On Our Way To Freedom Fest

News & Current Events Public News & Current Events
, , ,
61

See the problem here is that your assuming the AGW crowd isn't the Roman Cathoilic Church!  Maybe they are right, a lot of evidence appears to say so, but these are complex systems with lots of inputs and can swing wildly for many reasons.  After all we had the global cooling warnings in the 1970s who many people were absolutely convinced were right.  We have also had wildly inaccurate predictions (sensationalism) from the AGW crowd and clear attempts to hide data manipulation.

But the clear problem is just saying people are in "denial" is just like a kid taking his toys and going home.  All that we assume to be correct is up for debate, you can choose to debate or not, but trying to stifle debate is wrong and dangerous.  we have the crap where we want to stifle debate by prosecuting those that question AGW. Really?  That really sounds like a church demanding adherence to the teachings.  Then you have that the IPCC says their predictions are 66% likely to be accurate, that's a pretty big uncertainty.

Next we come to what can really be done.  If I said we need to make a 4% reduction every year, would that make AGW fanatics happy.  Well if you think the peak oil depletion numbers are accurate, then that's what's going to happen if we do absolutely nothing at all.

I wasn't criticizing him of his ardent support for AGW, he is free to believe and act as he see's fit, which he appears to do.  I was criticizing the belief that he is absolutely correct and in much the same way you do above, and believe anyone who doesn't agree is wrong.  Maybe, maybe not.  There is a lot more uncertainty in these complex systems and when you start to act like a religion that must squash all dissent, that is a problem.

Then we come to the issue of if you "force" your beliefs onto others, it generally doesn't work anyway and often has the opposite outcome.  When people are forced into situations instead of voluntarily accepting things, you get resentment and push back.  My recommendation is stop with all the "strong" arm tactics such as carbon taxes (which are just disguised force) and do education, set examples and encourage change voluntarily.

62

From Chris' reporting on Keith Weiner's commentary;

K.W.  Hold on there..The thing that makes gold different is that virtually all of the gold mined is still around as potential supply under the right conditions and the right price.  The amount mined is tiny compared to that stock.  So mine output is not especially useful.  My method is to look a the spread between futures and spot to strip out the effect of speculators to derive a 'fundamental' demand outlook.  Those current fundamentals have gold somewhere around $1100 an ounce an silver at $13.
Sure Keith.... Gold is overvalued by your analysis because, as with another analyst I know, you assume that the market is not manipulated.  And yet.. and yet...also from Chris' reporting;
Keith Weiner (CEO monetary metals) does not trust the yield curve because the bond markets are so distorted by the CB's.
Ah... so the CB's are distorting the bond markets, but the precious metals markets are so trustworthy that Keith can do his, "fundamental" valuation and come up with a number that is actually LOWER than spot today.  LOLOLOLOLOLOL............  total BS from KW. 

 

63

I also want to thank Chris and Adam for the postings of the event.  Wish I could have gone.  If you get a chance, talk with Gary Johnson, he's was a really great governor and the few personal conversations I've had with him were really enjoyable.
I would also like to suggest people go to the site: isidewith.com.  It's a political quiz that matches up your answers to a few or many questions to those of the candidates.  It can be quick and simple or lets you answer a lot more questions and even rank their importance to give you more accurate matches.  At the end it shows overall who you match with and how much as well as who you match with on individual issues.

 

 

64

Started with a video parody from WeAreTheInternet.tv. The main punchline is that Trump has orange skin…
Nicholas Sarwark, Chair of Libertarian Party, introducing Gary Johnson. During his tenure, Johnson vetoed more legislation than all of his predecessors combined.

