detriment of the populace
>company flouts the law for their own profit to the detriment of the populace
>"W-w-well, it's the state's fault for making this law in the first place! The free market would have let them continue profiting at other's expense! They were just looking out for their own interests!"
seriously nigga?
No.16241
>>15964
>implying the market isn't in the process of fixing this problem
I'm going to imagine their sales are tanking right about now. Notice how laws to prevent them from doing this sort of thing did not necessarily prevent them from doing it either. The market solves it by saying, "Hey, nobody buy from this shitty, lying company." The government solves it by making them pay fines.
Both are after-the-fact punishments, so I don't get why you're so triumphant of the fact that they disregarded both their customers and the government. Literally no one thinks that free markets are a 100% crime-stopper, that sort of utopian thinking is reserved for utopian socialists and communists. It's just that fines will hurt you but if you're a large company you'll come out alright; if you lose 50% of your customers, you're fucked. So market-based punishments should keep companies in line better than straight-up coercion, although we can still have coercive laws to prevent fraud and add to the pain suffered from losing customers just to make those retards think twice about screwing people over.
>>16027
Labor theory of value is bullshit. No actual modern economist uses it.
>>16073
Horrible pollution in the USSR and Maoist China was just a fluke then, I guess.
>>16134
>"well spooked"
You know you're a pseudo-intellectual when you use this meme. Also, it's "full stop," not just "stop," and only SJWs use that sort of language anyway. It's a way to say "stop arguing with me."
Really, you came in here to argue with imaginary an-caps like they have in your /leftypol/ Two Minutes Hate threads and get haughty about it. If someone says something you don't like you entirely dismiss it with nothing but ridicule. I don't understand what you want other than self-aggrandizement. Go back to /leftypol/ and rejoin the anti-an-cap circlejerk threads there please.
No.16245
>>16241
>I'm going to imagine their sales are tanking right about now.
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/vow/charts?symb=DE%3AVOW&countrycode=DE&time=8&startdate=1%2F4%2F1999&enddate=1%2F23%2F2016&freq=3&compidx=none&compind=none&comptemptext=Enter+Symbol%28s%29&comp=none&uf=7168&ma=1&maval=50&lf=1&lf2=4&lf3=0&type=2&size=2&style=1013
Volkswagen was in a serious decline up until October. And then they started going right back up again. The free market did jack shit to fix this.
>Notice how laws to prevent them from doing this sort of thing did not necessarily prevent them from doing it either. The market solves it by saying, "Hey, nobody buy from this shitty, lying company." The government solves it by making them pay fines.
The law doesn't stop people from committing murder either. Would you rather we instead just all decide, as a community, to all agree to simply socially ostracize murderers rather than arrest them?
> It's just that fines will hurt you but if you're a large company you'll come out alright; if you lose 50% of your customers, you're fucked.
BP oil completely fucked up the Gulf Coast, causing billions in damages, ruining lives, killing off huge amounts of local wildlife, and they're still doing business here 6 years later. Maybe the free market's just really, really slow to respond.
http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/stock/bp/charts?symb=BP&countrycode=US&time=13&startdate=1%2F4%2F1999&enddate=1%2F23%2F2016&freq=1&compidx=none&compind=none&comptemptext=Enter+Symbol%28s%29&comp=none&uf=7168&ma=1&maval=50&lf=1&lf2=4&lf3=0&type=2&size=2&style=1013
Oh wait, after their stock drop in '10, their stocks remained relatively steady for the next six years until the recent massive drop in oil prices. Hmmmm….
No.16248
>>16245
They're hardly doing as well as they were though, or as well as they could have been. That chart shows a pretty sudden and heavy drop compared to their steady growth in the previous years, an obvious blow that undid years of work. It's clear that that is, in itself, a form of punishment, on top of the fines they have to pay.
And what the fuck is this about not arresting murderers? When did I ever say we shouldn't have laws? This is strawmaning of the worst kind.
Those fines and the PR damage did a lot of harm to BP. Making them foot part of the bill wasn't enough, as they should have been saddled with the whole cost, but they're pretty buddy-buddy with the government so there you go.
And have you heard of any other horrible accidents they've caused recently? No? Then why should they not recover some after rectifying their bad behavior and paying for it? And that was such a weak recovery their stock had in 2011, it never was as high as it was before - that ought to be a lesson to them to not be fuckups again.
Please, try to be less smug next time.
No.16252
>>16248
In short, you're saying it's perfectly fine to use the laws against people to add another deterrent to malice, because voluntary interaction between parties isn't enough, but it should be absolutely badwrong to use these laws to do the same to a corporation, because voluntary interaction will already handle the problem.
They weren't experiencing a steady growth, they'd been going down for months.
I'm not sure why asking for the rich and powerful to have a more tangible punishment beyond "They lost a few zeros and only now have a slightly less unimaginably large amount of money that doesn't even slightly affect the opulence they live in." is something bad. Not even the "free market" ever actually suggests this unless companies actually crash into the ground, and by that time it's almost always the workers who suffer the most for it.
No.16254
>>16252
The loss of paying customers is a larger deterrent than fines for large companies, but we can still have laws against bad behavior, yes.
>but it should be absolutely badwrong
Stop acting like a child, ffs. I absolutely did not say that. I said that what's worse for a company is for their source of income to be destroyed or diminished rather than their already acquired income be fined.
I swear, I think you've got this cartoon image of what you think I believe in your head, and you're arguing with it, not me.
Volkswagen had been growing until recently, and this scandal added a lot to their already bad financial problems. Don't you think that with their already poor sales prospects that this added burden has only hurt them more?
