Re: [asa] Creation Care Magazine

Janice said: *I am not advocating FORCED "emissions trading". If people
living within various States want to voluntarily engage in it with their
neighboring States, they can also figure out how to best manage their own
transaction costs, themselves.*

 Ok, so you accept emissions trading. I'm not clear what you mean by
"forced" emissions trading, however. It isn't possible to have an emissions
trading regime without a governmental authority setting emissions caps and
establishing the ground rules for trading credits. Without caps, there are
no credits, and without credits, there is no market.

 If your point is simply that state governments rather than the federal
government should establish regional markets, that might work, but that also
presents major spillovers and political economy problems when emissions end
up in states that are excluded from the trading bloc. So, you end up with a
few states enforcing their "state's rights" against other states that are
powerless to enforce theirs. Seems to me this kind of thing is exactly why
the beloved founders accepted the arguments of the federalists.

 Janice said: * If you don't believe you have the Scriptural backing to
defend yourself by all means necessary that's your right. I believe
otherwise. Jesus didn't have to reveal (preach) self-evident truths.*

So some "self-evident truths" of natural revelation trump Jesus' teaching in
the Sermon on the Mount? I guess I'd agree that is a conclusion many of the
American deist founders would have found salutary. Just ask Thomas
Jefferson, who literally took a scissors to his Bible to cut out the
miraculous bits in the Gospels.