 

  • This presidential race is so crazy that he just might get elected
  • For free market, laisse-faire policies, fiscally conservative, wants to foster entrepreneurship, non-interventionist foreign policy
  • Crony capitalism vs free markets is the big issue. Whenever governement gets involved in the equation, unfairness and waste results.
  • We need to balance the Federal budgets. To do so, we need to address entitlements head on. SS and Medicaid/Medicare are financial disasters right now. They need to get dramatically revamp. Medicaid/Medicare should be pushed down to the states. Innovation and competion will improve the system for everyone in the long run.
  • Wants to abolish the IRS, the income tax and corporate taxes. Replace them with a federal consumption tax. This would free up capital that would want to start productive businesses and get rid of a lot of bloat in government.
  • Is pro-immigration. Legal immigrants are hard-working. We'll need them if we can fix the economy.
  • 'Affordable' housing would much more affordable without all the red tape of restrictions, zoning, fees etc that govt tacks on
  • Free market would revolutionize health care. Competition would reduce costs so much that we would just pay as we go (vs insurance). And quality will be better.
  • Term limits are key. The $20 Trillion debt is a direct result of career politicians wanting to get re-elected.
  • Individual freedom/choice/liberty should be sacrosanct. Govts ONLY role is to protect those liberties.
  • We should legalize marijuana (big applause). Let's recognize drugs as a national health issue vs a crime issue -- legalize them.
  • School choice is important.
  • Strong supporter of gun rights. Open to discussion of keeping guns away from terrorists and mental ill.
  • Biggest threat in the world today is North Korea. Someday, its intercontinental missels will get good enough to work. We should partner with China, and get our troops out of South Korea.
  • Thought Brexit would usher in a new era of freedom for the UK. Believes the US will be a safe haven for capital from Europe for a long time.
  • Congratulates the crowd on being activists. "I love you"
 
65

John Mauldin is the moderator for this discussion.
Q1: What are your thoughts on the coup in Turkey?

  • SF: Thinks it a good thing that the Turkish army has a history of 'cleaning up' when leaders get too out of control and then handing the country back to an elected leader. Turkey's PM was going to purge the military in early August to centralize power further, the military's hand was forced and they decided to take out the regime.
  • JM: Erdogan is pro-Russian, the Army is pro-West.
  • SF: The regime had crushed all opposition mercilessly. Turkey has more dissidents in prison than China.
  • JM: This coup was planned for months. This type of strike wasn't planned overnight.
Q2: How will this experiment being run by the world's central banks end up?
  • RA: Central banks stimulus has failed. More if it will fail more spectacularly. The next step is helicopter money. This will sew the seeds of hyperinflation.
  • SF: Stimulus money is putting the cart before the horse. They are delaying the needed structure forms, hoping the thin-air money will magically fix things. They are simply delaying the inevitable and making the eventual pain worse.
  • SF: Posits that the US (with Bernanke as the emissary) is working with Japan to help them launch helicopter money, and in return, the Japanese may forgive some of their US debt.
  • SF: The Fed has no business setting interest rates.
  • JM: could Japan run out of things to buy? Never thought that could happen, but it's now looking possible.
  • SF: Japan once had one of the highest savings rates in the world. Now its 0%. That's what monkeying around with interest rates get you. Japan has the highest national debt of any country.
  • RA: But US is worse if you add in our unfunded entitlements
  • SF: Bottom line: central banks have it backwards. Central banks unhinged, as we have today, is tyrrany.
66

Anyone following the news that there is currently a coup attempt going on in Turkey? Maybe not the right forum for this news, but thought I'd put it out there.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/coup-underway-in-turkey-president-says-hes-still-in-charge/ar-BBunKFQ?ocid=ansmsnnews11

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/15/world/live-blog-turkey/index.html

Erdogan has cannot fly into Istanbul airport from his vacation , Germany denied his request to land in Berlin, apparently he is headed to London. NBC is reporting this. 

67

Matt Kibbe, introducer, puts a beer on the podium and says "Beer is freedom"

