Posts by Angus Robertson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
It appears to be, "We stand for liberty of thought and expression, but we will only protect yours if it aligns with ours".
Very true.
The libertarianz website shows their constitution.
Short summary, after you read past the buff - all is decided by self-selecting central committee consisting of "libertarianz" founders.
-
You assume so much! From memory, we discussed education, property rights and gun control.
I apologise and withdraw.
-
Also, your argument only works because you invented something for me to say in the qualifier "when offering criticism of a government".
I think your work in the 1990s was mostly critical of the National government. Perigo was a libertarian critical of drug, prostitution & (strangely enough) gender-orientation policy of that government. For him to have suggested you might be interested in joining the libenz, you surely would have spent a fair bit of time agreeing in these criticisms of the government. Find it hard to believe you were asked to join after discussing tax rates, privatisation or welfare.
What are the conservative or right-wing equivalent poo labels that lefties use?
Ruthanasia
-
If the discourse isn't exactly expansive (indeed, it is as numbingly repetitive as any Soviet tract), perhaps it is, at least, consistent?
This is the discourse of opposition - it is normal and it is banal. It is inconsistent in its argument by virtue of being consistent in its opposition.
During the 1990s Perigo "used to be a good interview subject" when offering criticism of a government and during the 2000s when his mind became "a space from which various elements of his psyche throw poos at the world" Perigo offered criticism of a government.
Maybe Perigo did suffer a mental collapse that occured coincidentally with a change of government occuring in 1999. Or maybe Russell's party of choice obtained power and Perigo's criticism sounded less astute, more silly.
-
If you suddenly had a billion dollars, what would you spend it on?
A consulship to Monaco.
-
Re: I/S' shit* comment.
The problem with ETS (as structured) is that someone can make money with ceasing to shit in our backyard and take that money as part of an investment in an offshore shithole. We essentially pay them to make more shit in a faraway place and pretend that it is not happening.
The analogy breaks down because shit tends to stay where it was shat. What is needed is to imagine shitting occurs by bending over, touching our toes and firing feaces into the stratosphere - it does not matter that it is happening a long way off, we are all going to be coated unless we figure out how to "shit" less.
* as analogies go I am not sold on this one, but it sure is visual.
-
If I understand Angus correctly, he's talking about relocating production to countries that reject the Kyoto protocol.
No these countries fully accept the Kyoto protocol, but fall outside of Annex I or II and have no restrictions on emission. Basically the worlds poorer countries.
The European Union is talking about placing a carbon tarriff on goods from such countries.
Which is a pretty good idea that might actually help, rather than hinder the planet. Of course it has not been signalled here, because tariffs will increase the price of cheese & cars.
-
Nat,
Trading is also easy. It's like fish. Fish quota is really a license to catch a percentage of the fish in the water---if the Minister finds more fish or less fish in the ocean, your quota goes up or down. If you take a break from fishing, you can lease your fish quota to other fishermen.
Trading as practiced in Europe & soon to be adopted here does have a major flaw. Using the fish analogy if a fisherman takes his boats and flags them as Chinese or Angolan or whatever he is exempt from the quota system and can fish as much as he wants. This leads to an increase in the amount of "fishing", to the detriment of fish populations.
Companies can emit a certain amount of CO2, and as the government's obligations under treaties force the country to let out less total CO2 emission, each company gets its quota dialled back.
But some companies will be "supergreen" and emit less than their quota permits them to by using production facilities off-shore. They get to sell their surplus NZ polluting capacity to other companies in NZ, or overseas ETS markets whilst increasing the pollution at a greater profit thanks to the ETS.
The ETS of Europe have increased the carbon footprints and profits of European capitalists who relocate production to the developing world. The ETS have increased global pollution. The ETS are flawed because they have a loophole the size of 3 continents.
-
Consuming less is the ultimate green move, but you can't sell that.
Substitute a kite surfer for a jet-ski, a projector for a plasma or a station wagon for an SUV.
-
Craig, Posted at 4:46PM on 7 Jul 08.
I agree, mostly because for the first time in almost ever I am probably not voting Labour (voted Greens once). I think I am doing this for rational reasons, mostly concerning the EFA and possible ETS. I don't think I am acting as part of some damn meme, at least not one based on a "it's time has come" theme.