Well, he seems to be using scare monger tactics to me. He's certainly a big-governement central planner. Some would say socialist. I'm sure you can accept that some intelligent people would disagree with him philosophically?



Sure. Probably nothing. Go ahead and do those things if you want. But when you use force to compel others to behave according to your own view of what's "socially responsible", then you've crossed the line.

I've thought about this statement long and hard, and my final thought about it is that it is astonishingly similar to what Christians say about things like school prayer: "what's the matter? A little more morality would be good for people. If you don't agree, you can just sit there quietly."

Of course you see this as all good, because you agree with the agenda of those who have embraced climate change. But, you see, I think what you call being "socially responsible" amounts to the destruction of property rights and liberty. I don't think these things are good at any cost. In other words, I disagree with you just like I disagree with the Christians.

I think you should both admit the possibility that you might not have the market cornered on what's "good" and what's "right" and leave people alone to define that for themselves (as long as they don't harm others). That's a position coming from the philosophical principle of universal justice and universal rights. You and the Christians don't believe in universal rights or universal justice. You think it's ok to force others to behave the way you want them to. Our system here in the United States was designed to protect people like me from people like you.