  • Paul walks on stage to Rocky theme...
  • Wearing his white "lucky Kentucky Derby shoes"
  • Tells a Hillary joke...
  • Uses Brexit to show that UK citizens were suffering from over-regulation from the EU ("like being surrounded by invisible barb wire"). Recommends the short video Brexit the Movie
  • The US citizen suffers similar burdens from govt regulation. We are being regulated to death. It's not just coming from Congress. It's coming from unelected regulators -- this is a massive problem that few understand how it works and how bad it is.
  • Rand's opinion is that the Presidency is 1,000 times more powerful than Congress. The checks and balances of our govt system are out of whack.
  • It's not just about regulation, it's about surveillance, too. Both are out of control.
  • In wake of tragedies like Orlando shooting: Dems want gun control, Repubs want people control. Orlando showed that the shooter has been reported and investigated, yet the system still failed. Do we need to give up more personal liberties for more of what won't work?
  • In the wake of Orlando, Congress got to 58 of the 60 votes needed to approve for FBI agents to write their own warrants (vs getting one from a judge, the other source of checks & balances).
  • In many ways we no longer have a Constitutional Republic. We've devolved more and more to a general Democracy, which is the "mob rule" founding fathers like Jefferson feared.
  • Are we doomed? Are we getting to the point where the majority votes itself all the perks it can get and bleeds the country dry?
  • We'll be OK if we can give the majority hope in its capacity for self-advancement (that they'll be successful).
  • The key resource is not a commodity; it's human ingenuity
  • To be successful, we have to stand for something and offer hope -- not just be against things
  • Paul has lots of ethnic friends in his hometown. Holding them up as folks who advanced by having hope in the American Dream. His point: we need to offer voters a path to greater opportunity.
  • We have to show that we care about alleviating poverty. That doesn't mean Big Government. For example, let's cut their taxes and leave that money with them (of course, this won't help the nearly 50% that don't pay income taxes...)
  • The war on drugs hits minorities a lot harder. If we stop that ineffective war, we'll improve race relations and stop putting our future in prisons.
  • Paul keeps saying "we". It's unclear to me if he means "Libertarians" or "Republicans"
  • Ending point: we need to be commited and passionate about delivering liberty
  • Standing ovation...
  • Q&A1: Will he run again for the Presidency in 2020? Was a great, but hard experience. Focused now on his Senate seat election in November. Won't say "no, but not ready to say "yes". Really enjoys the Senate -- gets to wrestle with the big questions; like when to go to war, and what our foreign policy should be. Thinks Hillary is more likely to take us to war (against Assad) than any other candidate.
  • Q&A2: Why isn't Congress using its full power against Obama's executive orders? Not enough votes to block. Possibly could get to impasse, but requires a lot of courage to fight through it (i.e., risk another government shut-down). That courage isn't there in enough supply right now.
  • Q&A3: What are we going to do about the FBI rule about Hillary? She should be indicted, the FBI got it wrong. We shouldn't have one set of rules for the leaders and another for everyone else. Really damages faith in the fairness of law.
  • Q&A4: When will troops come back from Afghanistan? Paul would bring them all home today. Admits he would have voted to go to war after 9/11 to get Al Qaida, but never would have approved the following nation-building.
  • Q&A5: Had Congress declared war on Iraq, would things have been different? Paul would not have voted for war (Congress didn't get the chance to vote). Thinks it was a wrong war. Also thinks the power vacuum created was worse than the prior problem. Thinks war is the last, last option.
  • Q&A6: What are your thoughts on the 2 party duopoly? Paul supports the ability to have 3rd parties on the ballot. He's for changing the ballot rules to make that easier. It's clear Paul doesn't like Trump, but he says, we've got to support the system we have.
  • Q&A7: Can Obamacare get repealed? House and Senate majority voted to repeal it. It went to Presidents desk and is still sitting there. Could fight it, but then we're in the same pickle as the impasse discussed above. Folks waiting for next administration
  • Q&A8: What's the status of Audit the Fed? Has passed the House. But has not passed yet in the Senate. We have to work it harder. It's likely coming. Getting term limits passed will be much harder...
 
68
The clock of communism has tolled its final hour. But the concrete has not completely collapsed. Instead of being liberated, we may be crushed beneath the rubble

Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenitsyn  -  "How to revitalize Russia"

Every system either finds a way to develop or else it collapses

Aleksandr Isayevich Solzhenisyn  -  "Letter to the Soviet leaders"

Perhaps the American system should heed the advice.
69

In Missouri, term limits were imposed via Amendment 12, passed in 1992.  They limit a political official to eight years in the MO House of Representatives and eight years in the MO Senate. Realistically, this means an 8 year term limit for most representatives, as it's harder to be elected to the senate.

I can share the experience of a former Missouri state legislator who served for 12 years mostly before term limits were passed (from 1982 - 1994) and then who also served for 6 more years well after they had time to take effect (from 2008 - 2014). These are my notes from a couple of conversations with him.

