So, as the title says, I am about to debate George Klosko, professor of political theory at University of Virginia. He is a great guy. He is a smart guy. But, alas, he is wrong.
The topic is a tired one: Are states necessary? But, Klosko brings a rhetorically fresh, if not philosophically original, take on the question. He is also much more humble when it comes to answering this question; he does not believe he can provide a total knockout case for the state, just a good one after a preponderance of the evidence.
The main text to be debated is located in his book Political Obligations: Chapter Two - Bringing the State Back In.
You can find the full text of the chapter here at my 4 shared account (thanks to John James)
But before you read, here is my question: can any of you either answer or provide materials that can answer the following question:
I know this question (or one similar to it) will get brought up. Should someone pollute the water supply/the air/ etc. and this pollution moves onto your property/the air you breathe, how will you figure out who the pollution/contamination came from/How will you prosecute the polluter.
Now, I know one defense is to point out the Nirvana fallacy in the belief that somehow the state has figured out how to do this either. But is there a more substantive answer than "you cant do it, so I don't have to provide a better solution."
"If men are not angels, then who shall run the state?"
the book 1984 has some ideas
http://lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux1.html one article
http://walterblock.com/wp-content/uploads/publications/EconomicsandtheEnvironment.pdf one book
From The Ultimate Beginner meta-thread:
This is a MUST read:
As a side note, I read the title first as "Gabriel Kolko" and I'm like "Why would you debate him? Totally agree with him!"
I think the biggest case is the fact their are direct victims when someone pollutes without a state. If we look at history some of the most heavily polluted areas are public/government owned property. Without a state all property will be owned by individuals who have incredible incentive to stop/figure out who is doing the the pollution/contamination of their property. The state doesnt have any incentive outside of stopping the nuisance of a few complaints.
I haven't read enough to be able to discuss CO2 pollution (as there are no immediate and easily-measurable effects), but it seems like CO2 pollution is coupled with other, visible pollution, so ending the co-occurring pollution would end CO2 emissions.
booo! on calling CO2 pollution.
I'm no scientist, so I can't really critique AGW, although I have read interesting points against it.
im booing the notion that CO2 is pollution. Everyone should know that CO2 isnt a pollution. Its part of our life blood! Animals breathe it out and plants 'breathe' it in. Calling carbon dioxide a pollution is like calling water a pollutant. That terminology is just environmentalist propaganda.
Personally I dont believe that nonsense, but like you im not an expert though i have read significant amount on it some years ago. (Dont want to hijack the thread so thats all i'll say)
I don't see anything wrong with labeling cardon dioxide introduced into the atmosphere through burning oil and coal pollution.
What is pollution?
It's okay if it doesn't go well, UVA is a crappy school anyway.
alsdjfalsdjfos: It's okay if it doesn't go well, UVA is a crappy school anyway.
It's a public school, they don't even have a serious sports team to compensate. They're like division III football.
That's what I thought.
alsdjfalsdjfos:they don't even have a serious sports team to compensate. They're like division III football.
I hope this is a joke of some kind. If it is, good one. if not, who gives a shit?
As for Klosko, he is legit. I respect him for his humility (at least in rhetoric) and his down to Earth nature. I do not attend UVA, nor do I live in virginia.
how and why did this debate come about?
GL btw.
I THINK these issues may be discussed in Ryan Faulk's 'For An Emergent Governance'. You can find that booklet on Scribd.
@The Texas Trigger
I don't know if this will help you, but Roderick Long has a speech/essay called Libertarian Anarchism: Responses to Ten Objections. It's worth the read even if it's not directly helpful. Maybe it will give you some ideas.
Good luck with your debate!
If you go to Columbia and end up teaching at a public school, there's something wrong. That's all I'm saying.
edit: I mean, UCLA or something might be fine, but UVA is the ivy of degree mills. Their undergraduate pass rate is like 90% for 1250 SATs.
Everyone should know that CO2 isnt a pollution. Its part of our life blood! Animals breathe it out and plants 'breathe' it in. Calling carbon dioxide a pollution is like calling water a pollutant. That terminology is just environmentalist propaganda.
If it does harm to other people's property and interferes with their use, then it is pollution. Just as tomatoes are not pollution, but if everyone dumps their tomatoes into the Mississippi you're gonna have pollution.
While I cannot speak to any great detail about the programs of UVA vs UCLA, I will say the the students I have met from UVA vastly exceed the intelligence of those whom I have met from UCLA. UVA is a great school, as universities go, that it. I think they are all kind of rubbish anyway.
@GotLucky: Thanks!
alsdjfalsdjfos: If you go to Columbia and end up teaching at a public school, there's something wrong. That's all I'm saying. edit: I mean, UCLA or something might be fine, but UVA is the ivy of degree mills. Their undergraduate pass rate is like 90% for 1250 SATs.
I've met people from both. Most were frat boys and there wasn't much to pick between.
Well, have fun with your debate, let me know how it goes.