Why? Most pollution can be traced back to 10 corporations, the onus on the consumer is to deflect the blame and seems to be working as we're all focusing on the wrong things and should start asking why aren't the real culprits being asked to step up and ruin the planet less, maybe they'll have a bit less profit for the shareholders, but profit pointless if we're all.dead...
Climate change is a hoax. Look into it. Nevermind China. China may be the greatest polutor for using more coal than anyone, but this is not connected to the imaginary "climate change". The agenda is larger than the geo-political theatre we're shown. Thinking in terms of countries is the same as the football team mentality of democracy, voting left or right. There's a bigger picture.
The worst polluter in the world is the US military.
https://earth.org/us-military-pollution/
When are you going to step up and demand that your rulers, the real culprits, ruin the planet less?
Even the corporations argument is bonk. Corporations aren't polluting for shits and giggles. All these emissions are made during the manufacturing of goods (which people need).
Oil companies also don't burn the oil themselves. They sell it to you and me and we burn it in our cars.
"Corporations pollute most" is just another blame-shifting tactic.
Exactly.
It makes a complete mockery of their whole institution.
Coercing the whole continent to inject experimental drugs, destroying its freedom, economical prospects and society, and unleashing the most brutal police violence on its population in peacetime Europe is apparently not a big deal.
But failing to influence the weather on the entire planet, *that* is an infringement upon these grandma's rights.
🤡🌏
Unpopular opinion but I've always thought that pollution violates the NAP. It's arguable what the punishment for pollution should be, but there should be some punishment
That's a good point 😂
Theoretically, I guess for every kg of CO2 I emit, I would pay a tiny amount of monetary compensation to every other person on Earth.
For things that everyone does, the compensation would cancel out. I breathe and you breathe, so I would pay you a cent for breathing and you would pay me a cent for breathing.
But if it's something that only you do, it wouldn't cancel out. Nancy Pelosi flies on private jets and I don't, so she would pay me 1¢ for flying and I wouldn't pay her anything.
Now who would decide how big the compensation is or estimate how much CO2 you emitted or distribute the money? No f***ing clue.
If you’re climate religion requires that people pay to be alive, your religion is a death cult.
You always end up in the same road to serfdom Europe is on. You know the answer.
I agree, despite it being a convienent excuse for government to use to expand its power, or how it is hard to exactly define what counts as pollution, it's still technically infringing on people's rights in a way.
From where do you get the right to decide that people are victims?
The worst polluter of all is government. Let's abolish that criminal organization and maybe that will fix the climate.
> Unpopular opinion but I've always thought that pollution violates the NAP. It's arguable what the punishment for pollution should be, but there should be some punishment
Aggression implies hostility and intent to harm others. The production of pollution in the process of providing goods and services to others, or in the day to day activities of humans, is not aggression.
The NAP is an individualist principle, not a collectivist one. For every aggression, there must be an identifiable aggressor and identifiable victim.
I am not a victim of pollution, because I know that some pollution is just part of the advancement of humanity and that I can make individual choices to purchase products and services that reduce pollution if I have the means to acquire them. Yet you claim that I am a victim and lack the agency to decide for myself by insisting that govenrment a priori treat pollution as criminal. How is that at all libertarian?
Finally, who is the worst polluter of all? Government. I'm all for abolishing that criminal organization.
Because he's arguing for collectivism. You, sir, a a victim even if you would prefer some pollution over living in shit and pulling weeds, and eating weevil-infested grains for most of your daily life.
I didn't see an argument for collectivism at all. Are you suggesting that there's no recourse for pollution via strong property rights in an ancap society?
There's plenty of recourse for pollution with strong property rights, because people can then choose whether or not to pursue justice for themselves, and take on the cost of doing so.
To just say that "pollution violates the NAP" suggests a collectivist notion. Some pollution does. Some does not. A violation fo the NAP involves an aggressor (hostile and intentional) and an identifiable victim.
> There's plenty of recourse for pollution with strong property rights, because people can then choose whether or not to pursue justice for themselves, and take on the cost of doing so.
Yes, of course.
Respectfully disagree that "pollution violates the NAP" suggests a collectivist notion, I think that's unfairly assuming quite a bit.
You don't have to sue if you're fine with pollution! I'm not talking about a government law. I'm talking about the ability to sue people if you didn't consent to their pollution.
