Comments on: Conservationists and conservatives

By: catallaxy » Blog Archive » Green all the way through?

catallaxy » Blog Archive » Green all the way through? — Sat, 21 Jan 2006 14:13:14 +0000

[...] Hayward argues that "conservatives have overreacted to … radical-sounding tendencies in conventional environmentalism" and that they need to take environmental problems seriously. "Policy progress works best in the country when the two parties, and left and right, compete over an issue" he says. So maybe David Cameron is on the right track after all. More from me at Club Troppo, along with links to Andrew Norton, John Quiggin and The View from Benambra. [...]

By: Investment Fraud and Tax Attorneys

Investment Fraud and Tax Attorneys — Mon, 27 Dec 2004 04:03:41 +0000

http://www.mylawschoolrankings.com Investment Fraud Attorneys and Tax Lawyers

By: Payday Loans

Payday Loans — Mon, 27 Dec 2004 00:52:59 +0000

Great blog! Payday Loans http://www.payday-loan-today.com

By: Investment Fraud

Investment Fraud — Sat, 25 Dec 2004 23:18:05 +0000

Investment Fraud http://cgi.tripod.com/investment-fraud/cgi-bin/index.pl http://cgi.tripod.com/tax-attorney/cgi-bin/index.pl Tax and IRS Lawyer http://cgi.tripod.com/celebrex-lawyer/cgi-bin/index.pl Celebrex Recall Lawyer http://cgi.tripod.com/health-insurance0/cgi-bin/index.pl Health Insurance http://cgi.tripod.com/distance-education/cgi-bin/index.pl Distance Education http://cgi.tripod.com/vioxx-lawsuit0/cgi-bin/index.pl Vioxx Lawsuit

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Wed, 22 Dec 2004 11:37:14 +0000

“Is it your policy to only reply to white blokes’ critiques?” After the past couple of weeks, I think I’m going to reply only to dead white blokes. That should save trouble. Seriously, as I said earlier, I’ll try to clarify the issues in subsequent posts.

By: Tracy

Tracy — Wed, 22 Dec 2004 08:35:59 +0000

Surely a lot of this depends on how you define ‘precautionary principle’? The first definition I heard of was along the lines of ‘When an activity raises threats of harm to the environment or human health, precautionary measures should be taken even if some cause and effect relationships are not fully established scientifically.’ A stance on risk-taking that people may rationally think is too risk-averse, or too risk-loving, but one that allows for a lot of experimentation and change. However in many cases it seems to have morphed into ‘If you can’t prove something is safe ahead of time, don’t do it.’ The first one implies having some evidence of harm before you act to stop something, the second if fully applied pretty much stops progress since it’s pretty much impossible to prove that something can do no harm ahead of time. (Mathematics may escape). Gay marriage could be proceded with under the first definition, but not under the second.

By: Deb Frisch

Deb Frisch — Wed, 22 Dec 2004 04:39:46 +0000

As you know, I debunked your post on the precautionary principle, in particular, your absurd claim that “Rational agents will never engage in war.” Is it your policy to only reply to white blokes’ critiques?

By: Ginger Yellow

Ginger Yellow — Tue, 21 Dec 2004 10:51:45 +0000

Actually, that last sentence would probably be better if it ended ‘state discrimination’.

By: Ginger Yellow

Ginger Yellow — Tue, 21 Dec 2004 10:49:11 +0000

Surely it’s a completely different argument to the polygamy one you cite, since that is based on the evidence of already existing societies, whereas a precautionary principle approach to gay marriage is based on not having any evidence either way. Likewise this doesn’t make sense:”Its also worth bearing in mind that there is a cost benefit counter argument in that its not clear how large a benefit there is – after all the south africans recognised blacks right to marry, but not much else. In other words its not clear why granting the right to marry will create more or less acceptance.” Tell the people who are currently denied inheritance rights or kin consent rights that the benefits aren’t clear. And the point of legalising gay marriage isn’t to create more acceptance, it’s to stop people’s lives being damaged by state endorsed bigotry.

By: Bucky

Bucky — Tue, 21 Dec 2004 06:44:19 +0000

“After all, the widespread use of income support for alleviating poverty in families where a woman has had a child out of wedlock is relatively recent” Which means governmental financial assistance, state money. Which couldn’t have existed before there was money, obviously, yet it must have been the case that women bore children before money came into being. Wedlock itself, as an institution, is not part of our genetic code. Women were conceiving and bearing children, and being protected and sustained, in fact were the primary reason social groups existed, long before the secular/canonical licensing of marriage began. It’s this ahistorical mindset that muddles the argument from the get. Without money we’re nothing, without churches and civil law we’re nothing. Which may be true now, but it hasn’t been true for most of our time here. There were people, taking care of each other, long before Hammurabai and Moses. The derogation of single motherhood is a derogation of the child as well as the woman, and it’s telling, from people who purport to value children above all else. The real center is the institution and its social power. Welding the institution inextricably to society, so that the one is unimaginable without the other, is what gives rise to such specious absurdity. We don’t need money to live. We need money to live like this, now, here. It wasn’t always so. Heresy, but true just the same.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Tue, 21 Dec 2004 05:18:19 +0000

Adam, the thinking behind my claim is that both Stalin and Mao made a big mess of things, achieving far less in terms of ultimate improvements in welfare than they sacrificed in terms of human lives and happiness along the way. Of course, Hitler made a mess of things too, but glorious death and destruction was, in some sense, the whole idea. I’m not sure whether this claim really stands up, though, so it might be better just to look at the argument in relation to democracies.

By: bad Jim

bad Jim — Tue, 21 Dec 2004 04:53:20 +0000

My apologies to Mr. Arthur for mistaking his position and to John Quiggin for missing his point. It seems clear that the precautionary principle cannot be applied to all human endeavors. It needs to be restricted to those whose effects are in some strong sense irreversible. I see no problem with adding war to health and the environment as a category requiring the strictest scrutiny. Some broader generalization seems possible.

By: seth edenbaum

seth edenbaum — Tue, 21 Dec 2004 00:16:57 +0000

I find it odd when people are treated as the equivalent of simple mechanisms. At what point does generalizing become dehumanizing? I’m aware the term is loaded, and I don’t stretch it too far, but still, conflating mathematical models of genetics with mathematical models of human behavior brings us to awkward territory, at least awkward for me. But then I think too many people confuse a person’s ability to store information- the size of their internal database- with their intelligence and that economists tend to have lousy taste in literature. I’m also annoyed by any use of the word ‘meme.’ Knowledge is a human faculty, not a mechanical one. I don’t want to sidetrack the discussion, but the quote from Don Arthur sounded simply vulgar.

By: harry

harry — Mon, 20 Dec 2004 20:46:03 +0000

No giles; there are numerous possible versions of civil unions, and there is no reason at all to restrict them to one form rather than many. 50 States, 50 civil unions. At least. Currently, my state already has numerous (different) domestic partnership arrangements (because these are set at municipal level). If the principle behind civil unions is to allow gays to marry without saying so, then we should have gay marriage. If the principle is that the State will provide its seal of approval and protection to any arrangement that individuals voluntarily enter into then there is no reason at all to maintain marriage. The dynamic this sets in motion is threatneing to marriage; much more threatening than allowing gay marriage. (Ok, that is much more than not-at-all in my view, but you know what I mean).

By: Giles

Giles — Mon, 20 Dec 2004 20:37:15 +0000

” Suddenly, heterosexuals have a much wider range of (untested) options. ” you mean from 1 to 2. Whow!