Icelandic Scientists Use New Procedure To Turn Carbon Dioxide Back Into Stone - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Morgen;50543159]People might feel like property rights are being infringed when their house gets destroyed by extreme weather. Or doesn't that count even though the more shit we dump in the atmosphere the worse climate change gets and the more frequent and more extreme weather events get? It's no business of the state to encourage saving the world? Climate change if left long enough will wipe out entire countries and displace billions of people. [editline]18th June 2016[/editline] Maybe your argument against other taxes is okay because they don't really hurt other people directly. But dumping shit into the atmosphere DOES hurt other people.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Killuah;50543170]Literally millions of people already are fighting the problems of rising sea levels, overfishing, droughts and desertification, what about their property rights?[/QUOTE] You could make an argument for carbon taxes, and I did not comment on that, but on the examples of sugar taxes. I still believe that instead of a carbon tax, people should be able to sue polluters for property damage instead, and be compensated for any suffering that pollution has caused that. That would be a much more elegant and effective solution to combat climate change. [QUOTE=Badballer;50543251]It harms the tax funded national health system when you go to hospital.[/QUOTE] No, it does not. I am being forced to pay for a sub-par service, which would have cost me far less in the free market. The problem here is not that people who take poor care of their health harm me, the problem is that I am being forced to subsidize their healthcare against my will. In fact, I should be able to opt out of national healthcare and select a private plan, which would include terms mutually agreeable between me and my insurer: me not smoking could be rewarded with lower premiums, in the same way that being an experienced driver gets you lower insurance premiums for the same service. [QUOTE=Map in a box;50543537]i hope you don't actually believe a governments only job is to enforce property rights.[/QUOTE] I question the necessity of a government at all, and believe that private institutions can do the same job without employing violent coercion, and that they can do so much more effectively. But if we must have a government, it should only be concerned with protecting property rights (including the right to one's own body).

[QUOTE=AlienCreature;50543705]You could make an argument for carbon taxes, and I did not comment on that, but on the examples of sugar taxes. I still believe that instead of a carbon tax, people should be able to sue polluters for property damage instead, and be compensated for any suffering that pollution has caused that. That would be a much more elegant and effective solution to combat climate change. No, it does not. I am being forced to pay for a sub-par service, which would have cost me far less in the free market. The problem here is not that people who take poor care of their health harm me, the problem is that I am being forced to subsidize their healthcare against my will. In fact, I should be able to opt out of national healthcare and select a private plan, which would include terms mutually agreeable between me and my insurer: me not smoking could be rewarded with lower premiums, in the same way that being an experienced driver gets you lower insurance premiums for the same service. I question the necessity of a government at all, and believe that private institutions can do the same job without employing violent coercion, and that they can do so much more effectively. But if we must have a government, it should only be concerned with protecting property rights (including the right to one's own body).[/QUOTE] What? This seems like a terrible way of doing things and I don't even know what you are thinking with your ideas of a government. So lets say if someone in my family has asthma and my neighbour has a diesel car and said family member has an asthma attack, should I sue the shit out of my neighbour because the NOx from their car is bad for lung function? If my town got destroyed by an unusually strong tornado should I sue everyone that has a car with an ICE to pay for it? Or should I sue everyone that uses gas for heating?

I hate it when articles don't link the original paper. Paper is [url="http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6291/1312.full"]here[/url] (DOI: 10.1126/science.aad8132)

d

[QUOTE=AlienCreature;50543061]No, it is an enforcement of property rights.[/QUOTE] "Property rights" is another way of saying "violent theft sponsored by the state".