Aha, I see. Well, extremism is a relative term, depending on environment. In certain cryptocurrency circles I'm sure your stance is normal, in society at large it's rather extreme though, as is equating "kill everyone who doesn't agree with me" with government action in any way.
The problem with this line of argument from my point of view is you oppose and obstruct highly needed government action on principle, without providing an alternative solution. The plan to offer billionaires a new start on other planets doesn't count as an alternative, sorry.
But as mentioned before, if you have an alternative solution to the problem of the constantly accumulating toxins in the environment that subtracts government action from the equation up your sleeve, I'm all ears.
> Well, extremism is a relative term, depending on environment
Sure, but "hardline extremist" means something in particular, and is not a generic term to refer to any outlying behavior or view.
You can't label someone a "hardline extremist" (with all of the associated connotation that entails) for having reasonable views shared by many millions of others, and then pedal it back with "it's a relative term".
> is you oppose and obstruct highly needed government action
Nobody's obstructing anything, first off, but I absolutely oppose action that's undertaken at gunpoint (or threat of same). There are vastly better ways (from a standpoint of morality, efficiency, and effectiveness) of getting people to act in coordination in their own interests than threatening them with guns and cages, which is the only authority a government has to achieve things.
I really appreciate that you’re open to a conversation, it made for an interesting thread.
I can offer an alternate solution to accumulating toxins, which may or may not be comprehensive: Property rights.
Pollution is a tragedy of the commons situation. If people owned, not just land, but whatever encompasses the pollution, there would be incentive not to pollute their own property.
So my proposed solution would require defining property in a way that includes ownership of the pollution.
Government enforces property rights, so this does rely partly on government.
Alright, let’s say it was possible to track all pollution to its polluter, and you could assign ownership. Then what? Tax or fine the polluters? Isn’t that basically the same as regulating the polluting industries in the first place?
The problem with this line of argument from my point of view is you oppose and obstruct highly needed government action on principle, without providing an alternative solution. The plan to offer billionaires a new start on other planets doesn't count as an alternative, sorry.
But as mentioned before, if you have an alternative solution to the problem of the constantly accumulating toxins in the environment that subtracts government action from the equation up your sleeve, I'm all ears.