Create account

replied 753d
LOL, learn from #France & #Canada. Trudeau & Macron LOL! This has to be a joke. You cant possibly be serious.
Just to make sure where you are: what colour is the sky in your reality?
replied 753d
Yeah, both are great examples. They both have improved their nations international standings, unlike the US and UK. Painfully obvious how much influence the US has lost under Trump.
replied 751d
lol so cute!
replied 751d
Yeah, and Trump was openly laughed at by all those people. Are you denying that the US is losing influence around the world due to Trump?
replied 750d
“Each of us here today is the emissary of a distinct culture, a rich history, and a people bound together by ties of memory, tradition, and the values that make our homelands like
replied 750d
nowhere else on Earth. That is why America will always choose independence and cooperation over global governance, control, and domination. I honour the right of every nation in this
replied 750d
room to pursue its own customs, beliefs, and traditions. The United States will not tell you how to live or work or worship. We only ask that you honour our sovereignty in return.” -
replied 750d
U.S. President Donald Trump gave at the 73rd Session of the United Nations General Assembly Annual General Debate in New York City on Tuesday.
replied 750d
Kind of ironic considering the US does interfere. Also funny since the UN and global governance is partly the idea of America. One of the reasons the UN HQ is in the US.
replied 749d
"Ultimately, it is up to the nations of the region to decide what kind of future they want for themselves and their children." - from the speech you didn’t watch.
replied 749d
Sure it is. I'm sure his writer liked that line. It is one of those self evident pandering lines often written for politicians.
replied 750d
It sounds like US is tired of being the world police and is instead turning inward and focusing on improving domestic issues.
replied 750d
The world is tired of the US being the world police. Trump just doesn't understand that the US did that to further their own interests.
replied 750d
The world is also tired of the Police abusing their power.
replied 749d
so once again everyone is happy. woah, im seeing a pattern... & im sure trump understands.
replied 749d
To a certain degree I like how he has weakened the US. At the same time I dislike how he is setting back global efforts and hurting western alliances.
replied 749d
west & others could chose to go their own way & continue global efforts
replied 749d
More likely the next Predisdent will reverse everything Trump has done. Hopefully this is just a delay. Trump doesn't realise how much he is hurting the US with his actions.
replied 750d
You can call that “losing influence” but everywhere President Trump goes people are listening wanting to know what America will do.
replied 750d
Did you listen to the speech? a few nervously laughed at him & most laughed with him.
replied 750d
It is nice and diplomatic to claim to have laughed with him. In reality they laughed at him.
replied 749d
replied 749d
So you’ve avoided the question so I am assuming you’re just reading headlines.
replied 749d
No I didn't listen to the whole thing. I saw the clip, and listened to a couple interviews from other world leaders a out it. They sound diplomatic about it.one said it was spontaneous
Sk8eM dUb
replied 751d
"Losing influence" in the UN and losing influence in the world are not the same thing. The UN is losing influence on the USA.
replied 750d
They are related. The US helped create the UN. So it is kind of pointless to sya the UN is losing influence on the US.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 750d
You're right. The UN is pointless.
replied 750d
Which is why it should be given authority over all nations.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 750d
I still have no idea what you're trying to propose or how it would be implemented. At this point I assume you're just trolling.
replied 749d
I dont have any definite plans. I wouldn't be the one setting it up, so it would be pointless for me to dictate how it should go.

I can just see the problems with national sovereignty
Sk8eM dUb
replied 749d
Would you say to the face of a Zimbabwean or a Peruvian "you are not competent enough to manage your own affairs, you need wise people like ME to tell you what to do"?
replied 747d
this is a good counter argument. I ask the same question about the individual vs city vs state vs nation scales. though I dont think you agree it applies.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 747d
A global CO2 tax assumes that you're violating everyone else's right to life by being alive yourself. So they sell rich people carbon(sin) indulgences while the poor eat shit and die.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 747d
Lol finally we get to have an actual interesting discussion. I'll answer in depth when I get out of work later.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 747d
It's unlikely you'll violate someone else's rights on the other side of Earth. That's why CO2 crap is pushed. Then, just the act of being alive means you're robbing the whole world.
replied 745d
Yes, environmentalism is a (clever) wedge used to dictate the lives of people around the world.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 747d
So your "rights" are also other ppls rights which makes them also your *responsibility*. You don't get it both ways. The question then becomes, who are you most likely to encounter?
replied 745d
Not sure I follow here. Eg freedom of speech doesn’t foist a responsibility on anyone. Unless you’re thinking of two people respecting each others right to free speech?
replied 745d
Like my freedom of speech comes with the responsibility of respecting your freedom of speech?