And we're not talking about the rich and powerful, we're talking about companies. Steve Jobs lost his position as CEO of Apple for a time because he made such an ass of himself. They are not one in the same.
Companies are meant to do one thing: make their clients money. If they fail to do that, as these companies do when they fuck up, then it could be the CEO's head, or the firing of management all across the board. Heads are going to roll in management before workers are out of a job for situations like these, where those in charge were the ones who fucked up. Shareholders can and have punished bad management teams before.
No.16335
>>16254
I apologize for how I was acting, that was really rude and uncalled for.
I just do not see the free market as providing a serious hinderance to companies constantly cutting corners in ways that cause the most damage to other people. Even if they don't do it again, people's lives were ruined, or lay dead because of companies trying to save a few bucks.
And companies are not autonomous entities, they are controlled by a good number of people who invariably profit the most off of them.
No.16389
No.16401
>>15974
>Global warming isn't a real thing and emission bullshit is retarded.
No.16448
>>16401
>laughingwhores.jpg
thank you for supporting the view in the post you quoted.
No.16456
>>15964
>state regulatory bodies enact emission targets designed to make certain technologies unviable and remove them from the marketplace
>companies find loopholes so they can continue to offer technology
>instead of removing 99.8% of emissions only 99.3% get removed
>FREE MARGEDS BDFO :DDDD
I hope you never breed.
No.16515
>>16456
Are you anti-natalist?
No.16535
>>16515
don't revive that shit thread
No.16553
>>15964
>How is the state responsable of this?
>
>How would the free market fix this?
>
>How is suing VW going to fix the environmental damage?
>
>How does it feel knowing that a collective organization of VW as a company would have stopped this?
>
>keep in mind VW is not the company who did this
Because the *sole* job of the government should be protecting the rights of people. Including the right not to breathe deadly toxins.
Currently the government does so many things it doesn't have time to do any of it well, except that which is very convenient for the corrupt entities that a large bureaucracy breeds.
No.16559
>>16335
It's OK, I just like keeping things comfy here rather than having people be needlessly rude to each other. It is 8chan after all, but I do like how snug our board is.
And yes, market forces don't provide hindrances to events in the moment, but they have a powerful impact on the future development of your company. If no one wants to give you money, you're going to die. Laws also only offer after-the-fact punishments, there's no way to deter future crime except to assure the criminal that in the even farther future the act will hurt them more than they gained. I think we can have both, but the first hurts the bottom line more.
Profits are largely marginal (anywhere from 2% to 6% if you're "doing well," while 20% profits are nuts). Because profits are marginal, they must fight to keep them from sinking into the negatives. So people who are smart will play along and act ethically in order to keep their profits higher than they would otherwise be.
No.16561
>>16065
>I challenge you to produce a peer-reviewed article debunking it.
>>16068
> Are you going to provide evidence
The burden of proof is on you, dude. You're the one making a positive claim (that Global Warming is real), so you're the one with an obligation to provide reasons to believe it.
Folks have the habit of talking about it like it's common knowledge, but never actually produce the science to back it up. The studies they produce are manipulated, do not prove the claim, and are otherwise extremely suspect.
If you want somebody to believe something, you have the responsibility to:
1) Clearly define precisely what it is that you want them to believe, and
2) Provide logically-consistent reasons to believe it.
I have yet to hear a single Global Cooling/Warming/Climate Change advocate do either of these, and I used to be one of them.
No.16626
>>16078
A master-apprenticeship relationship has voluntary hierarchy.
No.16693
>>16085
>People on /leftypol/ believe this
No.16695
>>16092
>China
>Not having extreme government control over their economy
>implying they have free markets
>implying they're libertarian
No.16725
>>16229
For going around an unnecessary, and only harmful law, yeah, I'd get more on the case of the government for making such a shitty law to begin with.
No.17630
>>15964
Who did the testing? :^)
No.17989
bump for more triggering :^)
No.17993
>>17992
>horsefuckery autism
No.17997
>>16111
"An it harm none, do as ye will"
try harder next time. Like, 3 times harder!
Alternatively you could go full Tau "For The Greater Good."
>>16245
>The law doesn't stop people from committing murder either. Would you rather we instead just all decide, as a community, to all agree to simply socially ostracize murderers rather than arrest them?
Last Places by Lawrence Millman.
It actually works. For those of more genetically intellectual disposition at any rate. (aka whitefolk)
I just realised I never posted a clean version anywhere. Well, there we go, it's up somewhere now!
No.17998
No.18000
oh weird
>>17997
I selected 4 pics but apparently the max is three?
No.18002
>>17998
pure Nationalsozialitismus you mean!
No.18005
Reminder to OP
Common law has many solutions to pollution depending on what kind of pollution it is.
System worked well before the state replaced it
He has not BTFO anything and should grow up
:3
No.18022
>>18005
And if a company lies to its consumers that's also punishable
No.18038
>>18022
If you're some snarky /lefty/ faggot implying that customers give a flying fuck about 0.5% of emissions, kill yourself
If not, yes, that's true, to a certain extent. Caveat emptor applies, as well.
No.18084
>>18038
> that customers give a flying fuck about 0.5% of emissions
I do faggot, what are you going to do about it?
No.18088
No.18091
>>18088
well too bad you did not care
you knew you were selling a faulty vehicle, that was unefficient and was polluting more than the allowed amount and did it just for extra profits
sadly for you the real world is still not completly ruled like porky and classcucks like you, so VW directives will get assraped :v)