Left Wing Environmentalists fight Synthetic Fuel!

[amicus]

Awww... Oggbashan, I sometimes think you just pick out certain things I write to take issue with and never pay due to the points I do make.

I applaud every effort of an individual or a corporation of individuals to become conservative in their use of energy and for all the innovations they employ to become energy independent and yes, of course it lowers the overall demand. I would much prefer they do those things for their own personal benefit, by choice and without tax payer subsidies to assist.

You seem well informed about energy usage in the UK, I assume you acknowledge the essential point I made, that of alternative sources and conservation accounting for a small percentage of power consumption.

Where we disagree, always have and always will, is that you see the energy industry as, of necessity, being a National effort, controlled by a central authority of government.

I advocate marketplace control of energy sources, production and distribution. The problem with government is that if they give something, they can take it away as well. Private industry cannot do that. The private sector is subject to contracts and laws that protect the consumer and themselves and could not sustain cessation of service as a punitive effort while government surely can and does.

I don't trust, government, Ogg, as simple as that. They are hired to do a job and it does not matter if they do that job efficiently or not, they still keep the job. In the private sector, you must produce and deliver or you don't get a payday. A marvelous incentive to perform.

Amicus...

 

[cloudy]

Dear Impressive...

Not to single you out individually, but your expressed jealousy, envy, hatred, however you name it, of those, "rich old farts", set me to thinking.

I am going to include you, loosely, under the banner of 'intellectual', as I think that fairly describes most on this enlightened forum of Author's and Critics.

I posted a thread concerning, 'intellectuals' a little less than a year ago, if memory serves, answering the question as to why artists, musicians, writers, poets, the Hollywood crowd. intellectuals, if you will, are so opposed to Capitalism, the free market and individual human freedom per se.

I referenced a book by a noted economist, as I recall and to not claim credit for this observation; I also probably lifted a few lines from Ayn Rand, as I am wont to do, to support a viewpoint.

There were no intellectuals among early humans. Leadership was by brute force and brawn, early on and did not change much through the 'hunter/gatherer stage in man's evolution, and not many as man settled and became an agricultural creature.

The theory is that those who lived by the product of their minds and not their backs, were most likely priests and shamans who were supported by the rest of the tribe or settlement.

Aside from the young girls (and boys) that serviced the priests, a few bright boys went into service as protectors and eventually scribes and appointment makers for the high and might priest.

Therein is the origin of the 'intellectual', those individuals who put food on the table by exchanging a 'mental' service rather than a 'physical', one, if you follow my thought.

There was quite a conflict when the 'leadership' of the tribe found conflict with the 'priests' of the tribe, conflict in several ways. Those not born to purvey religion or of royal blood, but still a part of the scene, 'the intellectuals', had to choose a master to serve, King or Church.(to simplify and predict)

With the wealth the Kings and Priests confiscated from the common people, they could afford to hire a musician, perhaps, for outside the bedroom window, maybe even an artist to decorate a wall or two, more examples of 'intellectuals' who survived by serving a master.

You can fast forward, with variations on a theme, of course, through Persia and the Glory of Rome, hustle on through the dark ages and into the Royalty of Europe, as the intellectual community expanded and retracted according to the ability of the masters to afford their services.

With the advent of Mercantilism, the intellectuals were faced with a difficult decision. Leave the glory of the Court or the Church for the Churlish Trader and his fat wife, (old fart that he was)? Well, not really a choice, the Businessman, the Merchant, had all the money and the sparkling gems.(until confiscated by the King or the Pope)

Thus began that which continues today, the disenfranchised intellectual, prostituting himself for money and hating every filthy gold piece.

Intellectuals, artists, musicians, writers, Bohemians in general have always bitten the hands that fed them and cursed their lot in life.

With the immense ego required to stand above the rest, as intellectuals always have, it is most degrading to have to bow to the filthy rich capitalist that puts the Chardonnay on your table.

The Utopian dream of these misaffected literati, is that the good people of the world will elevate them to their proper status in society and reward them with riches beyond their wildest dreams.

The system they created to fulfill that wish; is called Socialism.

How ya like them apples, Imp?

chuckles....

Amicus....

I love ami's made up history. So entertaining.

 

[impressive]

How ya like them apples, Imp?

Those weren't apples, ami.

 

[JagFarlane]

I love ami's made up history. So entertaining.

I agree

 

[amicus]

JAG Judge Advocate General?

Anyway, Environmentalism and Nukes...kay...