He says that when he returned in 2008 he made an effort to observe the changes that had taken place, trying not to prejudge.

These were his observations after term limits:

  1. Less specialized knowledge: Legislatures now do not know very much about the underlying subject matter of the committees on which they serve. In the past, good legislators would specialize: insurance, budget, education, prisons, law enforcement. Now by that time they have developed specialized knowledge they’re out. This means that the only specialists in the state capitol are lobbyists.  

  2. Less procedural expertise - Now few house members have any procedural expertise. One second year legislator said to him, “you mean we can change the bills?” They also know less about

  3. More power to legislative staff & Missouri state bureaucrats:  Example: on the budget - if a legislator wants to make a change in a certain area of the budget, the bureaucrats will stall & just wait her out until she’s gone.

  4. Increased of power for the political parties - The two big political parties tell reps. how they should vote on particular issues.  In the “bad old days” of no term limits, the parties had almost no power.  The parties don’t care a bit about the public policy, they only care about what looks good in next year’s campaign brochures

  5. Legislative staff gain power (e.g. Chief of staff to the Speaker of the House):   These staffers tend to be ideologues - if the chief of staff to the speaker asks reps to do something, they typically do it because he has so much more knowledge of how the legislature works, so he is typically not worth messing with.

  6. Less knowledge by committee chairs: Chairmen of committees don’t know as much about their subject matter and they don’t have enough time to develop either knowledge or allies; in the "bad old days," it was more difficult for a speaker to make war on a specific committee chairman. This distributed power in the legislature more evenly. For example, one of the biggest bills in the early 1990's was Senate Bill 380; an education policy bill that included included a tax increase to fund the changes. The MO governor, Mel Carnahan, was more interested in the tax increase, but the Chairs of the House & Senate Education Committees would not allow the bill to go forward until the education policy questions were how they wanted them to be. This resulted in more careful crafting of legislature within the committee structure of the legislature. This committee structure has been evolving since the English Parliament started gaining power in the 17th and 18th centuries.

  7. Less legislative power over the budget; more executive power The members of the budget committee the members don’t know very much about the budget.  This gives more power to the executive branch, reducing the representative nature and increasing the autocratic/bureaucratic nature of US states with term limits.

  8. Corporate lobbies are stronger now.  Legislators need a job after term limits force them to leave the legislature. Even if they like being public servants, now they are forced out by term limits. This increases pressure on them to do what corporations want, since corporations have lots of cushy jobs available to loyal public officials. Public interest groups and non-profits don't have this financial luxury. Also, lobbyists are permanent fixtures in Jefferson City (MO's capitol) whereas the legislators now come and go due to term limits. This also gives lobbyists, and the corporations they represent, more power.

  9. Example: CAFOs - The legislature in MO passed a law in MO that forbids people to take pictures of Confined Animal Feeding Operations (e.g. industrial pig farms and cattle feed lots), so now animal rights activists or neighbors whose land values are hurt by CAFOs can no longer gather photographic evidence about them.  Big ag. corporations (e.g. Tyson, Monsanto) pushed the legislature to get rid of nuisance laws so that landowners near CAFOs can no longer sue them in terms of public nuisance, even though this has over 400 years of precedence in Anglo-American common law. CAFOs spray the hog feces in the air and spreads it over the field, but the guy downwind also gets sprayed with pig poop. That’s a legal nuisance and common law would give plaintiffs a remedy, if the CAFO move in after the other landowners did.

He also said that simultaneous with term limits, is intense gerrymandering - two parties conspire to draw safe districts for incumbents - this tends to push members further to the extremes because challengers can only come from the far right or far left.

His conclusion after the last six year was that term limits were one of the most destructive things to happen to the MO legislature and that corporate lobbyists have way more influence now. The Speaker of the House and the President Pro Tem. of the Senate actually have more power because the committee structure of the legislature is weakened.
 
There's also a strong argument that term limits are an increase in government power.  This is because it is more government control over the voter's ability to choose their representatives.  So, the irony is that libertarians and small-government Republicans who oppose term limits are actually supporting more government regulation of elections by doing so.  This is not government power with respect to corporations, which is actually weakened by term limits, but it is an increase in government power with respect to the people.  In short, why should the government limit voter choice?  
 