 On Dec 27, 2007 10:32 AM, Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>
> My cable went down last night, so this is the first chance I've had to get
back on line since then. Sorry for the delay in responding. (See response
below)
>
>
> At 04:57 PM 12/26/2007, David Opderbeck wrote:
>
> Janice said: Private property rights along with the right to the
self-defense of them is adhered to by those (including the Framers) who
embrace the biblical worldview
>
> Indeed, Jesus preached alot about self defense and the right to bear arms.
 Wasn't that in the Sermon on the Mount? Or was it that thing about Peter
cutting the guy's ear off? ~ David O.
> @@ If you don't believe you have the Scriptural backing to defend
yourself by all means necessary that's your right. I believe otherwise.
 Jesus didn't have to reveal (preach) self-evident truths.
>
> "We hold these truths to be self-evident" If self-evident then they are
provable in nature and they are. "The Right of Self-defense is the first law
of nature" and this can be shown in that predators like tigers have claws
and eagles have talons which are used both to obtain food and for
self-defense. They are a means to sustain life and to defend it.
>
> "Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On
the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed
beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place." ~ Frederic
Bastiat http://jim.com/bastiat.htm
>
> The U.N. denies the self-evident proof in nature and is saying that their
view of how the World should be is correct and therefore nature is wrong.
> UN report proclaims self-defense is not a right -
http://armsandthelaw.com/archives/2006/08/un_report_procl.php
>
> "Not resisting evil is an evil of omission, and an evil of omission can be
just as evil as an evil of commission. For instance, any man who refuses to
protect his wife and children against a violent intruder with the most
effective means available to him fails them morally." ~ J. P. Moreland
paraphrase from memory.
>
> James Burgh wrote in 'Political Disquisitions' "The possession of arms is
the distinction between a freeman and a slave." Prominent revolutionaries
who subscribed to Burgh's writings included George Washington, Thomas
Jefferson, John Adams and John Hancock.
>
> I invite people to voluntarily hang this sign in their front window: "This
is a gun-free home". Unless they're willing to do that, don't think I'm
going to look kindly on anyone who wants to use the arm of the government
to, in effect, force me to hang that sign in my window.
>
>
>
> Janice quoted: "Free market environmentalism is what the economists at the
Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) have been studying and
promoting for over 15 years"
>
> Not surprisingly, at least some of the stuff on this site supports
emissions trading (see http://www.perc.org/perc.php?subsection=5&id=406) --
 the true Coasian alternative to Pigovian taxes or direct regulation with
respect to environmental problems. So again -- by advocating "property
rights" are you advocating emissions trading? If not, how to you manage the
transaction cost problem? ~ David O.
> @ I am not advocating FORCED "emissions trading". If people living
within various States want to voluntarily engage in it with their
neighboring States, they can also figure out how to best manage their own
transaction costs, themselves.
>
> As you well know, the federal government (EPA) has already
unconstitutionally (and quite unnecessarily - as the empirical evidence
plainly shows) stuck its "one-size-fits-all" nose in the various State's
business. Until that tool of the central planners is effectively
dismantled, the SPECIFIC "emissions trading" idea being proposed at PERC is
the closest thing to a free-market solution available at this juncture. It
merely amounts to making the best of a bad situation.
>
> This is the sort of "bad situation" that always arises when the __central
("GEEZE! It worked on paper!") planners__ get the chance to put their
utopian ideas to work in the "real" world inhabited by "real" people:
>
> "..To convert a barn into a house in Britain today you must survey it for
bats before you apply for permission to convert. The bat survey must be done
by an "accredited" bat group and only in the summer months. Guess what? Bat
groups are very busy in the summer and charge very high fees. If the survey
says there are rare bats in the building you may be refused permission to
convert; as it turns out, the bats, not you, own the building. So what
happens? People respond to incentives. Most barn owners resent and detest
bats. I'm told playing Wagner at full volume clears a building of bats in
short order. A simple scheme of small tax rebates for owners of barns who
add bat-roosting boxes to their houses would achieve good will as well as
bat babies. But it would not make paid work for bat groups.
>
> PERC inspired me to see the world differently. The vision of free market
environmentalism is inspiring because it is optimistic, and the solutions it
suggests are voluntary, diverse and (for the taxpayer) cheap. The only
things standing in its way are vested interests of politicians, bureaucrats,
and pressure groups. ..."
http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=434
>
> Many more examples of the idioticrats in action are found here:
http://www.ecoworld.com/index.cfm
>
> Clearing the Air: The Real Story of the War on Air Pollution By Indur M.
Goklany
>
http://books.google.com/books?id=doZAq3OcFSIC&dq=clearing+the+air+the+real+story+of+the+war+on+air+pollution+washington+dc+cato+institute
>
> * More:
>
> Frederick Bastiat "The Law" http://jim.com/bastiat.htm "..Men naturally
rebel against the injustice of which they are victims. Thus, when plunder is
organized by law for the profit of those who make the law, all the plundered
classes try somehow to enter ­ by peaceful or revolutionary means ­ into the
making of laws. According to their degree of enlightenment, these plundered
classes may propose one of two entirely different purposes when they attempt
to attain political power: Either they may wish to stop lawful plunder, or
they may wish to share in it. ....
>
> "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true
purpose ­ that it may violate property instead of protecting it ­ then
everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect
himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. ....
>
> "And, in all sincerity, can anything more than the absence of plunder be
required of the law? Can the law ­ which necessarily requires the use of
force ­ rationally be used for anything except protecting the rights of
everyone? I defy anyone to extend it beyond this purpose without perverting
it and, consequently, turning might against right. This is the most fatal
and most illogical social perversion that can possibly be imagined. It must
be admitted that the true solution ­ so long searched for in the area of
social relationships ­ is contained in these simple words: Law is organized
justice.
>
> Now this must be said: When justice is organized by law ­ that is, by
force ­ this excludes the idea of using law (force) to organize any human
activity whatever, whether it be labor, charity, agriculture, commerce,
industry, education, art, or religion. The organizing by law of any one of
these would inevitably destroy the essential organization ­ justice. For
truly, how can we imagine force being used against the liberty of citizens
without it also being used against justice, and thus acting against its
proper purpose?
>
> The Seductive Lure of Socialism
>
> Here I encounter the most popular fallacy of our times. It is not
considered sufficient that the law should be just; it must be philanthropic.
Nor is it sufficient that the law should guarantee to every citizen the free
and inoffensive use of his faculties for physical, intellectual, and moral
self-improvement. Instead, it is demanded that the law should directly
extend welfare, education, and morality throughout the nation.
>
> This is the seductive lure of socialism. And I repeat again: These two
uses of the law are in direct contradiction to each other. We must choose
between them. A citizen cannot at the same time be free and not free.
>
> Enforced Fraternity Destroys Liberty
>
> Mr. de Lamartine once wrote to me thusly: "Your doctrine is only the half
of my program. You have stopped at liberty; I go on to fraternity." I
answered him: "The second half of your program will destroy the first."
>
> In fact, it is impossible for me to separate the word fraternity from the
word voluntary. I cannot possibly understand how fraternity can be legally
enforced without liberty being legally destroyed, and thus justice being
legally trampled underfoot.
>
> Legal plunder has two roots: One of them, as I have said before, is in
human greed; the other is in false philanthropy.
>
> At this point, I think that I should explain exactly what I mean by the
word plunder.
>
> Plunder Violates Ownership
>
> I do not, as is often done, use the word in any vague, uncertain,
approximate, or metaphorical sense. I use it in its scientific acceptance ­
as expressing the idea opposite to that of property [wages, land, money, or
whatever]. When a portion of wealth is transferred from the person who owns
it ­ without his consent and without compensation, and whether by force or
by fraud ­ to anyone who does not own it, then I say that property is
violated; that an act of plunder is committed.
>
> I say that this act is exactly what the law is supposed to suppress,
always and everywhere. When the law itself commits this act that it is
supposed to suppress, I say that plunder is still committed, and I add that
from the point of view of society and welfare, this aggression against
rights is even worse. In this case of legal plunder, however, the person who
receives the benefits is not responsible for the act of plundering. The
responsibility for this legal plunder rests with the law, the legislator,
and society itself. Therein lies the political danger.
>
> It is to be regretted that the word plunder is offensive. I have tried in
vain to find an inoffensive word, for I would not at any time ­ especially
now ­ wish to add an irritating word to our dissentions. Thus, whether I am
believed or not, I declare that I do not mean to attack the intentions or
the morality of anyone. Rather, I am attacking an idea which I believe to be
false; a system which appears to me to be unjust; an injustice so
independent of personal intentions that each of us profits from it without
wishing to do so, and suffers from it without knowing the cause of the
suffering.
>
> Three Systems of Plunder [ snip] ~ Frederick Bastiat "The Law"
http://jim.com/bastiat.htm
>
> ~ Janice
>
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 26, 2007 4:39 PM, Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net > wrote:
At 03:43 PM 12/26/2007, David Opderbeck wrote:
> Janice said: The key to sound environment management is property rights.
Unless, as Coase pointed out, there are high transaction costs (as when
there are many individual property owners whose rights need to be cleared --
e.g., where there are numerous individual residences near a factory) or
impediments to bargaining (as in the international context where politics
interfere), right? And this would include strong enforcement mechanisms,
including easy access to the courts for individuals whose rights are
violated, correct? Or are you advocating tradeable emissions credits, which
are the sine qua non of Coasian environmental economics? @@ "..... Vaclav
Klaus , President of the Czech Republic, and someone who suffered under
communist tyranny, has put it thus: "When I study and analyse environmental
indicators concerning my own country and when I compare them with the
situation in the communist era, there is an incredible improvement. The
improvement is not because of 'collective action' you advocate (it existed
in the communist era), but because of freedom and of free markets." It's not
easy to articulate the principles of free market environmentalism. When the
air and water is fouled by pollution, the natural emotional reaction is to
blame the polluters and demand regulations. By extension, the polluters are
assumed to be motivated by profit, which in-turn is demonized. But it's not
so simple. Profit creates wealth, and wealth funds environmental
restoration. Central planning - communism - destroys wealth, destroys
incentives, and the practical result is abominable pollution, worse than
anything we've ever seen in the capitalist west, and harder to correct. Free