Although most won't see it this way, there would be no need for 'environmental laws' if private property were all that existed and the laws of property ownership enforced.

There is a long history of environmental abuse by government, business, industry, just about every property owner there is and was. That could have, could be prevented, if each square land was privately owned and property rights protected there would be no degradation of the environment.

Whereas government, acting as landlord, has permitted all kinds of pollution by permit and license.

And Yes, I have followed nuclear technology and the industry and I know the lead time to bring a new plant on line and the regulatory maze they are required to navigate and the disposal and decommissioning problems the industry faces...

anything else?

Amicus...

 

[amicus]

I love ami's made up history. So entertaining.

~~~


Pleases me greatly to know you are entertained, my little retarded cannibal, love my fans.



ami

 

[Edward Teach]

I love ami's made up history. So entertaining.

Another 150 or so words and maybe have Imp eat the apple and it could be posted. What would be a good cat? First Time?

 

[JagFarlane]

Nope not quite on the JAG part.

Such a simple solution you suggest. Perhaps you should take a stroll through the world and look at how private property is maintained. But ya know...I am just a simple fool in the eyes of the intellectual. How could I see such an easy solution that really, fundamentally does not work.

Praytell you can tell me whom the first enviromentalists were? Seeing as how you are the all knowing amicus?

Yes the government has allowed various forms of pollution to occur. Much of it, of course, before they truly were aware of the issues at hand. Not that I choose to defend the government fully...but there were mistakes made.

Nuclear power itself came to a standstill at a time when they really didn't need more plants...and then of course the two major incidents, of which I can tell the Russians was due to poor design and the Americans due to improper training. Of course...in about 10 years that may be able to help us with power consumption.

Truthfully though, you really do have to look at alternative energy as at least a possibility. The Spanish are taking it quite seriously and have been in the midst of building 9 towers for solar energy. The Australians have a firm that is planning a very bold project for solar energy that will provide a large chunk [sorry been a lil bit since I saw the number] of their power needs.

To come down doomsdaying as you have shown, negating all discussion of alternative options, and saying we are essentially fucked, is actually a waste. If you are as intelligent as you believe yourself to be, you would instead be working towards fixing the issue, and encouraging discussion in a direction of repair, not sitting on your computer, telling us we're all fucked up and that we're all to fault. Accepting part of the blame does help, unless you wish to tell me you provide all your own power, ride a bicycle to and fro work, and have fought politcally to prevent this.

 

[amicus]

I agree

~~~~

Actually, Jag, it wasn't my theory or my history, as I mentioned at the outset.

ah, well.... anything to avoid the topic I guess....grins...

amicus...

 

[amicus]

Jag, unless you are using an alternative (alt) identity here, you are fairly new to the forum and may not know that for forty years I have been active on radio and television and print journalism speaking to issues of import concerning the coming energy crisis.

I don't know about the state of your private property, but mine a well maintained, attractive and productive. Most will understand that private ownership of property usually means that the property is cared for and respected as not only a residence perhaps, but as a future investment. The same holds true with investments in real estate, real property, business and buildings, along with the land. It also holds true for timber and mining companies unless the government is involved.

It should not be necessary to illustrate or prove to anyone the advantages of private ownership of real and intellectual property, it is rather a given in a rational discussion..

Look more closely into your reference to the Spanish investment, 'blue sky' is a phrase you might be familiar with.

I am aware of all of the other references you gave and none are sufficient to replace the core energy needs of any nation, or even to diminish them to stay up with growth and demand.

Amicus...

 

[Weird Harold]

Another 150 or so words and maybe have Imp eat the apple and it could be posted. What would be a good cat? First Time?

Imp shouldn't eat the apples Ami is posting. Road Apples and Horse Apples make good fertilizer, (or alternative source for methane fuel) but they're dfinitely not goood to eat -- unless you're a dung beetle.

 

[amicus]

Well, I did find the original piece, an essay by de Jouvenal, I didn't date it but did keep a file copy:

“…The history of the Western Intelligentsia during the last ten centuries falls easily into three parts. During the first period the intelligentsia is levitic; there are no intellectuals but those called and ordained to the service of God. They are the custodians and interpreters of the Word of God.

In the second period we witness the rise of the secular intelligentsia, King’s lawyers being the first to appear; the development of the legal profession is for a long time the main source of secular intellectuals; amusers of Noblemen, progressively raising their sights, provide another` very minor, source. This secular intelligentsia grows slowly in numbers but rapidly in influence and conducts a great fight against the clerical intelligentsia, which it gradually supersedes in the main functions of the intelligentsia.