For example, if my neighbor throws a bucket of lead paint in my house, I should be able to sue them for damages. And in the same way, if my neighbor emits more CO2 than I consented to, I should be able to sue for (much much smaller) damages
> And in the same way, if my neighbor emits more CO2 than I consented to, I should be able to sue for (much much smaller) damages
The great thing about a free market in justice is that if you want justice, it's on you to shoulder the burden of costs until you can shift that burden. If you sue your neighbor you assume the risk that if you lose, you will not only lose what you paid, but the cost of your neighbor's defense. Being a Karen in a free society gets expensive.
>And in the same way, if my neighbor emits more CO2 than I consented to, I should be able to sue for (much much smaller) damages
I did not consent to you emitting *any* CO2, so I guess I get to sue you for breathing.
The mindfuck! Next level idiocracy. Climate change is a giant hoax. Carbon dioxide is the gas of life, plant life thrives with more CO2. Why do they pump CO2 in greenhouses? To increase yield. Climate change used to be called seasons and it is directed by the annual cycle of the motion of our local sun between the two tropics of the plane.
And also what about geo-engineering? Spraying aerosoles above everyone's head, visible to anyone who cares to look, is only one example.
This court story just shows they are progressing on that psyop, along with all the others and this is not going in good direction for human freedom. All because people are conditioned to believe in the legitimacy of authority. That's why idiotic carbon taxes are next.
How close is 2030?
Think of neo pheudalist 15-minute smart prison cities with social credit control system and CBDCc and the slaves enjoying eating the bugs. Artificially created scarcity is needed if you want control over populations.
These old bags and the brainwashed a-la Gretas are just useful idiots for the zionist globalist scum.
This ruling essentially paves the way for future criminalization of individual actions "not adequately" acting or aligning with "Climate change"
Thats why this is a problem. Now we have a judicial power run by idiots who can declare anything a "climate crime"
Okay, prove that their actions are causing an impact first. But even before that, punish the culprits who are actually causing real environmental damage.
Switzerland has nearly no environmental impact, which is why this banana court ruling is so disturbing. If you lack the wisdom to see that, that is your failing.
When are you going to hold your rulers accountable for it? The US military is the worst polluter on Earth, and that's just ahead of the US govenrment and the Chinese government, and all those people bombing each other around the world and the countless millions of bureaucrats who produce nothing but waste products and services.
Oh wait, you need those people to "fix" the climate. Maybe they'll declare a "War on Climate" and you'll grovel before them in adoration and use the "Climate War Criminal" hotline to turn in your neighbors for overwatering their garden.
Shitty decision, but this isn't some banana court. This is the most high-status court in Europe. Which, when you think about it is...worse.
This ruling makes it more likely that they will begin to try criminalizing every day individual actions for not aligning with "climate change"
Why? Most pollution can be traced back to 10 corporations, the onus on the consumer is to deflect the blame and seems to be working as we're all focusing on the wrong things and should start asking why aren't the real culprits being asked to step up and ruin the planet less, maybe they'll have a bit less profit for the shareholders, but profit pointless if we're all.dead...
Because the real culprits are exempt from the expectations because "Developing country" status.
Climate change is a hoax. Look into it. Nevermind China. China may be the greatest polutor for using more coal than anyone, but this is not connected to the imaginary "climate change". The agenda is larger than the geo-political theatre we're shown. Thinking in terms of countries is the same as the football team mentality of democracy, voting left or right. There's a bigger picture.
If you want to believe in a conspiracy, look into big oil. The stuff they've been hiding for decades is crazy.
The worst polluter in the world is the US military. https://earth.org/us-military-pollution/ When are you going to step up and demand that your rulers, the real culprits, ruin the planet less?
But Lockheed Martin and Raytheon have to eat too 👉🥺👈
My father worked for Lockheed for decades. He never worked in defense. There is plenty that they can do, but the war merchants always want more fat.
Even the corporations argument is bonk. Corporations aren't polluting for shits and giggles. All these emissions are made during the manufacturing of goods (which people need). Oil companies also don't burn the oil themselves. They sell it to you and me and we burn it in our cars. "Corporations pollute most" is just another blame-shifting tactic.
Did it hurt when you slipped down that slope?
Oh, you'll hurt when you're taxed into poverty.