After Citizens United, corporations have more "speech" in terms of campaign funding and now, in MO, with term limits, corporations have more power over the legislative process.  In both of these cases, initiatives supported by libertarians ended up giving more power to big corporations.
 
It's also ironic when otherwise strict Constitutionalists who argue for original intent support term limits since the framers of the Constitution considered term limits and decided that they did not belong on the national level.  Here's a link to Federalist #53, in which Madison says that one of the main arguments for a two year term in the US House of Reps.  is that the lawmakers will not know what they're doing if there are a larger proportion of new, inexperienced members:
How can foreign trade be properly regulated by uniform laws, without some acquaintance with the commerce, the ports, the usages, and the regulations of the different States? How can the trade between the different States be duly regulated, without some knowledge of their relative situations in these and other respects? How can taxes be judiciously imposed and effectually collected, if they be not accommodated to the different laws and local circumstances relating to these objects in the different States? How can uniform regulations for the militia be duly provided, without a similar knowledge of many internal circumstances by which the States are distinguished from each other? These are the principal objects of federal legislation, and suggest most forcibly the extensive information which the representatives ought to acquire. 
Also, term limits tend to transfer power from the legislative branch to the executive branch, including the entrenched bureaucracies within the executive branch. Since, at least according to Lofgren, entrenched bureaucracies are one aspect of the Deep State, then term limits make it more likely that the unelected parts of the government will hold more power.
 
Thus, there are some good arguments that term limits lead to a less enlightened, more centralized, and more powerful government. These are all things that the libertarians do not want.
70

Didn't know who Bert Dohmen is so google'd him and up popped this https://globenewswire.com/news-release/2015/01/05/694964/10113955/en/Investment-Guru-Bert-Dohmen-Defrauds-Old-Friend-Loses-92-of-1-Million-Even-as-Economy-Surges-Suit-Says.html

71

For the morning session I went to the pitch tank and saw five separate capital pitches for a diverse array of products ranging from bottled water, to a fancy personal sponge, a video-click through buying platform, and a soil amendment that aims to deliver better yields at the expense of the Monsanto model.
Each contestant had 5 minutes and then received judge feedback.

All reasonably interesting and each already with customers and revenues but seeking capital to expand.

 The winner was Sumagrow, http://www.sumagrow.com/index.html, which is some sort of soil additive that as far as I can tell is a suspension of microbes that when applied to soil helps to unlock existing nutrients, fix nitrogen from air, and helps to conserve soil moisture.

They had some awesome side by side pictures and over 800 studies have been conducted to date by various university and government agencies, so it seems to be beneficial and the real deal.

What was interesting to me was to have the formal structure of the pitch tank to vet through various opportunities quickly.

Adam and I have discussed making such a thing a reality at some of or future events to help close the gap between investors and smaller, local opportunities.  However, that's as far as we've gotten so far.

72

Engaging millennials
[note - I attended this one because I am very interested in attracting more younger folks to this message and our work.  After all, revolutions, be those involving ideas or pitchforks, always are driven by the young…]

Definition:  18-34 year-old people.

Lana Link -  Millennials are the most diverse of all generations – 40% minority – and most technologically advanced, obviously, and quite interested in freedom.

Chris Long – educating millenials about freedom. More motivated by experiences than things – want coaching and feedback.  Not motivated by cash bonuses and healthcare.  Classically liberals – want small government, not interested in things from government – Very civic minded and group oriented.  Irreligious…small group oriented. 

Lana – Bernie was admired by millennials for his consistency.  Not necessarily his socialism.  Millenials  don’t want to be lied to so authenticity is the most important thing.  The Hillary endorsement by Bernie was a huge shock as it violated his consistency track record.   He will not be able to recover from that one for many.

Millennials have always had the internet, have never known otherwise.  Second, grew up under the Bush and Obama administrations….Bush turned off the conservatives and Obama turned off the liberals.  Third, grown up in a time of war.  Always been at war during their lives.  Fourth, the 2008 recession really shaped this generation.   Fifth, very tolerant of diverse viewpoints (weed, LBGT, etc).