Then in a third period coinciding with the Industrial Revolution, we find a fantastic proliferation of the secular intellectual, favored by the generalization of secular education and the rise of publishing (and eventually broadcasting) to the status of a major industry (an effect of the Industrial Revolution). This secular intelligentsia is by now, far and away, the most influential and it is the subject of our study.

An enormous majority of Western Intellectuals display and affirm hostility to the economic and social institutions of their society, institutions to which they give the blanket name of capitalism. Questioned as to the grounds of their hostility they will give affective reasons: concern for “the worker” and antipathy for “the capitalist; and ethical reasons: “the ruthlessness and injustice of the system.” This attitude offers a remarkable superficial resemblance to that of the clerical intelligentsia of the Middle Ages (and a striking contrast, as we shall see, to that of the secular intelligentsia up to the eighteenth century).

The medieval church centered its attention and its work on the unfortunate. It was the protector of the poor and it performed all the functions which have now devolved on the welfare state; feeding the destitute, healing the sick, educating the people…”

Pg 102-104 “The Treatment of Capitalism by Continental Intellectuals”, “Capitalism and the Historians”, University of Chicago Press, pub. 1963, Edited by F.A. Hayek.

The above is a small excerpt from one of five essays in the work and provides a most interesting understanding of why intellectuals in general are left wing and anti capitalist. Most interesting is an essay by L.M. Hacker, “Anti Capitalist Bias of American Historians”, which explains the emergence and growth of the still current myth of “The Robber Barons” and the Greedy Capitalists attributed to the era.

The essays are scholarly and quite readable, but not nearly as colorful as my interpretations, but then, I doubt you will appreciate my rhetoric regardless.

Amicus…

So, there, you doubting Thomas's, it wasn't 'made up', at least by me, afterall and I did give credit to the originator and provide a source. neener...

ami

 

[oggbashan]

Awww... Oggbashan, I sometimes think you just pick out certain things I write to take issue with and never pay due to the points I do make.

I applaud every effort of an individual or a corporation of individuals to become conservative in their use of energy and for all the innovations they employ to become energy independent and yes, of course it lowers the overall demand. I would much prefer they do those things for their own personal benefit, by choice and without tax payer subsidies to assist.

You seem well informed about energy usage in the UK, I assume you acknowledge the essential point I made, that of alternative sources and conservation accounting for a small percentage of power consumption.

Where we disagree, always have and always will, is that you see the energy industry as, of necessity, being a National effort, controlled by a central authority of government.

I advocate marketplace control of energy sources, production and distribution. The problem with government is that if they give something, they can take it away as well. Private industry cannot do that. The private sector is subject to contracts and laws that protect the consumer and themselves and could not sustain cessation of service as a punitive effort while government surely can and does.

I don't trust, government, Ogg, as simple as that. They are hired to do a job and it does not matter if they do that job efficiently or not, they still keep the job. In the private sector, you must produce and deliver or you don't get a payday. A marvelous incentive to perform.

Amicus...

You don't trust YOUR government. I don't trust YOUR government either.

UK government employees who don't work efficiently get fired. There is no such thing as a government job for life as there is in the US.

Og

 

[impressive]

Imp shouldn't eat the apples Ami is posting. Road Apples and Horse Apples make good fertilizer, (or alternative source for methane fuel) but they're dfinitely not goood to eat -- unless you're a dung beetle.

And I am *not* a dung beetle.



*waves* Hiya, Teach!

 

[R. Richard]

You don't trust YOUR government. I don't trust YOUR government either.

UK government employees who don't work efficiently get fired. There is no such thing as a government job for life as there is in the US.

Og

Considering the case of Neville Chamberlain, probably just as well.

 

[SeaCat]

What is needed is a multifaceted approach.

We need to find a way to stretch our Fossil Fuel Reserves so they last longer. Yes this includes Oil, Natural Gas and Coal. The use of these needs to be stretched and cleaned up. Use them because they are there and we are already set up to use them. Stretching them is a stop gap.

Increase the number of Nuclear Reactors in use. Make them more efficent so they use more of the fuel put into them. Unfortunately there are problems with this. (No I'm not going to go into the hazards of fuel storage.) Here in the United States there is the two fold problem of our not being able to produce the reactor vessels and our lack of Uranium.

We need to find alternative ways to make electricity and fuels. Yes it is true that windfarms and Solar won't replace fossil fuels but they will help.

Every little bit helps but it still isn't enough.