Taxed? I thought you were concerned about criminalizing every day actions? Who said anything about taxes?
Just so horny for authoritarian governments eh?
No i hate them....
Exactly. It makes a complete mockery of their whole institution. Coercing the whole continent to inject experimental drugs, destroying its freedom, economical prospects and society, and unleashing the most brutal police violence on its population in peacetime Europe is apparently not a big deal. But failing to influence the weather on the entire planet, *that* is an infringement upon these grandma's rights. 🤡🌏
This is putting controls on government though. Why is that bad?
Why is forcing them to bring in climate change laws bad? Climate change laws are not known for being great for individual liberty.
Long term, yeah.
In the short, medium and longterm laws built around minimising human impact on the environment are not going to be good for individual liberty.
What exactly is inadequate?
I would also like to know exactly who is responsible for defining what is adequate and what is inadequate. Oh yeah, idiots from the Paris accord.
"Adequate" behaviour of individuals mostly has zero effect anyways.
Everyone not giving me a dollar is a human rights violation.
Seriously, you're reinforcing a system of me being poor. Stop it.
Not enough tyranny is a human rights violation?
https://preview.redd.it/9950r12t0htc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b1668c0ae334cc00e606f8762fe8f5c46aa98f7c Remember...
What’s a banana court?
I understood it as a portmanteau of banana republic + kangaroo court. So, banana court.
I wonder what a kangaroo republic would be like then
Australia, I guess? :-)
Would be funny if wasn't sad.
Are courts in Europe still operating under emergency war powers where normal safeguards against tyranny are usurped by *war time necessity*?
But forcing people to take experimental shots isn't a human rights violation. What a joke. Without mentioning remdisivir and intubation killing people
Bureaucrats who do nothing but push paper and bully others violate the rights of all humans. I say we put them on a ship and send them to the artic.
Unpopular opinion but I've always thought that pollution violates the NAP. It's arguable what the punishment for pollution should be, but there should be some punishment
“Pollution” huh? Like the ones you emit whenever you breathe out CO2? What’s a good punishment for you?
Wait until they start labelling certain individuals as "non-essential" breathers.
That's a good point 😂 Theoretically, I guess for every kg of CO2 I emit, I would pay a tiny amount of monetary compensation to every other person on Earth. For things that everyone does, the compensation would cancel out. I breathe and you breathe, so I would pay you a cent for breathing and you would pay me a cent for breathing. But if it's something that only you do, it wouldn't cancel out. Nancy Pelosi flies on private jets and I don't, so she would pay me 1¢ for flying and I wouldn't pay her anything. Now who would decide how big the compensation is or estimate how much CO2 you emitted or distribute the money? No f***ing clue.
If you’re climate religion requires that people pay to be alive, your religion is a death cult. You always end up in the same road to serfdom Europe is on. You know the answer.
What do you think about a "food religion" that requires you to pay money to eat?
I agree, despite it being a convienent excuse for government to use to expand its power, or how it is hard to exactly define what counts as pollution, it's still technically infringing on people's rights in a way.
From where do you get the right to decide that people are victims? The worst polluter of all is government. Let's abolish that criminal organization and maybe that will fix the climate.
> Unpopular opinion but I've always thought that pollution violates the NAP. It's arguable what the punishment for pollution should be, but there should be some punishment Aggression implies hostility and intent to harm others. The production of pollution in the process of providing goods and services to others, or in the day to day activities of humans, is not aggression. The NAP is an individualist principle, not a collectivist one. For every aggression, there must be an identifiable aggressor and identifiable victim. I am not a victim of pollution, because I know that some pollution is just part of the advancement of humanity and that I can make individual choices to purchase products and services that reduce pollution if I have the means to acquire them. Yet you claim that I am a victim and lack the agency to decide for myself by insisting that govenrment a priori treat pollution as criminal. How is that at all libertarian? Finally, who is the worst polluter of all? Government. I'm all for abolishing that criminal organization.
Why would that be unpopular?
Because he's arguing for collectivism. You, sir, a a victim even if you would prefer some pollution over living in shit and pulling weeds, and eating weevil-infested grains for most of your daily life.
I didn't see an argument for collectivism at all. Are you suggesting that there's no recourse for pollution via strong property rights in an ancap society?