Outnumber boomers (rumble through the crowd) and about to flex their political muscles. 

Lana – 400 hours of youtube content uploaded per minute.  The world is flooded with content.  What Buzzfeed did was to begin to bucket the content into precise target interests.  Does your content speak to someone’s identify?    Is it personal?  Is it relational?

Authenticity is the key – make sure your message is on target and consistent.

Just information is okay, but the better route is to give them something to do as an action in association with the information.

Lana - Use humor to “knock down the ideological immune system”  George B Shaw said if you want to tell someone something they don’t want to hear, you’d better make them laugh, otherwise they’ll kill you.

Chris – Millennials are very non-hierarchical.    They want their fingers throughout the organization, and want to be empowered…want to be involved and engaged.  Anything you can do to tease this out of them, is a good thing.

How to recruit millennials?    Word of mouth seems to work best….

On social security, millennials are just not as interested in the data, it's just too far in the future to worry about, but the would be interested in and motivated by the moral case for reforming SS. 

The echo chambers of the internet are hard to breach…people can exist in the self-referential universes, and so engagement is a big deal.

 

 

73

"Yes, Obama got most of the votes and was inaugurated. 


But 4.3 million votes were never counted – and another 4.8 million citizens were barred from registering or voting. 



This book tells you how. And WHO. That is, WHO profited from the return of Jim Crow? 



Includes 50 pages of comics from the smokin' pen of Ted Rall and two chapters by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. "…



                 "The Most Terrifying Book a Democrat Could Read" 

                              – Huffington Post Books

 

http://www.gregpalast.com/ballotbandits/

74

Rhare,
Are you stating that "Dissent Must Be Crushed!!!" as a threat to anyone who disagrees with your ideology or are you feeling that anyone espousing a position that you don't believe is somehow crushing you?

Rhare wrote:

See the problem here is that your assuming the AGW crowd isn't the Roman Cathoilic Church!  Maybe they are right, a lot of evidence appears to say so, but these are complex systems with lots of inputs and can swing wildly for many reasons.

Not much of an assumption is needed. 1) the 'AGW' crowd isn't an organization of any sort, 2) It certainly doesn't fit the bill as a church, 3) It isn't nearly all powerful as the Roman Catholic Church was in the 1600s, 4) It certainly doesn't have the power to excommunicate anyone or burn them at the stake, if anything, the only one's being persecuted and even threatened with death are the scientists who are trying to educate the public about the all too real dangers we are facing. So please cool it with the hyperbole.

As for the 'complex systems' bit, your argument is a bit like saying that the human body is a complex system with lots of inputs that it can become ill for many reasons, with the implication that public health issues shouldn't be discussed or have any say in how we live our lives. Bring on the cigarettes and let's swim in raw sewage. We may not know everything about how the body or the climate works but in both cases we know quite enough to act more responsibly. I don't think that the real point that you are trying to make is to put our heads in the sand. I suspect the problem comes not from the information on AGW per se but from those who you perceive are using it to forward some sort of agenda. I have always been labeled as having 'problems with authority' and so I understand being resistant to those who try to force actions onto you or anyone without explaining the need or reason.

I have no problem with dissent as science is an ongoing debate, not some monolithic belief system. The proviso being that what is needed is "informed dissent" not regurgitated talking points. If we would talk with each other and not at each other we might actually get somewhere. There are a lot of memes out there from the 'global cooling bit' to the 'wildly inaccurate predictions' (how about every economic prediction for decades now?) that are often repeated despite either having been long debunked or explained. It is not intellectually honest to keep trotting them out over and over again pretending they haven't been dealt with but that is what many with vested interests do (note, I am not saying you do this personally but that those who are feeding you this stuff somewhere up the line surely are). Every single alternative theory of what is driving our current rapid climate change has been systematically studied multiple times and rejected as being incapable of explaining what we are observing. AGW is the only remaining explanation and it has been tested and verified over and over again for over 100 years now. Like it or not, we are stuck with the predicament of climate change of our own forcing, primarily from our use of fossil fuels.