Ultimately we need to find a way to wean ourselves off of fossil fuels. What will be the next fuel? I have no idea. Perhaps it will be Helium 3. Maybe it will be Cold Fusion. Maybe our world will be powered by geneticly enhanced squirrels in large wheels fed on a mix of Algea and Human Waste. Hell maybe we will power the world by wearing skinsuits that harness our bodies electrical output. Who knows what it will be?

Who will find this cure? Again I have no idea but I do know this. It will take a concerted effort by everyone and we need to stop the interference with the research wether it is by the government or by the public sector.

Cat

 

[amicus]

Seacat..if you could just eliminate the word 'we' from your thoughts and words you would have an idea of how those problems will be solved.

"We" never invented, created, thought of or produced a single thought or idea or product, not one.

The individual does those things and more in mutual, free, cooperation with other individuals. The moment you put 'we' into the equasion you spoil it.

this is one of those deja vu moments, I swear...

amicus...

 

[SeaCat]

Seacat..if you could just eliminate the word 'we' from your thoughts and words you would have an idea of how those problems will be solved.

"We" never invented, created, thought of or produced a single thought or idea or product, not one.

The individual does those things and more in mutual, free, cooperation with other individuals. The moment you put 'we' into the equasion you spoil it.

this is one of those deja vu moments, I swear...

amicus...

Ami,

The we I talk of us all of us. Each one of us.

Yes it is usually an individual that makes the invention, but is this invention based solely on that persons work or is it based on the work of others before him who laid the groundwork?

Cat

 

[amicus]

"There is nothing new under the sun..." Perhaps someone can remind me of the source of that...

We stand on the shoulders of giants, Seacat, men who lived before us that demonstrated what the human mind can create.

I played formal football, baseball and basketball, I also know the value of a team effort. I know that association and cooperation with others can be valuable if it is freely chosen by all.

One man can build a house, I have, but a dozen skilled men can do it faster and no doubt better.

It takes an army of skilled men and women to create and build a nuclear plant or an offshore oil rig or to run a Port operation as I recently saw on television in Rotterdam, I think, one of the largest and most mechanized ports in the world, I was amazed.

I am not advocating the 'rugged individualist' as many seem to imply, mainly I just want freedom for all and an absence of the use of force against men.

Amicus...

 

[SeaCat]

"There is nothing new under the sun..." Perhaps someone can remind me of the source of that...

We stand on the shoulders of giants, Seacat, men who lived before us that demonstrated what the human mind can create.

I played formal football, baseball and basketball, I also know the value of a team effort. I know that association and cooperation with others can be valuable if it is freely chosen by all.

One man can build a house, I have, but a dozen skilled men can do it faster and no doubt better.

It takes an army of skilled men and women to create and build a nuclear plant or an offshore oil rig or to run a Port operation as I recently saw on television in Rotterdam, I think, one of the largest and most mechanized ports in the world, I was amazed.

I am not advocating the 'rugged individualist' as many seem to imply, mainly I just want freedom for all and an absence of the use of force against men.

Amicus...

And so we somehow agree.

It takes a concerted effort and yet we must somehow remove the roadblocks being imposed. (Yet we must also be smart about this. Let us not create a breed of microbe that feeds on anything and creates bio-fuels then allow this to get into the environment to destroy everything.)

Cat

 

[amicus]

Chuckles... the hollywood types have already done a dozen movies and more about the dangers of modern science, latest I saw was a nanotech thriller about lil bugs creating a storm to end all storms.

People, especially the left, have a fear of new things and new ways, they are only comfortable in a pastoral society where nothing changes, ever.

Amicus...

 

[SeaCat]

Chuckles... the hollywood types have already done a dozen movies and more about the dangers of modern science, latest I saw was a nanotech thriller about lil bugs creating a storm to end all storms.

People, especially the left, have a fear of new things and new ways, they are only comfortable in a pastoral society where nothing changes, ever.

Amicus...

I too have seen these movies and yet I can't completely discount them. I have also seen the science behind the inadvertant release of things into a biosphere where they are not native. (ie Zebra Mussels in the Great Lakes.) It is a danger. Hell just run a Fish Tank for a while and you can see it.

I have also seen the movies where the air of a planet is burned off due to a run away reaction.

Can we destroy our environment? Of course we can. Can we destroy our planet? Without a doubt. Is it probable? Most likely not. (Nature is more resilient than many environmentalists seem to think.)

Now as to the most important question. Who is to determine what is going to work and what isn't? Who is the best to determine what will and will not destroy our planet? Is it our government? (Not on your life bubba.) Is it the Environmental groups? Nope, and yet who is it? Again I don't know.