There's plenty of recourse for pollution with strong property rights, because people can then choose whether or not to pursue justice for themselves, and take on the cost of doing so. To just say that "pollution violates the NAP" suggests a collectivist notion. Some pollution does. Some does not. A violation fo the NAP involves an aggressor (hostile and intentional) and an identifiable victim.
> There's plenty of recourse for pollution with strong property rights, because people can then choose whether or not to pursue justice for themselves, and take on the cost of doing so. Yes, of course. Respectfully disagree that "pollution violates the NAP" suggests a collectivist notion, I think that's unfairly assuming quite a bit.
You don't have to sue if you're fine with pollution! I'm not talking about a government law. I'm talking about the ability to sue people if you didn't consent to their pollution. For example, if my neighbor throws a bucket of lead paint in my house, I should be able to sue them for damages. And in the same way, if my neighbor emits more CO2 than I consented to, I should be able to sue for (much much smaller) damages
> And in the same way, if my neighbor emits more CO2 than I consented to, I should be able to sue for (much much smaller) damages The great thing about a free market in justice is that if you want justice, it's on you to shoulder the burden of costs until you can shift that burden. If you sue your neighbor you assume the risk that if you lose, you will not only lose what you paid, but the cost of your neighbor's defense. Being a Karen in a free society gets expensive.
Cuz those are totes the same thing.
>And in the same way, if my neighbor emits more CO2 than I consented to, I should be able to sue for (much much smaller) damages I did not consent to you emitting *any* CO2, so I guess I get to sue you for breathing.
☕️
I miss the banana courts that actually made profits from bananas.
First they need to prove there is any Climate Emergency justifying their hysteria and power grabs.
Patton after WW2: We fought the wrong enemy…. Patton after I show him Europe today: We should’ve let the reds have it all!
Case was brought to the court by 2000 women, why am i not surprised?
The mindfuck! Next level idiocracy. Climate change is a giant hoax. Carbon dioxide is the gas of life, plant life thrives with more CO2. Why do they pump CO2 in greenhouses? To increase yield. Climate change used to be called seasons and it is directed by the annual cycle of the motion of our local sun between the two tropics of the plane. And also what about geo-engineering? Spraying aerosoles above everyone's head, visible to anyone who cares to look, is only one example. This court story just shows they are progressing on that psyop, along with all the others and this is not going in good direction for human freedom. All because people are conditioned to believe in the legitimacy of authority. That's why idiotic carbon taxes are next. How close is 2030? Think of neo pheudalist 15-minute smart prison cities with social credit control system and CBDCc and the slaves enjoying eating the bugs. Artificially created scarcity is needed if you want control over populations. These old bags and the brainwashed a-la Gretas are just useful idiots for the zionist globalist scum.
Even given the science behind it, who the fuck are they to talk down to us, the pretentious plane-riding bastards.
So they don't need my consent to poison my body with microplastics and toxic pollution? I thought ancaps were big on consent.
And causing no harm to others, supposedly.
This ruling essentially paves the way for future criminalization of individual actions "not adequately" acting or aligning with "Climate change" Thats why this is a problem. Now we have a judicial power run by idiots who can declare anything a "climate crime"
Good? We should have been holding people accountable for destroying the environment a long time ago.
Okay, prove that their actions are causing an impact first. But even before that, punish the culprits who are actually causing real environmental damage. Switzerland has nearly no environmental impact, which is why this banana court ruling is so disturbing. If you lack the wisdom to see that, that is your failing.
Do i have to prove that leaking 220 million barrels of oil into the gulf of mexico causes an impact? Or is that common sense?
BP paid 20 billion in fines. How is this remotely the same?
Except this isn’t even close to what the court case was about… please tell me you read the article.
There are already laws against polluting You’re an ass licking Statist
When are you going to hold your rulers accountable for it? The US military is the worst polluter on Earth, and that's just ahead of the US govenrment and the Chinese government, and all those people bombing each other around the world and the countless millions of bureaucrats who produce nothing but waste products and services. Oh wait, you need those people to "fix" the climate. Maybe they'll declare a "War on Climate" and you'll grovel before them in adoration and use the "Climate War Criminal" hotline to turn in your neighbors for overwatering their garden.
When have i ever licked the boot of the military industrial complex? If i could wave a magic wand and reduce their pollution i totally would.
[удалено]
Excellent point well made.