I am all for voluntary acceptance of things and the power of education but how is such a system supposed to work if there are powerful vested interests who continually lie to and mislead the public about the effects of their products and who block and even persecute those who try to educate the public about the very real issues involved? The shoot the messenger style of debate that is prevalent in our ideological and corporate controlled governments has kept the world from doing anything meaningful about resource depletion, environmental destruction, and climate change for decades. Our options at this point are very limited. We cannot bargain with nature. There is no cure or solution at this point, only the questions of whether or not we are going to do anything to reduce the rate at which we are making things worse and how we will adapt. I am continually amazed that a species that names itself Homo sapiens sapiens (wise wise man!) seems to collectively get stupider and stupider as its numbers grow and grow, being now societally incapable of acting on anything further out than the next quarterly profits report into the future. Talk about a need for hubris.

 

75

As someone who attended FF too, I thought you did a great job of summarizing the sessions you were able to attend.  I attended several different ones so it was good to catch up on those that I missed.  You must have be been a court stenographer in a previous life to have captured these rapid-fire discussions so accurately.  However, I would agree with RHARE that he captured the Liberarian perspective on climate change and government subsidies probably a little more accurately.  I think this groups biggest concern about climate change is that it will be used as an excuse by governments to seize even more control over the economy and continue to advance a one-world government and big government agenda.  If instead of focusing on environmental regulations written by government regulators/lawyers and instead focused on getting the metrics right so that externalities could have a cost such that market forces could be used to optimize resource useage and environmental degradation, then Libertarians would be much more likely to support this.  If there is one single message that unites Libertarians it is the idea of limited government and that both of the major parties have failed in limiting the size and scope of government as it was envision by our Founders and the Constitution.  I hope more PP folks are able to attend next year and that Chris is on the agenda as I think there could be a lot more overlap in interests between these two groups than either of them realize presently.

76

I meant for my above comment to apply to the earlier screen and specifically RHARE comment#42 but it seems all new comments start at #51 and above and I don't know how to make comments to earlier posts.

77

Tom & Rhare -
My thanks to you for clarifying the core libertarian perspective on climate change and environmental stewardship. That's a platform an intelligent debate can be based upon.

The point of my earlier observations was to convey that I was looking for such debate at this past Freedom Fest's gathering and did not find much of it. Instead, I experienced the speakers who addressed it (dismissed it, is more accurate) to have a more dogmatic and entrenched mindset that didn't feel very open to actual debate. IMO, Mark C captured my sentiments well when he wrote:

I have no problem with dissent as science is an ongoing debate, not some monolithic belief system. The proviso being that what is needed is "informed dissent" not regurgitated talking points. If we would talk with each other and not at each other we might actually get somewhere.
So my critique is not so much against the libertarian viewpoint, but more specifically in regards to how I experienced the attitude of the specific speakers I heard in Las Vegas.

My hope is that we can identify a science-based and open-minded representative from the Lib side willing to engage in this important discussion. Done on an empirical basis, I think such a debate could be useful for all sides. 

78

Clearly my attempt at sarcasm was lost on you.  Next time I'll make sure and include the <SARCASM> tags. 

As far as who is trying to stifle debate:

 The first amendment is now dead in California: New California bill would allow prosecution of climate-change skeptics – Watts Up With That?

That fact that either of the above actions occurred shows how crazy things have gotten.  I don't care if you walk around and claim the earth is flat, I can choose to ignore you, but when you start using violence to stifle discussion.  That is a problem - I don't care if your right or what the argument.

Really, you know this because we obviously have complete knowledge about this complex system?  How many things have we known for certain throughout history that have subsequently been proven wrong?  What I take offense to is people being so positive that they are willing to use violence to make sure every one knows they are right, and yes, that includes all the various agendas by AGW advocates and skeptics.

I don't care if some one lies, but when they decide to use the power of the state to force their will, that is a problem.  Using the same violence by proxy that those in power now use to further their own benefit even if it's to correct a previous wrong, is still wrong.  That was what started this all after all is, it was a discussion about Freedom Fest.   

I'm not trying to the shoot messenger (but I do think I'm dodging bullets), I'm trying to stop a continuation of the abuse.  What we have in our political system is two sides bickering about how they are going to use the state to force their will on others. 