Cat

 

[amicus]

Well, Seacat, let me offer this as an avenue.

Your parents give you life. Most parents nurture that life until it can sustain itself.

Possessing life, one also possesses the right to continue that life with those things essential. Such as food, air, water, clothing, et cetera. Parents provide those for you in the beginning, then you are on your own.

You are not entitled by birth to those necessities of life and there are parent who do not do well in nurturing a child. What you are entitled to, as an adult, is the freedom to attain those necessities of life that you choose to acquire.

That is why our basic document states, Life, Liberty and upon first draft, it was Property as the third guaranteed right, the right to live, the right to freedom and the right to own property.

Things like food and clothing, tangible, real things, are property, just as land, real property is. You have a constitutionally guaranteed right to pursue ownership of the property that will support your life and give the freedom from the control of others.

Property is endowed with rights. You own it, it is yours, no one may trespass without your permission...that means they cannot pollute your stream of water or the air you breathe or even the sunlight the nurtures your garden.

The answer to your question is that 'we' decide how to use that property in our own best self interest with regards to neighboring property owners respecting their rights as you respect theirs.

Any act of a property owner that lessens the value of another is actionable under the law and in the courts, courts being one of the authorized government institutions set by the Constitution.

Thus no air pollution, no pollution of rivers and streams, no toxic dumps, no infringements on the property rights of others.

To fully explain and explore would take a thousand volumes but there is the avenue I suggested if you want an understanding.

Amicus...

 

[SeaCat]

Well, Seacat, let me offer this as an avenue.

Your parents give you life. Most parents nurture that life until it can sustain itself.

Possessing life, one also possesses the right to continue that life with those things essential. Such as food, air, water, clothing, et cetera. Parents provide those for you in the beginning, then you are on your own.

You are not entitled by birth to those necessities of life and there are parent who do not do well in nurturing a child. What you are entitled to, as an adult, is the freedom to attain those necessities of life that you choose to acquire.

That is why our basic document states, Life, Liberty and upon first draft, it was Property as the third guaranteed right, the right to live, the right to freedom and the right to own property.

Things like food and clothing, tangible, real things, are property, just as land, real property is. You have a constitutionally guaranteed right to pursue ownership of the property that will support your life and give the freedom from the control of others.

Property is endowed with rights. You own it, it is yours, no one may trespass without your permission...that means they cannot pollute your stream of water or the air you breathe or even the sunlight the nurtures your garden.

The answer to your question is that 'we' decide how to use that property in our own best self interest with regards to neighboring property owners respecting their rights as you respect theirs.

Any act of a property owner that lessens the value of another is actionable under the law and in the courts, courts being one of the authorized government institutions set by the Constitution.

Thus no air pollution, no pollution of rivers and streams, no toxic dumps, no infringements on the property rights of others.

To fully explain and explore would take a thousand volumes but there is the avenue I suggested if you want an understanding.

Amicus...

Amicus,

I fully understand what you are saying here and I do agree with it and yet, (There is always an "and yet' isn't there?) how do we controll our neighbors?

Let me give you an example, one that is pulled from my mind and not from the news.

You have a nice little spread, maybe 200 acres. It is incredible, it is heaven. You run a few head of cattle, you have a nice little garden, you get your water from the stream that passes through your property.

Your neighbor also has a nice spread. It's roughly the same size as your spread but he isn't running cattle. He's raising hogs and selling them to the Government. He finds that if he diverts the river through his pens he can keep them clean and raise more hogs, which means he can sell more of them to the government cheaper while still making a profit.

Too bad for you this pollutes the water coming into your place making your cattle and your family sick. It takes you a bit but you figure things out.

What is your recourse?

You talk to your neighbor and he just laughs at you.

You talk to the local magistrate but he shakes his head. Your neighbor is followiing the free market by raising and selling hogs cheaply to the government. He is doing nothing wrong according to the law even though he is poisoning you and your livelyhood.

Do you understand what I am saying?

The free market is well and good but there has to be an outside source of controll at times.

Cat

 

[amicus]

Not an outside source of control, a functioning system of justice to enforce property rights, your neighbor cannot legally pollute your water.

Yes, there could be be a corrupt magistrate, that does not change the law and their are dishonest and corruptible men in the world.

That is why the free market made room for experts in matters of law, lawyers and attornies.

There are no dead ends and no unanswerable questions with the concept of freedom, Seacat, and thas a fact!

amicus...