Sk8eM dUb
replied 747d
I think of it as a hierarchy where the individual is at the top of the sovereignty pyramid gradually moving to humanity in general where you only have basic responsibilities.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 747d
So you can start with geography. The US federal government is waaaaaay too big for it's britches. To our founders credit though, it's almost 250 years old and still no perma dictators.
replied 745d
Agree 250 years is a pretty good run.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 747d
The founding rally for the American revolution was "no taxation without representation". It was basically anti-globalism - you don't even live here so why do you get to run our lives??
replied 745d
same could be asked of people in America (US gov way to big etc.), why should someone in Maine make decisions for someone in California (or even Ohio).
Sk8eM dUb
replied 747d
It's not a B&W dichotomy of the individual vs. collectivism it's a question of, who is the group of people who you're associated with enough to concede some authority/give up freedoms.
replied 745d
Do you have an example in mind? Like, associating with the global BCH group what freedoms do we concede?
Sk8eM dUb
replied 747d
My main qualm with the hyper-individual sovereignty angle is that, basically, it assumes that a society can exist without ANY identity groups whatsoever. Like not even a
family.
replied 745d
I dont think it has to go all the way to the individual level (though I’d like it to) even city officials could be more accountable.
replied 745d
think the issue now is that with the internet, identity groups are no longer just those around u. BCH group is spread world wide but must still conform to (arbitrary?) geographic lines
replied 745d
So the focus isn’t abandon all identity groups, it’s lets reorganize along identity groups you chose (family, interests, religion, sports, etc)
replied 745d
& citizenship happens to be one you cant choose.
replied 749d
No and I have said nothing like that. What are you talking about?
Sk8eM dUb
replied 749d
I'm describing how Globalism works practically.
replied 748d
No you are not.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 749d
You're claiming that I, an American living in Japan, should have some say over what goes on in Nairobi, Belize or Tasmania. That's literally what you're claiming with no qualification
replied 749d
No I am not... how can you possibly think I said something like that? If you have lived in Japan for years I would suggest you should have some say in Japan.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 749d
Then you're pro national sovereignty. I rest my case.
replied 749d
You rest your case without making a point. You just made a baseless assertion.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 749d
I live here so I get a vote. People who don't live here don't get a vote. That's the definition of national sovereignty and you agreed with it. Case closed.
replied 748d
That is not the definition of national sovereignty at all.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 748d
Local people being democratically in charge of what the laws etc. are in their own countries according to their National customs/ethic etc. isn't national sovereignty?
replied 748d
No, that is just a way of forming government. That is not national sovereignty at all.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 748d
Then what is your definition? Perhaps we agree.
replied 748d
Essentially the right for a government to be independant of the rest of the world. The right of a government to represent/control it's people. North Koreas right to enslave its people.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 747d
You're only begging the question. If you're not independent then youve given up some control. Some aspect of life is controlled by people outside your country. Exactly what I said.
replied 747d
I am talking about government, and you were bringing up people. Yes I want governments restricted. That doesn't mean people are restricted.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 747d
If a government is not "of the people" then what is it? Answer: of SOME people. Same as globalism.
replied 747d
Not every nation has democratically elected leaders...

Did you even think before posting that?