market environmentalism is what the economists at the Property and
Environment Research Center (PERC) have been studying and promoting for over
15 years. When we began publishing EcoWorld in 1993, we quickly came across
the work PERC was doing and we've been following them and learning from them
ever since. Their message is more important now than ever, as the emotional
juggernaut called global warming threatens to drown out reason and demands
immediate and extraordinary measures. Incentives are not easy to formulate,
and require governments to referee. But regulations and takings are even
more problematic - in the extreme they lead to environmental devastation
exemplified by the failed communist economies of Eastern Europe. The
question is one of emphasis, and free market environmentalism recognizes
that private property, ownership, stewardship, incentives, and the profit
motive properly channelled is superior to central planning. This recent
report by noted author Matt Ridley attests to his conversion to free market
environmentalism, something that even - indeed especially - today's global
warming alarmism should not consign to the list of endangered ideologies. -
Ed "Redwood" Ring
>
> Much more: http://www.ecoworld.com/home/articles2.cfm?tid=434 ~ Janice ...
(Private property rights along with the right to the self-defense of them is
adhered to by those (including the Framers) who embrace the biblical
worldview. It is the unchanging backbone of the Constitution. Our
government is set up by "we the people" and public servants are sworn to
uphold and defend that Constitution on our behalf.) ~ Janice ... (Private
property rights along with the right to the self-defense of them is adhered
to by those (including the Framers) who embrace the biblical worldview. It
is the unchanging backbone of the Constitution. Our government is set up by
"we the people" and public servants are sworn to uphold and defend that
Constitution on our behalf.)
>
>
> On Dec 26, 2007 2:41 PM, Janice Matchett <janmatch@earthlink.net > wrote:
At 12:49 PM 12/26/2007, Michael Roberts wrote:
>
>
> Should we club together and get Janice a subscription? ~ Michael@ Why
would I want a subscription to a cult magazine wherein I can tell you
_exactly_ what will be in the various issues even before they're published?
I can also tell you _exactly_ what inconvenient truths the well-known
Marxist _globalist_ collectivists at EEN won't be publishing in any of the
issues. Here's a sample: Hosea 4:1-3: "Hear the word of the LORD...because
the LORD has a charge to bring against you who live in the land: "the land
mourns because there is only cursing, lying and murder, stealing and
adultery ...." Isa. 65: 17-23: "Behold, I will create new heavens and a new
earth. The former things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind.
 ... They will build houses and dwell in them; they will plant vineyards and
eat their fruit. [No one will steal what they produce from them and give it
to someone else in exchange for their vote]. No longer will they build
houses and others live in them, or plant and others eat. .... my chosen
individuals will long enjoy the works of their hands. Individuals will not
toil in vain [for a 'collective'] .." says the LORD. Rev. 20: 12-13: "And I
saw the dead, small and great, standing before God... And they were judged,
EACH INDIVIDUAL, according to HIS [individual] works..." Rev. 21:1-8:
 "Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first earth had passed
away. Also there was no more sea. .. . . He who was seated on the throne
said, 'I am making everything new!' .. the cowardly, unbelieving,
abominable, murders, sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all
liars shall have their part in the second death [complete/total separation
from what they hated ( ie: all that is good) for eternity]." ~ Janice ...
who knows that one of the "good things" they hate is private individual
property rights. The key to sound environment management is property
rights. Hosea 4:1-3: "Hear the word of the LORD...because the LORD has a
charge to bring against you who live in the land: "the land mourns because
there is only cursing, lying and murder, stealing and adultery ...." Isa.
65: 17-23: "Behold, I will create new heavens and a new earth. The former
things will not be remembered, nor will they come to mind. ... They will
build houses and dwell in them; they will plant vineyards and eat their
fruit. [No one will steal what they produce from them and give it to someone
else in exchange for their vote]. No longer will they build houses and
others live in them, or plant and others eat. .... my chosen individuals
will long enjoy the works of their hands. Individuals will not toil in vain
[for a 'collective'] .." says the LORD. Rev. 20: 12-13: "And I saw the dead,
small and great, standing before God... And they were judged, EACH
INDIVIDUAL, according to HIS [individual] works..." Rev. 21:1-8: "Then I
saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first earth had passed away. Also
there was no more sea. .. . . He who was seated on the throne said, 'I am
making everything new!' .. the cowardly, unbelieving, abominable, murders,
sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars shall have their
part in the second death [complete/total separation from what they hated (
ie: all that is good) for eternity]." ~ Janice ... who knows that one of
the "good things" they hate is private individual property rights. The key
to sound environment management is property rights.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1944220/posts?page=9#9
> ----- Original Message ----- From: Steve Martin To: David Opderbeck Cc:
asA Sent: Wednesday, December 26, 2007 2:24 PM Subject: Re: [asa] Creation
Care Magazine Hi David, Thanks. That looks interesting. I also noticed
that we (the ASA) are a partner organization. See:
http://www.creationcare.org/partners.php. Not sure what exactly the
partnership entails. thanks, On 12/26/07, David Opderbeck <
dopderbeck@gmail.com> wrote: Of possible interest to list members: I got a
subscription to Creation Care magazine for Christmas (
http://www.creationcare.org/magazine/). Seems like a great publication --
Steve Martin (CSCA) http://evanevodialogue.blogspot.com
>
>
>

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Dec 27 10:53:36 2007