The only debate here is are we going to act voluntarily, or are you going to shoot people who don't act the way you want?  Are you advocating teaching and convincing others that AGW is a problem and to change their behavior, or are you advocating using the state to "shoot" people who don't conform to your way.  After all that's the only really power the state has, the sanctioned use of violence.

I think it 's important that whenever anyone says "there should be a law" or the "government should do…" that that person understands that ultimately that means that they are sanctioning violence, up to and including death.  

Perhaps the word you were searching for is humility.  I think we've all seen enough hubris.

 

79

Hi all.
I got home last night from Las Vegas and then woke up at 5:30 to drive to the Opal 2016 Family Office and Private Wealth Management forum in Newport RI.

This is a very different assemblage from the prior event.  

I have great billing being on the main macro economic panel at 1:30 on the first day, so I get to spread our message directly to people who have a lot of leverage in the current system. 

I am still formulating what I might say and how I will say it.  As always I am leaning towards delivering the truth as I understand it, not as I project 'they' want to hear it.  No filtering, but still diplomatic is where I am aiming.

Either people will be ready to hear the truth, or they won't.

80

Are you promoting an honest debate or an ongoing filibuster to prevent any action coming from the debate? The real debate about the existence of AGW happened years ago, the debate we need now is what, if anything, to do about it?
Anyone who wants to see how the 'skeptic' manufactured debate is continued, I suggest reading and/or watching Merchants of Doubt, a well researched and sourced expose of the games being played to mislead the public on AGW, smoking, and other things threatening the profits of a few at the expense of us all.

Thanks for the links to the materials showing climate 'skeptics' are now having their feet held to the fire too. To my knowledge, scientists have nothing to do with that process but I have a hard time sympathizing with the skeptics since they have been been playing a one-way game for years, making scientists turn over everything to them through spurious FOIA requests and legal actions just to hinder the ongoing research. I have personally been called and threatened with such actions if I didn't immediately turn over my intellectual property (I didn't). I know of people who have literally been threatened with death for publishing their research on climate science. If the ‘skeptics’ are on the up and up they shouldn’t have anything to hide, should they? Personally I wish we could just talk like adults.

Why Climate Scientists Receive Death Threats

thousands of abusive emails—including demands that he commit suicide or be “shot, quartered and fed to the pigs, along with your family”—were received by climate scientist Michael Mann, director of Pennsylvania State University’s Earth System Science Center, who drew and published the “hockey stick graph” that charts a steep rise in global average temperatures.

Glenn Beck, a commentator on Fox TV, called on climate scientists to commit suicide. A climate denial blogger called Marc Morano claimed that one group of climate scientists deserved “to be publicly flogged.” And the late Stephen Schneider found his name and that of other Jewish climate scientists on a “death list” maintained by an American neo-Nazi website.

I don't know where you get off claiming that I am in any way promoting violence, even in your definition of government being the source of all that is bad. I have not in any way suggested that some one-world government should compel everyone to do anything. I am compelled by my vocation and knowledge to educate the public to the best of my abilities so that we can have the adult-sized conversations Chris talks about that are necessary to decide what, if anything, to do. Sitting around with our heads in the sand is not freedom, it is being imprisoned with the shackles of ignorance. I am on record rather extensively over at the Definitive Climate Change Thread where I provide information on the science that cites and links to the published research. What I do not do is tell people how we have to address the matter, only that the price of not doing so is rising by the day. Scientists have the responsibility of explaining problems to society, society has to then decide how to address them. Science can then be used again to assess the likely efficacy of any proposed or implemented actions.

Sitting around hoping that something magic that defies physics as we know it has been overlooked by thousands of scientists working on a problem for over 100 years and will conveniently pop up soon to make climate change go away so we do not have to change anything is not a strategy it is a delusional pipe dream. Whether we like it or not, the fact remains that we are doing 'violence' to innumerable people now and all future generations by our actions and continued inaction. We used to be able to claim ignorance but we can't any longer. People sticking their fingers in their ears and running around saying I'm not listening won't change this fact.

I am not promoting any particular approach for addressing AGW but I am stating that ignoring it isn't a viable option.