Sk8eM dUb
replied 747d
Yes. I'm saying that what you advocate for is exactly that - an unelected system of defacto royals. A global dictatorship.
replied 747d
... their representative. This would likely be s con session so that non-democratic nations can choose how they wish. Some nations could make it an elected position.
replied 747d
How do you come to that conclusion? I never said anything about an unelected system. I talked about each nation sending a representative, with each nation deciding how they choose
replied 747d
a less contentious/obvious example would be legality of drugs. some places outlaw alcohol & others allow it. One ‘rule book’ forces everyone to the same set of rules.
replied 747d
Not so much one rule book, but a global constitution limiting governments different rule books.
replied 745d
This was the purpose of the constitution + bill of rights. Limit what gov can do.
replied 745d
Yes, and we could use them on a global scale to give reason to come down on the harsher governments. Like North Korea, Saudi Arabia, Israel.
replied 745d
point being, it didnt work for the US. gov expanded anyway.
replied 747d
& before you say these would just be basic rules (no murder) gov always grows. US started with limited set of rules & look where it is today.
replied 747d
Oh I get that it would likely expand its powers over time. By then we would likely be facing such global issues that people would want that, just like the US government.
replied 745d
people want expanded state power for their pet issues. it always gets out of control & ends up punishing castes of people for petty minor things (eg personal use of drugs like weed
replied 745d
Or requiring thousands of hours of experience & thousands of dollars for a license to braid hair. Or allowing MPAA & RIAA & patent trolls to run wild. Punishing whistleblowers.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 749d
I mean you're literally saying that instead of people being in charge of the place that they live, other people from elsewhere, who have nothing to do with you, should be in charge.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 749d
You haven't even articulated what those problems are and demonstrated why sovereignty is to blame. You haven't really made a single cogent argument yet. Just a lot of statements.
replied 749d
Climate change is a good example. The US cant be allowed to ignore the issue while the rest of the world deals with it. National sovereignty is just a problem at that point.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 749d
Climate change is the ONLY example which is why they need it to be a huge problem. It's the only way to justify external control of the United States.
replied 748d
It's not external controls of the US at all. That is the most backward way to look at it. It is a huge problem. It isn't some ploy to make the US alone pay for it. Everyone is paying.
replied 747d
question is in the details, everyone is paying the same per capita? per co2 emission? other pollutants? weighted by developmental index? & justification for those weights?
replied 747d
Personally I like the cap n trade system and it allows the free market to come up with the solutions. By everyone paying I mean paying for the investment in newer energy infrastructure
Sk8eM dUb
replied 747d
Cap'n trade is the same as the 1mb blocksize. Likely thought up by the same scam artists.
replied 745d
this is an interesting analogy. create artificial limit at protocol/legal level then rely on the "free" market to come up with a solution/work around.
replied 747d
No it isn't, horrible comparison. Also cap n trade is a tried and true system. It is how we eliminated CFC's and fixed the ozone.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 747d
CFCs and ozone are not essential ingredients to the life cycle. CO2 is as essential as oxygen and water. It's basically putting a cap on life itself.
replied 747d
Seems you dont understand what you are talking about at all. You have no scientific literacy, got it.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 747d
I teach fifth graders who know that CO2 is a major chemical in the life cycle on earth. Your comprehension is below a ten year old's.
replied 746d
Sure it is, but a balance is important. A person can die if they drink too much water as well. I never finished that bachelors of physics, but my science understanding is good enough.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 746d
Would you support a tax on all fresh water?
replied 746d
Coming from a nation with most of the worlds supply of fresh water that is an interesting idea. I do pay for the water and sewage to and from my home. About $1200 a year.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 746d
Like if you collect rainwater and use it to water your garden you have to pay a tax to use it.
replied 746d
Ah, if you collect it it isn't a service, so you wouldn't pay for it. People do that kind of thing already to reduce their water bill.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 746d
replied 745d
Yeah, and that is kind of stupid. What does it have to do with anything?
Sk8eM dUb
replied 745d
I saw an earlier post where you claimed to know intimately all the anti-climate change arguments. The fact that you don't know where I'm headed with this exposes your ignorance.
replied 745d
Considering all the multitrillion dollar companies that see going clean as a threat it becomes easy to see why you get lone scientists saying climate change is a lie. It is money.
replied 745d
I know the denier propaganda because I was one for years. I started to realise the deniers were wrong though after being exposed to more of the data. Deniers like to cherry pick.
replied 745d
I never said I didn't know where you are going. Scientists are not telling people to have less babies. There is huge difference between the data and a journalists writings.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 746d
Ok so if I want to heat my home with fire wood do I need to pay a CO2 tax? Do I have to pay a tax for exhaling? What about for having a child?
replied 745d
Depends on your country. In Canada the proposed carbon tax would only be for companies. You get a child tax benefit for children. I get almost half my income tax back for my three kids
replied 745d
taxes on companies are ultimately paid for by increased prices to the consumer.
replied 745d
Yes, this is true. Cap n trade is the best solution. Carbon taxes help disincentives sectors that would be best to see fail.
replied 745d
you want those sectors to fail but they are responsible for modern life. so what is the trade off? greatly improved life, & some env impact? or 1900's life & no env impact?
replied 744d
The change would require investment, but is an investment that would lower future costs. We know that climate change will require costly actions. The less climate change the less cost.
replied 743d
No, you are convinced they need to fail and you feel entitled to tell the rest of us what is good for us. Fossil fuels are the easiest tech to become developed.
replied 743d
It isn't about entitlement. You underestimate the damage their industry does. In the very least we need to use a carbon tax to make them pay for some of their damage.
replied 743d
So by all means force developing nations to stop using it.
replied 744d
We need the fossil fuel industry to fail, not want. It got us here, but is no longer required, and actually costs more than alternatives. The problem is the momentum the industry has.
replied 743d
you dont know what the future needs of society will be. eg there are ancillary techs associated with all types of energy that may become useful in the future.
replied 743d
I do though. We know that climate change will be a problem. We know it will cause massive future costs. So the longer the fossil fuel industry stays the more future debt we have.
replied 743d
banning the practice now limits future knowledge.
BTC_Ben
replied 746d
Hey there, I am new here. Can you please tell me how I get started? How can I change my profile pic and name? Where can I see my balance? Thx
Sk8eM dUb
replied 746d
click on the little dude in the upper right
BTC_Ben
replied 746d
Got it. Still a bit tricky on the phone. Guess I should set all up on my laptop.
Sk8eM dUb
replied 746d
yeah it's pretty simple on a PC. Welcome!
BTC_Ben
replied 746d
Would appreciate a follow sir ;-) thx
replied 745d
lol way to jump in. haven't tried posting on the phone. think someone is making an android app. (search the topics to find updates). & welcome
Sk8eM dUb
replied 746d
No, I'm saying would you support a world wide tax on the usage of the chemical compound H2O that goes to a central global coffer to be used for whatever "greater good" the UN decides.
replied 746d
Ah, okay. Where did you get an idea like that? A general sales tax wouldn't be so bad.
replied 745d
think Dash's point is that is the idea behind a CO2 tax. collected by gov, paid for by consumers/citizens, used for "greater good" ("cleaner" energy, climate education etc).
replied 744d
Think I replied to you instead of someone else. Maybe that is what he getting at. I was confused by the water reference.
replied 745d
Also it ends up giving back to the people in the form of a carbon tax credit. Like a sale tax credit. At least that is how they work in Canada. It keeps it revenue natural for the poor
Sk8eM dUb
replied 748d
Yup. Everyone pays except the corporations that move to China and pay zero taxes in exchange for becoming communists. The rich get richer, we get poorer, exactly according to plan.
replied 748d
Also, none of that has anything to do with climate change. It is not even a matter of having to pay, so much as cutting support for one set of industries, and investing in another.
replied 748d
Third, there is a big cost with moving to China. Mostly it is giving up your intellectual prortety to them and they dont intellectual property rights. This is slowly changing though.
replied 748d
Second, it is competition and emerging markets that drive companies to China. This doesn't make them communist either and China is using capitalist economic, with communist government
replied 748d
Wow is that uninformed. First of all it was the US that decided to move manufacturing to China, while boosting education and high tech manufacturing in the US.
Mrpumperitis
replied 750d